Ordnance Updates

[Lagarto]

Zorin, your torps look beautiful and the regular updating is most welcome. I wish the map makers working with DT did the same (I mean a separate thread with updates, pics and info).

[1984]

again, really good news here...

especially, possibility of smoke bombs (it's can be new type of gameplay) and new flares...


and question (sorry, if) - only bombs? what about some rockets, and, maybe, new racks for rockets and bombs?

[Zorin]

Originally Posted by 1984

again, really good news here...

especially, possibility of smoke bombs (it's can be new type of gameplay) and new flares...


and question (sorry, if) - only bombs? what about some rockets, and, maybe, new racks for rockets and bombs?

Rockets will be included. Racks are again up to TD. It depends on whether they want improved meshes for them or not.

EDIT: First page updated with second 60kg bomb.

[Zorin]

Just so you know, I have to get acknowledgement of receipt and/or approval for the torpedos yet.

[_1SMV_Gitano]

Here is some feedback for you from one of DT modellers

I made a quick rework of Zorin's torpedo (only one variant). You may send it back to Zorin for study, if you think, it would be useful.

Errors and problems, found in his model:

1. Model orientation in Max was wrong. The model should be placed in max so it's nose points downwards on the Max Top view. The CG of the object should be placed at 0,0,0 coordinate.
2. Texture size was too large (1024x1024) while the texture itself was not quite detailed. No point in using large texture, if one doesn't plan to paint anything on it.
3. Texture mapping wasn't quite good and savvy. Too many stitches in UW makes painting details on texture difficult.
4. Thin parts, like fins, should be made, using 2-sided material, their shape can be easily "cut" from a simple rectangle, using alpha channel.
5. No LODs found in the file.
6. No collision object found in the file. Ordnance doesn't need mesh collision, it is enough to use collision sphere which is just default Max primitive, 32 sides sphere, whose diameter is slightly larger, then ordnance diameter without fins. The CSphere object should be placed at the 0,0,0 coordinate.
7. TGA file should be used as texture.

I did a brief remodel of one of the torpedo variants, fixing all the above listed problems. The texture was reduced to 512x512 pixels, but still has a huge portion of unused space. I take it, that Zorin planned to use it for other Japanese ordnance models. I added some small details on the image, to make it look more realistic. There is also space reserved for another torp (fin, actually) variants, should Zorin would want to remodel his torpedoes according to the included sample. I also think, there is no need in such large number of different variants. 2, maximum 3 would suffice.

Here's a comparison image:



As you can see, the tri-count of the model was reduced by half and the texture made smaller 4 times without any loss to visual quality.

We will send you the reworked model asap...

[Zorin]

1. Model orientation in Max was wrong. The model should be placed in max so it's nose points downwards on the Max Top view. The CG of the object should be placed at 0,0,0 coordinate.

How am I supposed to know that?

2. Texture size was too large (1024x1024) while the texture itself was not quite detailed. No point in using large texture, if one doesn't plan to paint anything on it.

I always paint and setup textures in a higher resolution. It was just the base setup and had no detailing yet. Of course it would be resized for the finished product...

3. Texture mapping wasn't quite good and savvy. Too many stitches in UW makes painting details on texture difficult.

I UVW to reduce possible distortion even if that requires a little more time for proper texture painting. Besides, anything that would have had seams you removed anyway...

4. Thin parts, like fins, should be made, using 2-sided material, their shape can be easily "cut" from a simple rectangle, using alpha channel.

Why should I do it if I can keep higher detail within the tri-level limit I have been given? I also was told that I would not have to build for 2-sided material, but could use flipped faces and only count one side per part. Could you guys please make your mind up....

Alpha channels are just to be avoided as far as I am concerned as they only allow for very crude results on this resolution levels.

5. No LODs found in the file.

Surprise, see point one. If I don't get proper info on that, how can I include it? Besides this was clearly labelled as a LOD0 preview...

6. No collision object found in the file. Ordnance doesn't need mesh collision, it is enough to use collision sphere which is just default Max primitive, 32 sides sphere, whose diameter is slightly larger, then ordnance diameter without fins. The CSphere object should be placed at the 0,0,0 coordinate.

See point 1 and 5.

7. TGA file should be used as texture.

Noted.

I did a brief remodel of one of the torpedo variants ... without any loss to visual quality

Cute euphemism and the detonator is not placed where you did "correct" my detonator to. Believe it or not, I actually know what I am doing. Also, the variants are meant to allow every type of torpedo plane to use the proper torpedo tail for any given time frame. If you don't want the four, which could easily be 8 btw, then just leave out the tail assemblies altogether, cause anything else would be a halfarsed job.

But I am glad that the community now has a comparison. I will gladly dumb down the meshes, anyway. Anything is better than the standard crap that is in game at the moment.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Hm... just came to my mind... do you need example models? Or do you have already?

Pls don't take poly limits as something to exhaust at any costs - 500 is a number for comparible complex objects. Every saved polygon is a good polygon.

Sorry if we look unsatisfied with the status (LoDs etc.) ... we took it, that the model was finished - at least the one, who wrote the report.

[SaQSoN]

Originally Posted by Zorin

How am I supposed to know that?

Well, generally, you don't. Now you do. On a side note, however, it is rather logical to have a front projection of your model in the front view window of the Max. But, don't worry, it's a typical error, I did that too, when I was only starting.

Originally Posted by Zorin

I always paint and setup textures in a higher resolution. It was just the base setup and had no detailing yet. Of course it would be resized for the finished product...

For an objects with relatively small pixel rate (a number of texture pixels per polygon) I wouldn't recommend such approach. Because it is quite possible that after resizing the texture, a details painted on it, would shift way too much relatively to the existing UWs. And some pieces previously carefully aligned on UW seams or near 3D parts would become misaligned.
Therefore, it is strongly recommended to painted a texture exactly into the size, which would be used on the final product.

Originally Posted by Zorin

I UVW to reduce possible distortion even if that requires a little more time for proper texture painting.

It is a very good approach for a large objects and large textures. In current situation, however, with relatively small pixel rate it is better to avoid making too many seams because with only few pixels per polygon it sometimes would be impossible to align texture on the seams properly.

Originally Posted by Zorin

Besides, anything that would have had seams you removed anyway...

The main hull wasn't removed, or so it seems and it was the place with the most unpleasant number of seams in most unpleasant place (were fin attachments were supposed to be painted.

Originally Posted by Zorin

Why should I do it if I can keep higher detail within the tri-level limit I have been given?

For a starters, the very thick fins, you modeled, wouldn't be accurate to the real thing. The metal fins on the torpedo had "hydrofoil" shape, so their outer edges were almost knife-sharp. The thickest part of the fin would be at the middle of it's root and it would be around 10mm or so, judging from the photos. The only image of the torpedo with that thick fins is from USS Intrepid museum, where an inaccurate wooden replica is displayed.

Another reason is that on all other IL-2 models (planes, vehicles, ships) parts, which are thinner, then 30mm or so, are considered as 0-thin. We have to keep general visual detail of all models on approximately the same level.

And finally, making those parts 0-thin allows use of alpha channel, which allows to further reduce polygon count.

Originally Posted by Zorin

I also was told that I would not have to build for 2-sided material, but could use flipped faces and only count one side per part. Could you guys please make your mind up....

Don't see any contradiction here. You can use both approaches, even on the same model, if you please. But generally, it's easier to use 2-sided material.

Originally Posted by Zorin

Alpha channels are just to be avoided as far as I am concerned as they only allow for very crude results on this resolution levels.

Do they really? Looking on the model which was sent back to you, I can not say, they do.

Originally Posted by Zorin

Surprise, see point one. If I don't get proper info on that, how can I include it? Besides this was clearly labelled as a LOD0 preview...

LODs were mentioned along with basic triangle and texture requirements somewhere on this forum.

Originally Posted by Zorin

Also, the variants are meant to allow every type of torpedo plane to use the proper torpedo tail for any given time frame. If you don't want the four, which could easily be 8 btw, then just leave out the tail assemblies altogether, cause anything else would be a halfarsed job.

Sometimes, you got to get into account, that you work with other people, not just alone. In this particular case, making a gazilion variants of basically the same weapon, which differs from others only extrnally generates a lot more work for a programmers who will implement this ordnance into the game. Throwing at them more work at a time, when they are already overwhelmed with other work isn't a good example of team work.

That's approximately the same story, as with polygon limit, as Caspar explained it to you.