3D modelling

Post mods you have finished or are working on here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply
Arahatree
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 211
Joined: Mar 23 2019
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by Arahatree »

I thought introducing variants and skins worked in a different way HUH But the way you have explained it works is much better, that's great news.

Thank you Nerei :-)
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by Nerei »

I usually try and make things so they are fairly plug-and-play ^_^
Sidenote: I still need to get around to making some UGBITS for the latest set of models.

That said there is still room for doing it that way. The variants only work for textures not models.

Say you want a different MIM-104 Patriot PAC-2 launchers.

The typical US configuration is the M983 HEMTT tractor truck and M901 trailer.
Image
The JASDF though replaces the HEMTT with a Type 73 heavy truck.
Image
Germany just fits them on the back of a MAN truck.
Image

Those 3 would each require a completely different model and as such could not be variants of each other.
Naturally there is some overlap. The ROCAF uses the HEMTT and M901 and IDF is basically identical to the German vehicle.
I suspect when Sweden gets them they will use a domestic truck as base meaning likely a 4th variant but as the Northern European group is wide that is probably less important.
Also speaking of Sweden I really should get around to making some of their hardware. There are some fairly interesting items.


The idea also has merit with say infantry. It is probably possible to paint the uniform of a US special forces model to look Russian but I am not so sure about painting a M4 Carbine to make it look like an AKS-74U.
Arahatree
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 211
Joined: Mar 23 2019
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by Arahatree »

That's right, the weapon on the infantry would be the difficult part, just by painting can't look the same... But the rest of the uniform is doable.

On the other hand, if the soldier holds the weapon in a way that hides those parts that are different, then painting the weapon could look almost the same :D
Arahatree
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 211
Joined: Mar 23 2019
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by Arahatree »

I have a question...

I'm working on the mod "SRU remastered", and its original modder in some dozens of units changed vanilla names for his own names (in DEFAULT.UNIT file). Should i change back those names to vanilla so that your future (and present) variants and skins can work with the mod? or are they going to work anyways because the units ID is what matters and not the name? You are working with vanilla names, i suppose, right?

i think he didn't change the names in the Meshes files though... at least as far as i know.

I don't know how PICNUMS file is related to DEFAULT.UNIT and meshes.... all that is over my head HUH
Arahatree
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 211
Joined: Mar 23 2019
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by Arahatree »

The next screenshot is an example of this. In many of them he changed picnum also, not only the name. Should i also change back the picnum number to vanilla?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by Nerei »

The picnums values he have used are already custom artwork so it is really up to you to pick what your prefer.
In general picnum < 1024 are BG models. The range 1536-2048 (roughly) is something I have made. Everything else is mod content.

Technically I can make variant textures to any model as all I (technically) need to do is give it the right name.
E.g. if I want to make a variant texture to model 9001 all I need to do is UNIT5000[region code].dds as regional/variant textures are defined by their name.

UNIT[picnummesh][region code].dds

Picnummesh is just a value used in default.picnum to bind a picnum value to a mesh. Usually picnums and picnummesh are identical. It is also possible to define a custom string to replace the unit and picnummesh part of the name but in general there is no need to do so.


I do however only make them for models I am already making (e.g. the Chinooks and Apache are for models in the 1600 range so it is something I made a long time ago).
For a start I know those models and the plugin I use only allow me to export .x files so I have to experiment just to work out how the UV map works.

Also it might mirror elements I do not want mirrored (and I can only fix this by editing the model). BG does this to save time and space which is fine but it does have some limitations.
E.g. I could end up with something like this.
Image
I can fix that but it requires getting the mesh in a readable format which is annoying and it requires I have the UV space which is not certain.
Also I will have to edit the default texture to support this new UV map.

It is possible to have multiple textures on a single model but it should be avoided if possible as it makes the model heavier for the game and ultimately regional/variant textures can only be single texture.

Basically I consider it to not be worth the trouble to not just make the base model also.


Names do not matter as models do not associate with these. The only thing we need to worry about when it comes to models is the picnum value.
As mentioned variant/regional textures are called by a name string so they are not issue either.


To quickly go over how default.unit relates to default.picnums and unit meshes in general.
Default.unit sets a picnum value for each design.
This value is read from default.picnums that sets the association between mesh and ID. Basically default.picnums takes a lot of information on how meshes work and ties it all to a single easy to call value.

Meshes themselves are defined by their name these are UNIT[picnummesh].x. Picnummesh is usually the same as picnum but not always. Multiple picnum values can call a single picnummesh value if you say want them at different scales or call a different texture.

Regional or variant textures if you will are likewise defined by their name. These are UNIT[picnummesh][region code].dds. The game automatically associates meshes and regional textures with the same picnummesh value. It is possible to define a custom string that a picnum values uses for regional textures but its usability is situational.

The default textures can have basically any name. What they are is by default defined by the mesh file. If it calls for Habakkuk.dds the game will check for the habakkuk.dds file when loading the model. If it fails to find it the model will be invisible. Like regional textures it is possible to define a custom default texture in default.picnums but I think I have used it like once so far.


Really just do what you prefer. The picnum value will need to change if you want to use the variant textures I make as they will need to call a new model entirely but that is only something you need to do if you prefer that model over what the design is currently using. The names are really up to you as they do not matter to the art side of things.
For names in general though the game would not suffer from a checkup. Fictive vehicles like the Katze feels like a joke. It does however fit well with say the tank destroyer "kuh" and self propelled howitzer "huhn". Yes I made those up it is not "that" bad.

___


Yes I can cover the rifle but in the case of say a Vietnam war M16 I need to basically cover the entire rifle for it to be able to pretend it is say an AK-47.
Image
This PLAGF infantry will need a lot of cloth to pretend he is american.

That said there is a lot of cases where this is not an issue. I mean all things considered would people notice the difference between say a M1 Garand and a Mauser 98K. Yes some probably would but the majority probably not.
Image
It probably will not take too much work to make this guy be basically anything. Well except maybe a jungle fightinger given the winter clothes.

Note I made these guys a long time ago but the low tris count I was working with back then made me stop as it was hard to get them the way I want. I plan reworking and in general just finishing them.
I also plan long term to make more infantry to get some variation from the purely metal hardware I have been making so far.

Also it is a question on how you view things and it might be possible to do something with worldmarketavailability. Trading infantry should probably not be as common as selling tanks. It can be said that buying the designs really is just modelling the infantry of one army on that of another. The US modelling its infantry on the soviet infantry with designs bought from the USSR while odd is ultimately not a problem.
Trading the units themselves however to me seems odd as the human element itself is a far more significant component than they are in say armoured units (not that tank crews are not relevant but they do not compare to humans in legged infantry units).
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by Nerei »

I made a B-24J Liberator. Technically I just finished parts of it. The model is one of those i started some time ago.
Image
So far only the US variant is done. I also plan on making an earlier version with a simple glass nose. Simply replacing the nose should be fairly easy
User avatar
sparky282
Colonel
Posts: 384
Joined: Dec 31 2011
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by sparky282 »

Arahatree wrote: Dec 21 2020 I have a question...

I'm working on the mod "SRU remastered", and its original modder in some dozens of units changed vanilla names for his own names (in DEFAULT.UNIT file). Should i change back those names to vanilla so that your future (and present) variants and skins can work with the mod? or are they going to work anyways because the units ID is what matters and not the name? You are working with vanilla names, i suppose, right?

i think he didn't change the names in the Meshes files though... at least as far as i know.

I don't know how PICNUMS file is related to DEFAULT.UNIT and meshes.... all that is over my head HUH
Unit names can be what ever you wish only the PICNUM is important I use Nerei's models for many units that they are not intended because they look better or closer to the real life than the in game default model.
The model ID is not important either I have added many model ID's then used Nerei's models on them with the correct PICNUM

Because Nerei only keeps this as a resource and not a full on mod it always requires some editing of your own files
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by Nerei »

Honestly other than the time it takes to make this into a proper mod which it is my assumption is better spent just making more models. My guess is also that the people that would use this probably mod their installs already making such a mod somewhat superfluous.
Updating it to work with the newest unit database when BG was still updating that would take time even if I ripped the picnums row from my updated unit database which again I think I can spend better on something else.

Really I think making this into a proper mod would take time that is better spend elsewhere.
There is also the entire issue with me feeling obligated to mess with stats I find erroneous which I think I will find plenty of and would consume a lot of time.


In any case as I have only made 4 Aegis equipped warships so far here is a 5th.
Image
The Mk 141 canisters are the ones made for the Type 23 frigate though I might recolour it a bit to better fit the more blueish hull.
I might also redo the Phalanx CIWS and AN/SPG-62 fire control radars as these are basically just as ancient as the old Mk 141. The AN/SPG-62 also really stands out so really just consider those placeholders.
I might also go with more subdued radomes.

Still a lot of work left as amongst other the mainmast and rear hangar has basically not been touched so far. The bridge is also very basic.
User avatar
sparky282
Colonel
Posts: 384
Joined: Dec 31 2011
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by sparky282 »

Nerei wrote: Dec 23 2020 Honestly other than the time it takes to make this into a proper mod which it is my assumption is better spent just making more models. My guess is also that the people that would use this probably mod their installs already making such a mod somewhat superfluous.
Updating it to work with the newest unit database when BG was still updating that would take time even if I ripped the picnums row from my updated unit database which again I think I can spend better on something else.

Really I think making this into a proper mod would take time that is better spend elsewhere.
There is also the entire issue with me feeling obligated to mess with stats I find erroneous which I think I will find plenty of and would consume a lot of time.


In any case as I have only made 4 Aegis equipped warships so far here is a 5th.
The Mk 141 canisters are the ones made for the Type 23 frigate though I might recolour it a bit to better fit the more blueish hull.
I might also redo the Phalanx CIWS and AN/SPG-62 fire control radars as these are basically just as ancient as the old Mk 141. The AN/SPG-62 also really stands out so really just consider those placeholders.
I might also go with more subdued radomes.

Still a lot of work left as amongst other the mainmast and rear hangar has basically not been touched so far. The bridge is also very basic.
Looks good!

Yes i totally agree I wouldn't play SR now without my own unit database I have put over 100 hours into it so even if you did do this as a mod I wouldn't use it much better to have a few extra models :D
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by Nerei »

More JS Maya. For the record no it has no design in-game. That is really not my main concern.
Image
Removed the old AN/SPG-62 and reworked the ones I made for USS Arleigh Burke, recoloured the Mk 141 canisters and made a new Phalanx CIWS. The Arleigh Burke also got the new Mk 141 made for the type 23.

The helideck still needs some work as does the upper hangar. The forwards superstructure and hull also need more details. Particularly the bridge is just windows right now.

The new Phalanx CIWS despite being a bit heavier than the old one will probably be my go to Phalanx model maybe except when it is going on really large vessels like a super carrier where the difference is probably not noticeable.
I do not plan on redoing old models with this CIWS model but I might replace the current Phalanx with the new one on Arleigh Burke.


Right now this is probably the 2nd most detailed model I have made so far but as it is still only a single mesh object with a single texture there should really not be any performance impact. Modern graphics cards can handle quite a few million polygons (heck the original PS4 can and was old half a decade ago) so if a model is a few hundred more or less is really not the greatest issue.

Also I might start converting models once this ship is done and I have the regional textures I want to make done for the B-24J.
User avatar
sparky282
Colonel
Posts: 384
Joined: Dec 31 2011
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by sparky282 »

Still at it on Christmas Day :D

That looks really good I have had a JS Maya in-game for a long time but of course, I had to use the Atago Model you did a little while back so this will be a nice addition

The new Phalanx looks really nice great improvement!

As for polygons, I shouldn't worry too much I'm not sure how many most of your models have but I notice no difference in performance over default even when I was using my old gtx 1060
evildari
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 629
Joined: Aug 10 2017
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by evildari »

sparky282 wrote: Dec 26 2020 ...
As for polygons, I shouldn't worry too much I'm not sure how many most of your models have but I notice no difference in performance over default even when I was using my old gtx 1060
have to second that!
Had a large battle with high polygon count units (unit.x files 2.5 to 2.75MB) - even in non-flat 3d Terrain - visible on screen.
No issues, even on a 5year old notebook with gtx 970M (mobile version).

Did i mention nice models?! Thank you for your work Nerei!
my mods
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=25932 (even techs and units for everyone - AI will own you too)
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=29326 (MARSX2)
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by Nerei »

A few more changes to JS Maya. Made the revolving mast radar more appropriate. Bridge and decks are also closer to completion. The front part of the rear structure is the main part that still needs work.
Image
sparky282 wrote: Dec 26 2020 Still at it on Christmas Day :D

That looks really good I have had a JS Maya in-game for a long time but of course, I had to use the Atago Model you did a little while back so this will be a nice addition

The new Phalanx looks really nice great improvement!

As for polygons, I shouldn't worry too much I'm not sure how many most of your models have but I notice no difference in performance over default even when I was using my old gtx 1060
Well I do not really celebrate the holidays and the dog likes it this way. It has a nice comfy spot close by and I have piles of books, model kits (long live thrift stores) and quite a few screens with anything from modelling software to pictures of military hardware to mess around with. What is there not to like?


The Atago class DDG is probably the closest match for the Maya class DDG available right now. They are derived from the Kongō class which itself is related to the Arleigh Burke but there are some notable deviations.
The best alternative to Atago would be Kongō or Arleigh Burke. The BG burke though is either a flight I or II meaning it lacks the hangar and has 2 mk 141 quad launchers amongst other things.
All things considered the Atago class is not the worst representation of the Maya class

Looking at the old Atago model I am actually not too unhappy with it which honestly surprised me. I would not release it today I think but I do not plan on redoing it.
Image
Note that Atago was made before I really started applying shading to models.
The question though is how I feel about JS Maya in a few years.
evildari wrote: Dec 26 2020
sparky282 wrote: Dec 26 2020 ...
As for polygons, I shouldn't worry too much I'm not sure how many most of your models have but I notice no difference in performance over default even when I was using my old gtx 1060
have to second that!
Had a large battle with high polygon count units (unit.x files 2.5 to 2.75MB) - even in non-flat 3d Terrain - visible on screen.
No issues, even on a 5year old notebook with gtx 970M (mobile version).

Did i mention nice models?! Thank you for your work Nerei!
I think you have but in any case I am just happy if people like and can get some usage out of the models I make.


In terms of performance I am not really worried. I am just trying to per-empt someone telling me that 300 polygons even if multiplied by 400 units is going to make all the difference on performance despite modern graphics cards happily rendering tens of millions of polygons on screen.
Naturally less is more and all that but with the current JS Maya I can have around 15.000 of them on screen to match what Star Citizen in some claims renders real time (with effects on graphics cards several generations old).

15.000 models will make a notable impact on performance. However it will be due to the graphics API of DX9 being trash and not being good at handling 15.000+ draw calls. That is more or less 100% independent on how many polygons or how high resolution the textures are. In that regard though the model is one shell with a single texture so it is as optimized as can be.

Sure if I can get away with 500-600 triangulated polygons I will do that. Some of my world war 2 fighter aircraft is in that range but if I think a major warship needs 2500 or even 3000 I will go with that.
I suspect it will still be a lot easier on performance than Galactic ruler spaceships as they appear to have some sort of changing mesh elements based on tech which likely means more draw calls.
User avatar
sparky282
Colonel
Posts: 384
Joined: Dec 31 2011
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by sparky282 »

Any ideas what will be in the next release? The models you have displayed here look great as ever

I'm actually surprised to see the difference in models side by side because I thought both were great models it's only by seeing them side by side you can see the difference in them which actually in that size is quite noticeable but I think in-game not so much. It's nice they get better with time though, I'm actually playing through a Japan game right now and the number of models they have is huge it must be like 95% of the current inventory or something crazy is covered by your models which is fantastic!
Post Reply

Return to “Modding Show & Tell”