Official Fulqrum Publishing forum
Page 76 of 183 « First 26667475 76 777886126176 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)
-   IL-2 Sturmovik (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=98)
-   -   Daidalos Team's Room -QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS ONLY on IL2 Authorized Addons (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=8815)

II/JG54_Emil 12-05-2009 10:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElAurens (Post 125407)
How something "seems" to you or to me is of no importance.

It either matches the correct numbers or it doesn't. So if you cannot post actual numbers, both for the real weapon, and it's velocity in game, you have no leg to stand on here.

Hence even though it "seems" to me that the MK 108 is grossly over modeled in the game, you won't here me begging for a change based on my feelings.

Considering that the MK108 is a HighExplosive and Mine-projectiles weapon belting that makes this kind of damage with a single shot:
http://www.airwar.ru/image/i/weapon/mk108blenheim.jpg

I don´t think it´s "grossly over modeled" in game. In my opinion it´s a bit undermodelled.

Muzzlevelocity:
ingame: 500 m/s+525 m/s (the game uses 2 tiype of bullets)
real 540 m/s

Rounds:
50 ingame
65 in real

Rounds/Minute:
in game 600 rpm
in real 660 rpm(The rate of fire was to be improved to 850 rounds/minute later but not in game)



http://www.luft46.com/armament/mk108.html
http://www.bredow-web.de/Luftwaffenm...ig_mk_108.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK_108_cannon

Zorin 12-05-2009 11:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robo. (Post 125431)
But I completely understand that modelling within specs is very demanding task and requires a really skilled modeller.
Could you stop this offensive nonsense!

I can easily stay within the limits, but as you can see in the comp, there is no point in it.

Besides, ordnances should never be low priority, it is like designing a beautiful car and putting wooden wheels from an old carriage on them. The game environment needs to be coherent in quality.

You are also discrediting all the skin creators and movie makers out there, by saying this game is not about the visual quality. Really, you lot need to change you tone and rethink how you approach US as target audience.

No one in his right mind would insult someone who spent ages on researching and building stuff for your game and offering it FOR FREE like you did by constantly questioning his abilities. At least in my profession, which is all about design and customer care, this would get you fired and not in a deciders position.

Think about it, you lot have been very fortunate to be in the position you are in now, perhaps owning up to it is in order...

Eldur 12-05-2009 11:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by II/JG54_Emil (Post 125438)
Considering that the MK108 is a HighExplosive and Mine-projectiles weapon belting that makes this kind of damage with a single shot:
http://www.airwar.ru/image/i/weapon/mk108blenheim.jpg

I don´t think it´s "grossly over modeled" in game. In my opinion it´s a bit undermodelled.
There is a little issue, yes. But I don't think it's just 50 rounds. In which plane? I've counted 65 in the 109s, but I think it's just 50 in the FWs. And there it should be more maybe. I know just the exact max load for the MG FF since A-5 which is 90 and not 60.
The MK 108 issue is just that the HE round does very little damage while the MG round is the killer it's supposed to be. Usually I shoot off the first bullet of the first 2 MKs in the 262 and have a mix of 2 MG and 2 HE then everytime I shoot and it does pretty well then. If I don't some of the hits I achieve do very little damage which accounts to the HE rounds.
A simple belting with MG only would fix this issue easily.

Bulgarian 12-05-2009 12:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorin (Post 125441)
Could you stop this offensive nonsense!
"Offensive nonsense"?

Zorin,Robo is nice with you.Noone here is talking to you in offensive manner.Actually it's only you who is posting the offensive content here.
Stop acting pessimistically.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorin (Post 125441)
The game environment needs to be coherent in quality.
IL-2 already is.
But since you're introduced so well to the 3D modeling,you must make the difference between Game Industry/Developing and CGI Industry/Developing!
The thing we're doing here,is Game Industry and Developing.You follow the technical specs,or leave.Simple as that.
It's a rule that is set by the game engine itself,and it's capabilities.We can't do anything about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorin (Post 125441)
it is like designing a beautiful car and putting wooden wheels from an old carriage on them.
Ferrari are building a sport car using this method,but what's the connection between this and the topic here?

Robo. 12-05-2009 12:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorin (Post 125441)
Could you stop this offensive nonsense!
Excuse me please, but what do you mean?

I believe I approached you in a very polite manner, I complimented your work and expressed my pity that you're not willing to revise it in order to be used in an official patch. I also answered your question and named you a reason why the models need to be done in certain way. If there is anything else you saw in my previous post, you happened to add it yourself (and I am quite wondering why...)

If it's the quoted sentence that made you feel offended, I assure you I was not referring to you personally. It is indeed a simple fact that it requires great skill to do a good low-poly 3D model and stay within limited specs perserving great looks. Wouldn't you agree with that?

You probably feel insulted by what I wrote because you found yourself in that rather innocent remark of mine, but I did not mean to insult you and I really had no intention to argue with you about anything.

I would also like to remind you that I am what you call 'skin creator' and I assure you that exactly the visual appearance of the game is my only area of working within DT.

I do not wish comment anything you wrote in anger in this thread because it would not lead anywhere, I'd just like to repeat that simple question:

Would you mind trying to reduce the amount of polygons of your bomb models as per specs given, so the Daidalos Team can include them in the next patch, please?

TheGrunch 12-05-2009 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorin (Post 125385)
...This comparison shows the result of following TD rules set for ordnance meshes regarding texture size and triangle count...
Could you show us wire frame views of these two meshes, Zorin?

David603 12-05-2009 09:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkubani (Post 125208)
@Zorin, here are the specs:

LOD_0 polycount:

1. Smaller bombs/rockets (below 200kg) - up to 200 triangles.
2. Medium bombs/rockets (between 200 and 1000kg) - up to 300 triangles
3. Larger bombs (1000kg and larger), torpedoes, guided bombs, etc. - up to 500 triangles.
4. Racks/pylons – as simple as possible – 50 triangles

Other LODs polycount:

Each subsequent LOD should have less, or equal to 50% of the previous LOD polycount.

4 distance LODs (LOD_0,1,2,3), 3 shadow LODs, each shadow LOD based on normal LOD with previous number (i.e. shadow LOD_0 is based on normal LOD_1, shadow LOD_1 is based on normal LOD_2 and so on).

Use alpha-channels to save polygons by cutting openings and complex shaped parts (like windmills, propellers, etc.) out of simple flat 3D objects.

It is enough to use 12-sided cylinder for virtually any bomb, or torpedo model. Keep polygon count as smaller, as possible, making small parts with either alpha, or texture. Keep smoothing groups set correctly.

Texture sizes for LOD_0: 128x256, 256x256, or 256x512. It is preferable to use same texture for several different bombs. Texture reduction by 50% for other LODS -> e.g. 256x256 -> 128x128 -> 64x64 -> 32x32. Tip: Use a bit of sharpening effect after you resize the textures for smoother texture transition (no sharp to blurry effect).

Use 1-sided material for most parts and 2-sided material for any part with alpha-channel. No alpha-channel textures after LOD_1
Since you are talking about polycounts, do the old LOD_0 limits of 3500 polys for single engined aircraft and 5000 polys for twin engined or bigger aircraft still apply, or have these been revised?

Reason I'm asking is that I want to build a Supermarine Spiteful, with the hope of getting it released through DT eventually (very busy at University:(), and obviously the more polys I get to play with more likely it is that I'm going to be happy about the finished result.

I know the Spiteful isn't a WWII aircraft, but since it was built (admitedly in very small numbers), it has a lot more of a right to be in the sim than many of the 1946 aircraft, so I would like to give this a shot.

Daiichidoku 12-05-2009 09:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by II/JG54_Emil (Post 125438)
Considering that the MK108 is a HighExplosive and Mine-projectiles weapon belting that makes this kind of damage with a single shot:
http://www.airwar.ru/image/i/weapon/mk108blenheim.jpg
you may have an issue with 108s in game, i wont dispute that

however, using this photo to prove a point is invalid, did you know that for this test, they hung the mk 108 round in the middle of the fuselage and then detonated it?
it was not fired into the fuselage

Daiichidoku 12-05-2009 09:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eldur (Post 125237)
That P-80 would be a P-80A and not the YP-80 we have. It should also feature up t 2x 1000lb, TT rockets and 8 HVARs.
I'd also like an upgraded Go-229. Basically it should have the option to have 4x MK108 with 90rpg and a bombload of 1000kg carried on 2 ETCs on the engine housing next to the big front wheel. After all the project required it to carry 1000kg of bombs, have a 1000km range and 1000km/h speed. This shouldn't even be a new plane. Just change it.
ty for the P80 correction :)

id have to find the source again, but AFAIK the proposed armament for Gotha was 4x mk103, not 108s
perhaps there was many proposals :D
i fear that impelmenting any of these would require undue work to produce, id be quite happy with a simple eninge upgrade for more power, which should be a relatively esay task for TD (correct me if im wrong, TD!)

mkubani 12-05-2009 10:06 PM
David, before you start, please judge honestly and objectively:

1. How much free time you have to finish the model in a reasonable timeframe (6-8 months)

2. Your experience in 3D modelling. People can very rarely get it right in their first project.

3. I would estimate you could use 4-4500-polys for this plane.


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:51 PM.
Page 76 of 183 « First 26667475 76 777886126176 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.