Ka-50 Blackshark

[wolfbite 8]

because the bis v-80 looks like hot....cow poo.

[Gedis 0]

hey!

here's one more video about Sharky...

Ka-50

so that not only you see videos collected by me...

P.S. pictures of your "white teeth" helicopter would be great...

[franze 196]

Quote[/b] ]

No offence, but why invent the wheel twice?

Wouldnt it be better modifying the BIS "V80"?

Because BIS V-80 is ancient and has quite a few accuracy issues.

As for face count, 5000 is a pretty reasonable figure IMO, but if you step up to dynamic loadouts (or use one model for all loadouts) that figure could rise to 6500-7000 - which is still reasonable. This isn't going to be a unit you'll employ in numbers higher than 4 at a time, so the extra detail works out.

[MrZig 0]

Quote[/b] ]As for face count, 5000 is a pretty reasonable figure IMO, but if you step up to dynamic loadouts (or use one model for all loadouts) that figure could rise to 6500-7000 - which is still reasonable. This isn't going to be a unit you'll employ in numbers higher than 4 at a time, so the extra detail works out.

not when you have like 40 other different units on the map. Saving even 500 faces on each would be 500X40 = 20,000 faces. So saving 1000 or even more, on everything you make, would be better. If it can be done in textures, do it. If it can be done more efficiently, do it.

[franze 196]

Do you intend to throw 40 Ka-50s onto a map at any single one time?

[MrZig 0]

There's a key phrase I said in my quote.

"other" and "different".

Think about it, if every addon maker saved a thousand faces, games would be that less laggy. It's like saying "why bother voting for a country leader, it won't make a difference", but if everyone thought that way, we wouldn't have very reliable voting.

So if everyone partakes, just by a little bit either by reducing texture size from a rediculous 2040x2040 down to a 512x512 or even 256x256, it'd be better, or lower face counts. Or scripts, even.

A mission doesn't always just consist of 4 KA-52's on desert island.

Most missions that promotes lag are RTS's, CTI's, etc. And I think, but am not sure, that reducing a poly/face count would reduce the desynch of lots of vehicles getting created in a short time. Like units. This is only pure speculation, however, so I'm not sure.

[franze 196]

I wonder what we use LODs for then, or are we wasting our time by employing LODs in order to cut back on detail that you can't see?

Frankly, for missions with massive amounts of units (none of the CTI's I've played has ever consisted of 40 helicopters, either) I'd think it'd be better to use a specialized unit just for that kind of scenario rather than to rely on a unit designed for detail over performance. I've made an attempt into this that worked pretty well, but I don't think for a specific design unit we should tone down everything.

But that's what's great about OFP, we can choose what we want to play with and when. As it is, 5000 faces is well beyond what you'd have in mind for a mission consisting of 40+ units of the same type.

One other thing, think of how many units a attack helicopter can be expected to destroy before it's taken down. In the Ka-50's case, that's at the very least 12 armored units and/or other vehicles. Multiply by 40 - whew.

[MrZig 0]

Like fuck, Franze. I've tried to be clear.

I'm talking about an RTS where there are not 40 of the same KA-50s, but where there are KA-50s, BMPs, T80s, T72s, M1a2s, M2a2s, M60s, Soldiers, etc. All in one mission at one time. Yes, it happens, quite frequently.

Texture size is a huge problem. ESPECIALLY if you use .jpgs on vehicles. On weapons it isn't so bad, but the moment you .jpg a vehicle it turns to shit. Also, many people don't put much work into LODs. Maybe giving 3 or 4. And some of the LODs aren't very good either. And if you're close to a vehicle, chances are, it's gonna use the 8,000,000,000 face count LOD, making you have to look away to get any decent frame rate.

Sure, in a mission with 3 KA-50s vs a few tanks and infantry, you're not going to notice it. And I'm not saying that simply doing this to the KA-50 is going to fix it all. What I'm saying, is adding a few extra thousand useless faces is not helping.

I would much rather have an extremly blocky, but nicely textured m1a2, and good frame rates, than an m1a2 that has every rivet modeled on, making my fps go to shit.

And texture size should be like 512x512 max. Any higher is just a waste of resources. OFP is old. Even with my AMD 64 3200+ and Radeon 9500 Pro, games can get quite laggy with 1500 view distance.

Just think about it, is the extra detail really worth it? Are you going to make a really good LOD system? Remember that OFP most likely has to work hard to switch between LODs, so if you have a thousand LODs, it'll probably work harder. Not proof/fact, but a hunch based on common sense. I could be totally wrong, however.

And for your information, I'm usually way too busy trying to live in the game, than looking at each modeled rivet. Save the high detailed models for screenshot takers, not game-players.

[Gedis 0]

off topic...

ok, stop flaming or i'll cought fire too, then you will need to download and instal Katastrophenschutz - Disaster control trucks into OFP to put out enourmous fire caused by me...

 

and if that woun't help, i know what will... moderator's nuclear bomb thrown from Footmunch's Tu-22M3 bombers onto my IP adress    

[franze 196]

Quote[/b] ]

Like fuck, Franze. I've tried to be clear.

No need to be rude. I thought I was clear as well, but it seems not.

Quote[/b] ]

I'm talking about an RTS where there are not 40 of the same KA-50s, but where there are KA-50s, BMPs, T80s, T72s, M1a2s, M2a2s, M60s, Soldiers, etc. All in one mission at one time. Yes, it happens, quite frequently.

Then why are you worried about one or two units being of higher detail than another? Again, nobody is forcing you to use any specific unit.

Quote[/b] ]

Texture size is a huge problem. ESPECIALLY if you use .jpgs on vehicles.

Agree 100%.

Quote[/b] ]

Also, many people don't put much work into LODs. Maybe giving 3 or 4. And some of the LODs aren't very good either. And if you're close to a vehicle, chances are, it's gonna use the 8,000,000,000 face count LOD, making you have to look away to get any decent frame rate.

I think you're exaggerating here. We aren't talking about 15,000 to 30,000 faces here, this is in the realm of 5000 to 7000. Who's to say that wolfbite will choose to keep the face count as it is?

In the CTI's I've played (holy cow! Can you believe this little idiot who makes 8k+ faced helicopters actually plays CTI's with lots of units? Blasphemy! ) with tons of custom units - CBT M2s, M113s, my own AH-64s, OH-58s, HYK infantry, etc - I've still managed to play these and still enjoy them thoroughly. Do they sometimes drop to 15fps? Sure. For me, that's tolerable. Although I can understand if others would prefer to have a strict minimum of 30fps at all times - again, they can choose to employ units that are not that complex to meet that demand.

Quote[/b] ]

Sure, in a mission with 3 KA-50s vs a few tanks and infantry, you're not going to notice it. And I'm not saying that simply doing this to the KA-50 is going to fix it all. What I'm saying, is adding a few extra thousand useless faces is not helping.

Again, you're missing the point. Do you really need to use more than 4 helicopters - especially one such as the Ka-50 - in a mission that barely calls for one helicopter? You can do so of course, but what for?

Quote[/b] ]

I would much rather have an extremly blocky, but nicely textured m1a2, and good frame rates, than an m1a2 that has every rivet modeled on, making my fps go to shit.

I would agree with this, but only because a tank is a different beast from an aircraft. You can traditionally expect a lot of tanks in a force-on-force mission as opposed to supporting units.

Quote[/b] ]

And texture size should be like 512x512 max. Any higher is just a waste of resources. OFP is old. Even with my AMD 64 3200+ and Radeon 9500 Pro, games can get quite laggy with 1500 view distance.

I'd draw the line at 1024x1024 myself, but that is simply my preference. OFP is old, but what was it designed for? I don't think you can say OFP was designed to model a huge dynamic battlefield (even though you can do so); IMO OFP was designed to leave a whole lot of strategies open for playing. Look at the BIS missions - you rarely see very huge hot spots throughout a map.

Quote[/b] ]

Just think about it, is the extra detail really worth it? Are you going to make a really good LOD system? Remember that OFP most likely has to work hard to switch between LODs, so if you have a thousand LODs, it'll probably work harder. Not proof/fact, but a hunch based on common sense. I could be totally wrong, however.

Why do we use extra detail as opposed to just playing with blocks and bricks? Because we want to push the limits. When has it ever really been that effecient? If we still played with blocks and bricks like we did 15 years ago, things would get pretty boring, real fast. By all means, if you enjoy doing things that way, nobody is holding you back.

But that doesn't mean everybody else has to bend themselves to what you desire.

Quote[/b] ]

And for your information, I'm usually way too busy trying to live in the game, than looking at each modeled rivet. Save the high detailed models for screenshot takers, not game-players.

As for you, I think you need to take a serious chill pill. Play the game as you want to. I honestly think you and I have similar goals here, but I think it's quite clear you are a little riled up right now to discuss them.

Sorry to wolfbite for dragging this discussion off topic. Go for whatever face count pleases you, and you'll be OK. Make your Ka-50 as you want it - remember, you're the one exerting the effort on it.

[ag_smith 0]

I think somebody here would be well surprised if one actually checked the face counts and textures on the models we use on daily basis. It makes your argument look ridiculous. Out of a sudden it turns out you're using many hi-poly units without realizing it. Majority of vehicles today are over 5000 faces, most weapons are around 2k, player models are 3-4k and nobody makes a big deal about it.

No, I'm not neglecting the performance issues. It's just I think you're underrating your own rigs. If you don't like that fact, nobody stopes you from going back to cave age of original BIS units.

[Gedis 0]

cave age = BIS OFP ;D;D well said!

the truth is out there... somewhere... and you know it, but you don't want to believe it...

[MrZig 0]

I know that most addons use hi poly and that's what bugs me. Maybe for VBS, or Arm-A, when it's "optimized", it'll run better. But for now, you pretty much need a $1000 dollar CPU just to run all the new units in a mission.

Let's take for example DSL's A-10. First LOD is 10,000 faces. That's a little extreme, don't you think? The second lod is 7,000, and still, if you're close to it, you're goign to render all of those.

Most RHS vehicles have 2040x2040 textures, which is rediculous. I personally resized them to 512x512. Much like most world war 2 tanks we use on the server I play on, they all used high res jpg textures. Well, when you look at them, the game pauses for 3 seconds. So we made them lower res, and .pac. It's fine, now.

OWP's Mi8. Surplus of 10,000 faces in first LOD. Couldn't check the rest. I'm pretty sure their Mi26 is also in surplus of 10,000, though don't quote me as I'm going from memory.

Fischkopps MH53. Again, surplus of 10,000 faces in first LOD. Doesn't get much better for a few LODs.

And this is only a few selection. Come on, 10,000 faces? Why do you need such a high count?

For example, Combat!'s m2a2. ~6000 faces. The second LOD is ~3000, sure, but lot's of the time, the ~6000 one will be rendered. That's why I deleted it for the server. And FYI, the server mainly plays RTS's which have quite frequently got a player count of 24. That's 12 vs 12.

I don't quite see why we can't retexture most of BIS's units. Maybe add a few extra details, but keep the face count DOWN. Wouldn't missions that played at ~30 fps all game, in a pretty big battle, be more fun than looking at the pretty fully smoothe wheel that's modeled 8x on a single vehicle? That has about 5 of them in formation?

I'd rather play with blocky units and have smooth fps, than play with extremly high detailed running at an fps I can see each frame at.

Just my opinion, however, so don't take it for everyones.

[vektorboson 8]

MrZig, I share your opinion about how addons should be. I'd like all addon makers to think about the lesser rigs and they should think about combining all those high poly addons in one mission.

But theres one problem: Every addon maker considers his addon the most valuable, and therefore will try to make it the most beautiful.

And there is somehow some kind of peer pressure to addon making, especially regarding the photography thread...

Enough ranting, I'll stop here going off-topic.

[Shadow NX 1]

Seems this discussion happens on nearly monthly basis.

Once again i gotta say in times of Games like HalfLife2, Doom3, CoD2 etc you cant be serious about retexturing old BIS units...

Backwards evolution anyone?

If you think the polys are too much dont use them, i think many here dont have the fastest pc but if you balance your settings ofp runs well even with FFUR packs etc.

Anyway, senseless discussion, where are the mods? hehe

[MrZig 0]

Where are the mods? I think it was a reasonable discussion of the poly limit of the KA-50, don't you think? It was in perfect relation/relative to it. But I guess there's just no winning.

Go ahead, make perfect photography addons. I'll keep editing them and lowering the LODs for the server, I guess, and leave all the less fortunate guys with low end systems playing with the last LOD because it's the only playable one for them.

[Gedis 0]

i think there's a PC requerements, so those PCs on which you are playing should at least be minimum...

sorry, but useless talk here...

this discusion should be in completely different and new topic...

[xnodunitx 0]

Not to mention the cold yet hard fact of computers,you have to "evolve" your company if you hope to stay.

hum...retexturing...okay lesee...to be honest I'd kidna kill myself if I was wanting to retexture all of the BIS units,their apache for one,people did it time and time again infact every single one except for one of them,were all simple retextures and slight model modifcations,never did anyone (but one person) think to make a new model. As for the face count..hum...lesee...the Mi-8 is a transport helicopter thus there would at most probably be 3,attack helicopters,usually only one is needed for the job,the most I have seen are 3-5 (franze's apache go figure),I'm not necessarily modelling every rivet is a good,infact that statement is overboard as I have yet to see a model with every if not most rivets modelled,a few here and there but not that many.

[franze 196]

wolfbite,

Have you decided what armaments you're going to have availible? Or do you plan to have just one loadout?

I would assume you've already got an ejection seat in mind.

[SeanTate 0]

HELP!! THIS THREAD HAS BEEN JACKED BY FLAMERS!!!! ITS GETTING WAAAAAYYYYYYY TOO OFF TOPIC FOR ME!   THREAD JACKED... END OF DISCUSSION

[max power 21]

How is it that efficient and effective ofp modelling is not relevent to a topic about an OFP model?

I'd have to agree with Mr. Zig's general sensibility for modelling. Efficiency is of paramount importance, as are CAREFUL and THUROUGH LOD modelling. I also agree with his general statements regarding texture size.

In this game where you are frequently engaging targets well beyond your ability to identify them out of a group of like units, and sometimes even BVR, 10,000 polies is a waste of geometry. Every blade on a turbofan need not be modelled when you have textures and smoothing groups to hint at shapes. Large round tubes like tank gun barrels can probably get away with a 7 sided shape, and smaller with a 5 sided shape. Very large ones, like an a10's jet cowling, a little more... but 10,000 polies? Insanity.

Mr. Zig's argument is for a unit model that is as versitile as possible. Something that will look alright up close, will look good in the distance, and won't mess up a reasonable sized mission with video lag. This is all. It is his oppinion (and mine), but, ultimately, the author of the model is the one who will determine how many polies his model deserves- and, ultimately, how it will impact user made missions who wish to encorperate the model.

[wolfbite 8]

woah i just asked apout faces.... didnt intend for a huge argument about it.

@MrZig: Im making this addon because the bis "v-80" makes my eyes bleed with how ugly it is. If you just wanted a retextured bis modelyou can just do it yourself. you dont need to post here about "if it aint broke dont fix it" otherwise you may as well go and post in all the other forums such as the our weapons mi-8 Rhs t-80/spetz/rifles etc. The reason im doing this is so that i can represent this vehicle in a model thats as close to the real thing that my hardwork will allow. Im not meaning to sound rude but im just being honest.

@Franz: Im hoping to include a loadout that includes several different bombs (250kg 500kg Default dumb bombs, maybe napalm and clusters.) Two sizes of rockets, Anti radiation missiles, vikhr, and optional iglaa. Would you be kind enough to show me how to do this??

@Shadow: When are you guys releasing your mi-24/updated t-80 pack?? and will your mi-24 have a new pilot??

[MrZig 0]

Wolfbite, either you're comprehension system is all messed up, or you're just generally blind.

You missed the point behind my posts, the fact that it'd be a complete waste to make a 10,000 face count model. If you want to, go right ahead, but I will either delete the LOD with lot's of faces, or if the LOD system is poorly designed, I'll just delete it. For me, it's a matter of gameplay AND style, not either or.

You need a balance. Or, should have, a balance. In my opinion.

And thus are my thoughts on the matter. Just think, you're making this for a game that will have several units on it, perhaps, at a given time. It's not a render for an office. But make it how you wish, I'm just giving my opinion.

[franze 196]

@Franz: Im hoping to include a loadout that includes several different bombs (250kg 500kg Default dumb bombs, maybe napalm and clusters.) Two sizes of rockets, Anti radiation missiles, vikhr, and optional iglaa. Would you be kind enough to show me how to do this??

Do you plan to have these loadouts as a per-variant basis or as a dynamic basis?

Per-variant is self explainatory, but on a dynamic basis you'll have to either use animations or hidden selections to hide and unhide the weapons as the loadout is changed.

Here's an example from the OH-58D initialize script (hidden selections):

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

#hftwo

_tex = "\fz_oh58\agm114_1.paa"

?(_oh58 hasweapon "fz_ohlsahf"): _oh58 setobjecttexture [5,"\fz_ah64d\tex\m299hfrk.paa"]

?("fz_ohlsahfk" in _mags): _tex = "\fz_oh58\agm114_2.paa"

_ammocnt = (_oh58 ammo "fz_ohlsahf")

? _ammocnt > 1 : _oh58 setobjecttexture [1,_tex] and _oh58 setobjecttexture [68,"\fz_ah64d\tex\ah64_hf2.paa"]

? _ammocnt > 0 : _oh58 setobjecttexture [3,_tex] and _oh58 setobjecttexture [70,"\fz_ah64d\tex\ah64_hf2.paa"]

#ralthftwo

?(_oh58 hasweapon "fz_ohlsahffour"): goto "rockets1"

?!(_oh58 hasweapon "fz_ohlsahf" or _oh58 hasweapon "fz_ohlsahffour"): _oh58 setobjecttexture [5,""] and _oh58 setobjecttexture [1,""] and _oh58 setobjecttexture [3,""] and _oh58 setobjecttexture [68,""] and _oh58 setobjecttexture [70,""] and goto "rockets1"

? _ammocnt == 1 : _oh58 setobjecttexture [1,""] and _oh58 setobjecttexture [68,""]

? _ammocnt == 0 : _oh58 setobjecttexture [3,""] and _oh58 setobjecttexture [70,""]

You can execute this with either the fired eventhandler and execute it every time a weapon's status changes, or as a looping script.

In a short rundown, the first four lines find out what type of missile it's talking about here, what to use for the texture on the missile type, and whether or not the weapon is equipped. If it isn't equipped, it skips all the lines that unhide the selections. If it has the weapon, it checks the ammunition the helicopter is carrying, and if the ammunition value changes (in this case, greater than 1, or equal to 1) it will make corresponding changes to 'hide' the weapon from the rails - giving the impression that the weapon has been fired.

Keep in mind however, this can add quite a few faces to your total face count. There's also a limit to the amount of selections you can have (128). But it can really affect how well your helicopter performs on the field when you can change from mission profiles on the fly.

If you need further explaination, let me know.

[MrZig 0]

Quote[/b] ]Keep in mind however, this can add quite a few faces to your total face count.

Faces with a selection that are under hiddenselections, and aren't setobjectextured, do not get rendered from OFP's engine, as far as I know. But you'd need a looping script to detect if you change your ammo and stuff.