WIP: Stuff you are working on 2!

[p75 10]

Scubaman/Dasquade colaboration. Macmillan TAC50. Our turn to show some sniper gear :)

(WIP of course)

Fine rifle, still prefer the Cheytac, though :D

[DaSquade 0]

Max has a point on the 16 versus 18 segment cilinders. I also always use 4-8-16-32-64 segment cilinders and for the mentioned reason: most easy amount to reduce a model once unwrapped. USSRsniper, you say you make your reduced res. lods manually. What you mean by that? I mean, we (me) also reduce my models manually, most of the times simply be removing edges. Like Max says, by removing in each lod the uneven numbers of segment edges you keep ending up with an unaltered uv island. You also get imho the most non-visual lod switching by this as the geo doesn't really change. Anyway, each his own methode of working.

[USSRsniper 0]

Max has a point on the 16 versus 18 segment cilinders. I also always use 4-8-16-32-64 segment cilinders and for the mentioned reason: most easy amount to reduce a model once unwrapped. USSRsniper, you say you make your reduced res. lods manually. What you mean by that? I mean, we (me) also reduce my models manually, most of the times simply be removing edges. Like Max says, by removing in each lod the uneven numbers of segment edges you keep ending up with an unaltered uv island. You also get imho the most non-visual lod switching by this as the geo doesn't really change. Anyway, each his own methode of working.

But wouldn't 16 segments be too square? I remember modeling car and made wheels 16 segments and they looked really ugly :)

[scubaman3D 0]

If you think its too square, you could make the wheels 32 segments. Or make a high poly wheel (say 100 segments) and bake the normal map from your high to low. Let the materials do the work.

I, however, cheat sometimes and go to 24 segs. You get 24-12-6-3...which is fine, in most instances (maybe not for a wheel though).

[USSRsniper 0]

Ok, for example i made 16 segments in LOD 0.000 how much would I remove in LOD 1.000? Would I just remove one segment?

[Fortran 1]

Thanks Adumb and Commando84. IrishDeviant! good to see you here bro :)! You going to be moving the mod to A2 ? Or you just working on some single addons yourself ?

@Commando84: I am not quite sure yet, obviously as a jet the F-117A isn't that "useful" for the ARMA gameworld as it is only capable of carrying 2 bombs, so it's a matter of whether I am going to make it unrealisitic and give it armament that would be good in-game, or if I am going to go for a mirror of the real-life jet and try and define a new kind of bomber-only role for ARMA2.

Am playing with several ideas at the moment but was thinking of giving it 2 x GBU-27 Paveway III 2000lb bombs like these I have modelled:

..and making it impossible to laserlock the F-117A, so no ground targets could lock it (like in RealLife), but it would still be susceptible to air2air missiles and obviously cannon fire. The thing is the F-117A literally only carries 2 bombs, has no cannon and no AA missiles and the countermeasure system is still secret so I am unsure at this point. Once I get it in-game I will see what works best.

[scubaman3D 0]

Ok, for example i made 16 segments in LOD 0.000 how much would I remove in LOD 1.000? Would I just remove one segment?

If all you had in lod 0 was a 16 segment cylinder, you would remove 1/2 of the segments in lod 1.

On the other hand, if your model is made of many objects, remember that nobody said you have to reduce every object in the next lod...you just have to make sure your total face count is 1/2 of the previous one. You can let your wheels, for example, remain as 16 segment cylinders as long as the total count is 1/2. I approach lods as a bit more fluid thing than others might ...and maybe I don't have the best technique...just saying this is how I look at it.

[DaSquade 0]

USSRsniper: 16 segment square...

Yes, 16 segments can be squary....but all depends on the view distance. Meaning, i always try (sort of like Max says) to have a overall smoothness on the model...the bigger the object, the more segments it will have to compensate. So like have a 64 segment will with a 16 segment bolt for example.

For the view pilot lod it might be good to have a pretty smooth scope model (like on the TAC50 most are 32 segments witch explain the big tris-count).

As for the reduction: that is a bit of model depending (=detail level, personal style). We just want to say that it is a piece of cake to reduce an 64-32-16-8-4 type of segment cilinder then an other amount of segment cilinder. You can reduce that type of cilinders without the need of readjusting or unwrapping the reduced model untill the very last reduction (but by then it doesn't need supper correct uv cordinates anymore as you won't notice the shifts).

Like scuba says, normally you would reduce your cilinders in half (a 64 segment cilinder into 32 segments, by simply selecting the uneven edges and removing them..that way you keep your UV island/seams witch controles the uv piece structure). But practically it doesn't mean it needs to be done each lod. Like Scuba says, most models have other detailed objects witch can be reduced. Often you might want to keep the most biggest object overall geo intact/unmodifed so it doesn't trigger visual lod swithing effect. Meaning, if you alter an objects look (smoothing for example) that much it will become too visible witch makes you spot the difference too easy ingame. So you better reduce some other stuff in between like bolts (3d->2d for example).

I often go for reducing with visual aspect in mind, where theoraticly you would rather reduce on numbers and facts.

Like Scuba says, i also cheat by using a 24 segment or something as a 32 is too much and a 16 too low. In that case you will have to fix the uv, but that you want to avoid...unless it needs too. Also if the object needs like a 48 segment because it have other detail in it, who are we to say you need to do otherwise ;) .

As for LOD reduction, the 'official' rule is to have each lod 1/2 amount of faces (tris or poly beside the main question). But often i try to make an in between lod between the first and second lod. So if lod 1.00 has 10k faces, i make a lod1.5 of 7.5k faces before having a lod2 of 5k faces. Personally i sometimes find (at least in 02/bulldozer) reducing a that big amount of faces model has a big visual impack, but also it instantly doubles the amount of faces between lod switching without the 'in between lod'. Some said, it is useless though...somehow i think it would mean smoother lod switching and performence hits (?).

PS: The TAC50 was actually a model not meant for ArmA (1 or 2) but a demo weapon where they didn't want to use normal maps or spec maps. Maybe i should check the model and adjust where needed since now it will have normal/spec maps.

[USSRsniper 0]

I don't know why you all talking about UV's? In 3d max I can remove edges and move them from and UV map is not messed up. :) Thx to "Preserve UVs"

[DaSquade 0]

Ah ic. I use modo, it doesn't have that feature afaik :(.

So if you move an edge around in 3D model it will adjust the uv coordinates according to model? Nice...

Still i prefure to work in modo. Somehow the layout and working in max feels...i don't know.

Well in modo removing edges (as long as it aren't uv island defining edge) is no problem, but it won't update changes in the 3d model or if you mess with the island edges. Joining vertexes of different uv island also mess up the uv in modo sadly.

[max power 21]

Squareness depends on the edge density at the cap. For small cylinders, especially those where you don't see the cap on an oblique angle, 18 is certainly not required. The smallest number of sides you can have and still have a 3d cylinder is 3, so it may be advantageous to go 3*2^n sides. So, 3, 6, 12, 24 ... etc. You lose a lot of volume reducing to a 3 sided object, though, and a lot more perceived volume dictated by how a 3 sided 3d cylinder will shade. It's sort of difficult to justify a 3 sided cylinder opposed to a 4 sided cylinder or a 2 sided poly plane, especially in the higher LODs.

Regarding 'preserve uvs', last I used it it was not perfect. Furthermore, once you have halved your 18 sided cylinders to 9 sides, what are you going to do after that? Jimmy the edges around with preserve UVs on until you have a 5 or 4 sided cylinder?

Edited July 16, 2009 by Max Power

[Gedis 0]

@Fortran,

focus on real life version of F-117A first, you could add fictional loadout to F-117A later...

Remember, realism matters here and it's the top priority for most of us.

BTW, your model looks nice ;)

[scubaman3D 0]

So, 3, 6, 12, 24 ... etc. You lose a lot of volume reducing to a 3 sided object, though, and a lot more perceived volume dictated by how a 3 sided 3d cylinder will shade. It's sort of difficult to justify a 3 sided cylinder opposed to a 4 sided cylinder or a 2 sided poly plane, especially in the higher LODs.

Right - so for the last lod, I would probably go 4 sided instead of 3 - but then you have to uv the object. Its a bit more work, I guess.

[IrishDeviant 10]

wicked stealth fighter fortran! :D

can't wait to try it out someday :)

What load outs you are gonna have?

Lgb's and mavericks or stingers and lgb's ect?

will it have a cannon?

Commando84, the F-117A Knighthawk, though called the Stealth Fighter, isn't actually a fighter jet. And, other than typically carrying a couple Sidewinders for defense, it is strictly an attack aircraft. And, doesn't even have a cannon. So, it's fairly useless in a dogfight. And, not that agile either. Horrible wing stall angle, and just a few degrees past that the engines stall due to the way the intakes are designed. In general, the F-117A has one of the worst aerodynamic designs, without it's computer, it would fall out of the sky like a rock. It's only real purpose is to get behind enemy lines unseen, drop its bombs, and get the hell out of there.

Fortran, here is the standard armament for the Knighthawk:

Two each of: (all internal, max payload: 2)

2 MK84 2000-pound

2 GBU-10 Paveway II

2 GBU-12 Paveway II

2 GBU-27 Paveway III

2 BLU 109

2 WCMD

2 Mark 61

The F-117A actually started out life as the Hopeless Diamond, then transformed into the XST Prototype, and the Have Blue Test Models... The wreckage of two of the Have Blue test models is buried somewhere in the desert around Groom Lake.

Some CG Renders of Have Blue (from wiki):

Here is a good article on the Have Blue program: (also check out wiki)

http://www.f-117a.com/XST.html

Also, this is a good reference site for just about all aircraft:

(if you type the name of an aircraft followed by globalaircraft into google, the first link will usually take you to the aircraft's Global page)

http://www.globalaircraft.org/

Edited July 16, 2009 by IrishDeviant

[USSRsniper 0]

Right - so for the last lod, I would probably go 4 sided instead of 3 - but then you have to uv the object. Its a bit more work, I guess.

On BIS models for example M-107 last LOD is just a flat plane :D

[IrishDeviant 10]

Also, I was curious if there was anyway to make aircraft more or less visible to radar inside of Arma II? For example, making a transport plane easier to see than a fighter, and almost invisible for stealth aircraft. (I have a B-2 Spirit that I'm working on as well)

I'd be happy if we could just change the value for the distance at which an aircraft can be seen. Therefore, a stealth aircraft (or a degree thereof), wouldn't show up on radar until your right on top of it.

Any thoughts?

[scubaman3D 0]

On BIS models for example M-107 last LOD is just a flat plane :D

No its not. I just checked it - the flat plain "billboard" method in lods was from OFP. Yes, there are some flat parts of the M107 model but those are not cylinders.

[Fortran 1]

Thanks for the links/info Irish, appreciate it mate :).

Started working on the textures for the GBU-27. Still WIP.

[sgt_flyer 0]

Also, I was curious if there was anyway to make aircraft more or less visible to radar inside of Arma II? For example, making a transport plane easier to see than a fighter, and almost invisible for stealth aircraft. (I have a B-2 Spirit that I'm working on as well)

I'd be happy if we could just change the value for the distance at which an aircraft can be seen. Therefore, a stealth aircraft (or a degree thereof), wouldn't show up on radar until your right on top of it.

Any thoughts?

it has been done before in previous games - i remember dkm's comanche which didn't show up as a radar target until it opened it's missiles bay's :)

[IrishDeviant 10]

sgt flyer, Thanks for the intel. After I finish the Raptor, I'll dig around and see if I can find a way to edit the aircraft scripts to null the radar return.

Should have some renders of my progress on the Raptor sometime tonight. Ran into a bit of a snag as the 3-view blueprints I'm using aren't 100% accurate. I've found a few areas that need some tweaking. Anyway, I want to at least get the bulk of the model fleshed out before posting renders.

[USSRsniper 0]

Thanks for the links/info Irish, appreciate it mate :).

Started working on the textures for the GBU-27. Still WIP.

What is the resolution of your texture? Because from the looks of it, it's a bit too high for a bomb model :)

Edited July 17, 2009 by USSRsniper

[Fortran 1]

Currently 1024x1024 but that can be knocked down to 512x512 if necessary. Can always go down..just never up lol :p

[IrishDeviant 10]

@Fortran,

focus on real life version of F-117A first, you could add fictional loadout to F-117A later...

Remember, realism matters here and it's the top priority for most of us.

BTW, your model looks nice ;)

While modeling my F-22 Raptor, and in regard to the above comment about Fortran's F-117A Knighthawk, I've been thinking about how these aircraft will be incorporated and used inside of Arma II. First off, the F-117A is a surgical strike aircraft. It's use is truly limited to predetermined strikes. For ex, when you know right where the target is, and need to get to it quietly and unseen. As for the Raptor, it carries a larger payload than the F-117, and has a comparable radar cross-section, therefore, is able to perform many of the same jobs, but carries enough armament to attack multiple targets as well as being able to defend itself against other aircraft (and attack aircraft with impunity if needed).

With the introduction of the F-22 Raptor, the Knighthawk became obsolete. Which is why it was decommissioned. Although, the primary role of the F-22 is Air Superiority, it is extremely capable in strike scenarios. What it really comes down to in Arma II, is "will these aircraft have stratigic value?" Well, yes. The idea of Arma II is that it is a battlefield simulator. However, the world of Arma II is not a carbon copy of the real world. Unless each and every tool used by both the US and Russian forces were to be replicated, then Arma II is still a "gameworld". Which means different rules apply. You have to judge the value of each asset based on what it will provide the "gameworld".

In Arma II, the F-117A will have a very important role of being able to take out hard targets such as capture points, bunkers, factories, etc., then RTB to rearm and refuel. This makes for an exiting pilot job of take-off, destroy target, and land. All three while flying one of the coolest aircraft ever built.

The Raptor is capable of the same missions, but has the flexibility of staying airborne longer due to it's increased payload (no point in the F-117 staying airborne if it isn't carrying weapons), and is capable of achieving it's real-life role of Air Superiority. This makes for a "dominant role" that is sure to give the pilot a "God complex", which is always welcome in FPS/RPG/RTS games.

Also, keep in mind that on the Arma II battlefield, you don't have tens of thousands of enlisted men to push around. With a limited number of men, the Commander must choose which assets he implements to get the job done. There will likely be warfare scenarios where neither of these birds make it off the ground. While others, these two will dominate the field.

With this in mind, I would like to ask the Addon Community to begin work on OpFor aircraft to compete against these USAF titans. Otherwise, the battlefield with become largely uneven. Especially when I complete my B-2B Spirit of Saint Louis. (can we say carpet bombing?)

For ex:

Su-37/47? Berkut:

http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/s-37_berkut.pl

Mig-29:

http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/mig-29_fulcrum.pl

Tu-95 Bear:

http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/tu-95_bear.pl

Tu-160 Blackjack:

http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/tu-160_blackjack.pl

Edited July 17, 2009 by IrishDeviant

[max power 21]

This is the very last thread where it is acceptable to make addon requests, in my opinion. There is a thread dedicated to that purpose, please use it. This is a thread where we can serious discussions about art without it turning into a plebian addon begging festival. I want at all costs to keep it that way. Addon requests seem to enter into almost every addon thread, whether they are welcome by the authors or not. Please keep them away from here.

[IrishDeviant 10]

Well, it's about time to report some progress on my F-22 Raptor. It is still very much a work in progress, but I thought I would share what I have so far: :868:

By tomorrow I hope to be ready to start working on the cockpit. And, Saturday or Sunday I'll unwrap and begin working on the textures. Also, anyone who has some knowledge on setting up animations, naming of objects, exporting, etc., please PM me if you'd be willing to help out in getting this bird in Arma II. Even if it's just letting me bug you with a few questions during the process. Again, I'm a total Arma noob, so any help would be great.

---------- Post added at 12:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:45 AM ----------

This is the very last thread where it is acceptable to make addon requests, in my opinion. There is a thread dedicated to that purpose, please use it. This is a thread where we can serious discussions about art without it turning into a plebian (SP) addon begging festival. I want at all costs to keep it that way. Addon requests seem to enter into almost every addon thread, whether they are welcome by the authors or not. Please keep them away from here.

Max Power, I wasn't wishing to turn this into a "plebeian" of addon begging. I only brought up the OpFor aircraft because we were discussing the implementation of Fortran's F-117 and my F-22 into ArmaII, and I happened to think that 2 very capable stealth/strike/fighter aircraft would make the BlueFor a "bit" on the dominate side. However, if it would suit the admins, feel free to cut and paste the later half of my comment to another thread.

I apologize if I was out of line, but I did, and still do think it was relevant to the topic. And, I will likely be modeling the Tu-95 Bear myself, so you can drop that one from your "begging" complaint list.

Edited July 18, 2009 by IrishDeviant