WIP: Stuff you are working on 2!

[sneakymcfox 10]

Sorry about not getting back to you sooner but i was learning to texture in oxygen and write configs :)

antways back on topic i have some pics of the model from a few days ago (before i started on textures) in engine. i hope you like them.

also ,before i forget, i have still got to lower the weapon and move hands

http://i569.photobucket.com/albums/ss134/sneakymcfox/arma22009-07-2000-06-41-51.png

http://i569.photobucket.com/albums/ss134/sneakymcfox/arma22009-07-2000-06-45-68.png

http://i569.photobucket.com/albums/ss134/sneakymcfox/arma22009-07-2000-07-25-02.png

may or may not release it just using it to learn really

---------- Post added at 00:40 ---------- Previous post was at 00:39 ----------

oops forgot to shrink them :( ill just remove image tags

Edited July 19, 2009 by sneakymcfox

[USSRsniper 0]

if so how come other directx 9 games i make mods for handle half a million poly models no problem

It's a DX limit in ArmA. The developers of the game decided what the limit should be.

[max power 21]

@USSR sniper. Anywhere you have painted wear, it is illogical and too strong. I was commenting on anywhere you painted wear. ;)

I suggest you look at some reference. There's a pretty great wear tut somewhere on the internet but it seems like it would be applicable only for stuff with lots of paint on it. To be honest, I would just look at some photos and experiment.

Perhaps afterwards, when you are a master at painting wear and polish on anodized aluminum and painted steel, you could write a tut for the rest of us.

[IrishDeviant 10]

I hate making LODs..... finished with 6 LODS in 3 days :eek: Now the fun part begins, texturing

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/6274/arma22009071912424066.png

Also is there a way in O2 to scale all LODs at once? Or you really have to scale each LOD individually...

Sniper, if you want, take your base LoD of the model you're working on and export it as an obj., send it to me and I'll crunch it down for you. (not tonight, I've got too much to do this evening, but could do it tomorrow.) Max 2010 has Pro Optimize that is able to reduce polys without sacrificing much quality. And, it doesn't effect the UV's. In fact, I can even type in the number of verts that I want the mesh to have, and it will actually figure out how to use that number of verts to best keep the shape of the model.

Originally Posted by USSRsniper

EDIT: in the end, the shadow bug on the lens isn't a problem as the glass still needs a material (reflection and remove shadows).

USSRsniper: Check the scale/move/rotate pop-up box. There is an option "apply to all lods".

DaSquade, this isn't what I thought you were talking about. I didn't realize that there was a "shadow mesh". This is actually kind of a dumb way to do shadows, there are much more efficient routes that could have been taken by Bohemia. But, this is what we have I suppose. Anyway, as I haven't yet gotten into that aspect of the engine yet, I really don't know what the problem would be.

Originally Posted by Max Power

LOD-0 is the first external LOD. The LOD we are talking about is called the pilot LOD.

Proxy objects must be created in O2.

I am as positive about the 32k limit as I can be without actually meeting that limit. Adumb is a very reliable source of information.

The collision mesh is what they call the Geo LOD which also houses information for the weight and centre of gravity of the vehicle. Then there is the fire geo LOD, some shadow LODs, etc. The shadow geo LODs must be very simple and all tris. It should not be so tough to do a proper shadow LOD for the raptor since it is not a very complex shape. You just have to make sure the shadow LOD doesn't penetrate the skin of the aircraft or the cockpit, or else you get weird, geometric pools of shadow.

Max Power, thanks for the info. The geo LoD is actually a lot like what PhysX requires. Anyway, this is actually somewhat of an outdated way of making models for a game. But, I didn't design the game engine (not that I could). But, it makes sense. As far as proxies, I'm going to have to download O2 and take a look. But, I'm pretty sure that it should recognize dummy objects from Max for placement at least. If not, no big deal. Thanks again.

Originally Posted by DaSquade View Post

About the maximum limite of 'faces'....

Shoot me, but isn't it more the amount of used points/vertexes in actual faces. Like a model of lets say 20k tris with all soft edges will have 24k vertexes. If you have modifed the edges into hard edges the vertex count will raise due to the face it will unattach the hard edge and (in O2) invisible add them for the other hard edge. So you will end with 28k vertexes.

Fact is, there is a limite for something. Anything behind that isn't supposed to be supported (afaik the engine hasn't been updated in that part and imho i think it is a fair limite...at least for weapons

DaSquade, something to keep in mind while modeling is the Tri/Vert ratio. This is a factor in the performance of the model. You are absolutely right when you say that the verts have a big impact. These are what the CPU is processing. (as well as the GPU, but for a different reason) What you need to try to do is use each vert for as many tris as possible. After your model is done, convert it to tris, and start target welding the verts you can. It's not a huge deal, but worth paying attention to. For ex, my F-22 currently has 18,482 tris and 9,389 verts:

I just got home a while a go, but I'm back to work on the Raptor. I've got Top Gear, Entourage, and True Blood to watch tonight, so I'm probably only going to finish the gear this evening. I was hoping to have it unwrapped today, but will have to work on that tomorrow.

--Disclaimer-- As I am new to using this engine, if anything mentioned above is incorrect, let me know. However, I'm fairly sure all points mentioned are somewhat universal.

Edited July 20, 2009 by IrishDeviant

[st3rv 10]

To my knowledge the eurofighter has the 4th lowest sized radar signature of all current aircraft purely based on its ergonomics.

Irishdeviant, that jets looking brill mate. You got an estimated release date on it?

also I have a question for you irishdeviant! What software you using to draw that thing?

[IrishDeviant 10]

I use 3DS Max 2010 to model, and Maya 2009 to unwrap. Release date... Um, just took a look at the Arma tools... and well, um, the release date is when I either learn how to use the tools, and/or when RKSL-Rock posts his tutorial for making jets in Arma II. Modeling should be done tonight, textures in a few days. But, actually getting it into Arma II looks like it might take a bit before I understand enough about the process to have a fully functional and community-release ready model.

However, if anyone who is efficient with the Arma tools wants to work with me to get in-game, I'd be happy to share credit on the model. But, just the tutorials will help a lot. (this engine reminds me of the BF2 asset pipeline... and that scares me.:(

Oh, and as far as stealth goes... The purest form of stealth can be found on the F-117A. The idea is simple, make sure that no face (or curve) is facing the direction of the radar. So, the challenge is to determine the likely trajectory of enemy radar, and see to it that there are no faces of the aircraft pointing that direction. But, it isn't fool proof, and no aircraft is invisible from every angle. Which is why the F-117A got shot down. The mission commander had that F-117A flying the same route multiple times, the enemy took advantage of this and position themselves directly under the flight path. Then, with a jerry-rigged, shoulder mounted AA missile, he got a great view of the non-stealthy belly of the aircraft, and pulled the trigger. Stealth isn't hard to accomplish from a select group of viewpoints, the tough part is making it stealth from a wide angle of viewpoints. Which is what the Raptor and JSF do. But, that doesn't make them invisible. The Eurofighter does have a very low cross-section, but that cross section isn't the whole picture when it comes to stealth. ...But, it is still a very good aircraft. (and looks good too)

Edited July 20, 2009 by IrishDeviant

[rstratton 0]

i can set it up and put it in game if u want

[IrishDeviant 10]

rstratton, Thank you! The help would be very appreciated. I sent you a PM, also I took a look at your model. Nice work on the weapon bays. ;) The cockpit looks nice too. Anyway, the help would be great. I still want to learn to do it on my own, for my first Arma II model, it'd be nice to have someone who actually knows what the hell their doing with this toolset. lol

Anyway, I'll be done with the model sometime this week.

Thanks again.

[MehMan 0]

if so how come other directx 9 games i make mods for handle half a million poly models no problem

HAHAHAHAHAHA

good one.

@IrishDeviant: can you post a screenshot of the pro optimize modifier in action, I wanna see what it does with a model starting from 18k, with 50% steps down to 2k. Just the basic settings, just to see what it makes of the model.

Also, while the methods used to create shadow and geolods aren't the most modeller friendly, they are engine friendly. You can control the level of optimization and the load the engine has to go through when you add the shadow LOD, not the engine itself. It's optimization up the ass here and every aspect of every model needs to be fully optimized so that you don't get a shitstorm ingame. Most other engines allow you to just plop the model ingame and it'll calculate all the shadows and geometry on it's own, which can result in strange things. So it's far from dumb.

@Adumb:

I could unwrap a whole machine gun in the top half of your UV map.

Edited July 20, 2009 by MehMan

[dm 9]

Oh, and as far as stealth goes... The purest form of stealth can be found on the F-117A. ...

...Stealth isn't hard to accomplish from a select group of viewpoints, the tough part is making it stealth from a wide angle of viewpoints. Which is what the Raptor and JSF do. But, that doesn't make them invisible.

Without going too offtopic, I suggest you read: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=71980 and http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=69677

There is a lot of information (especialy posts by Rock) in amongst the crap (posts by saint warrior) in those threads, and it puts into light some of the misconceptions about stealth.

Edited July 20, 2009 by DM

[IrishDeviant 10]

HAHAHAHAHAHA

good one.

@IrishDeviant: can you post a screenshot of the pro optimize modifier in action, I wanna see what it does with a model starting from 18k, with 50% steps down to 2k. Just the basic settings, just to see what it makes of the model.

Also, while the methods used to create shadow and geolods aren't the most modeller friendly, they are engine friendly. You can control the level of optimization and the load the engine has to go through when you add the shadow LOD, not the engine itself. It's optimization up the ass here and every aspect of every model needs to be fully optimized so that you don't get a shitstorm ingame. Most other engines allow you to just plop the model ingame and it'll calculate all the shadows and geometry on it's own, which can result in strange things. So it's far from dumb.

@Adumb:

I could unwrap a whole machine gun in the top half of your UV map.

Ok, first, ADUMB, there is a lot of wasted real estate in your unwrap. A proper unwrap utilizes 95% or more of the pixels on the texture map.

DM, thanks for the link to the thread, but seriously, I don't feel like wasting my time going in and trying to explain to them just how wrong most of them are on their facts. Although, Rock is usually correct in is comments.

MehMan, I'm getting ready for work at the moment, so I'll have to make this brief. The lods created for the screencaps I just took were literally made in about 3 minutes. When I get ready to make the lods for real, I'll spend more time on them. Realistically, it takes about 45 minutes to an hour. And, by "real", I mean after I've actually finished modeling, the model is unwrapped (Pro Optimizer retains UV's), and model is ready for export. LoDs are really the last thing I do when modeling.

Also, keep in mind, that when done for real, things like the intakes will be capped off for the lower lod levels. And, cockpit will be deleted entirely. The lod level texture will have the glass of the cockpit grayed out, and the weapon bays will be filled in. All of that is done using the Edit Poly modifier, with preserve UV's turned on.

And, this tool can't be used for things like PilotLoD, GeoLoD, FireLoD, etc. It's just for the visual LoD mesh.

Anyway, in the screen caps, there is a solid and wire overlay version of each LoD. Again, I did this (including Photoshop work) in about 10 minutes. So, don't expect miracles here.

There really isn't a LoD 4, unless I need it. I just found a part of the jet that hadn't been optimized yet, so I squeezed a bit more out.

Below is a screencap of the Pro Optimizer rollout. Fairly simply to use. Select object, add modifier from list, click Calculate, enter % of verts to remain, done.

As far as the reason for all the LoDs and optimization efforts by Bohemia, I guess it makes sense. Considering the size of terrain, I'm sure they had squeeze performance from anywhere they could. But, that doesn't mean I like working with an asset pipeline that feels more like it's year 2003 than anything I've used recently. But, I get your point.

Now, I'm going to be late if I don't get moving. I'll post some progress on the landing gear later today.

Edited July 20, 2009 by IrishDeviant

[MehMan 0]

Hmm, does a pretty damn good job! This could make my arma2 modding life easier if I ever return to mod it.

[USSRsniper 0]

Hmm, does a pretty damn good job! This could make my arma2 modding life easier if I ever return to mod it.

Not really, ProOptimizer doesn't really always work, sometimes you still have to do LODs manually.

[adumb 0]

@Adumb:

I could unwrap a whole machine gun in the top half of your UV map.

None of the interior has been mapped yet, all you see is the exterior.

Ok, first, ADUMB, there is a lot of wasted real estate in your unwrap. A proper unwrap utilizes 95% or more of the pixels on the texture map.

Cool story bro.

Not really, ProOptimizer doesn't really always work, sometimes you still have to do LODs manually.

Any automated model optimizer is a joke and a waste of time.

Edited July 20, 2009 by Adumb

[p75 10]

Not really, ProOptimizer doesn't really always work, sometimes you still have to do LODs manually.

Hey mate,

any ETA on your Cheytac?

Grtz

[MehMan 0]

None of the interior has been mapped yet, all you see is the exterior.

No no no, what I said was, you suck and I rule.

[bogdanm 0]

No no no, what I said was, you suck and I rule.

You forgot to post the part where you'll gladly help him out, since he sucks and you rule. :P

[max power 21]

Anyway, in the screen caps, there is a solid and wire overlay version of each LoD. Again, I did this (including Photoshop work) in about 10 minutes. So, don't expect miracles here.

[imghttp://www.nawtek.com/IrishDeviant/ProjectRenders/lod_0.jpg[/img]

[imghttp://www.nawtek.com/IrishDeviant/ProjectRenders/lod_1.jpg[/img]

[imghttp://www.nawtek.com/IrishDeviant/ProjectRenders/lod_2.jpg[/img]

There really isn't a LoD 4, unless I need it. I just found a part of the jet that hadn't been optimized yet, so I squeezed a bit more out.

[imghttp://www.nawtek.com/IrishDeviant/ProjectRenders/lod_3.jpg[/img]

Below is a screencap of the Pro Optimizer rollout. Fairly simply to use. Select object, add modifier from list, click Calculate, enter % of verts to remain, done.

As far as the reason for all the LoDs and optimization efforts by Bohemia, I guess it makes sense. Considering the size of terrain, I'm sure they had squeeze performance from anywhere they could. But, that doesn't mean I like working with an asset pipeline that feels more like it's year 2003 than anything I've used recently. But, I get your point.

Surely you can see that since there is very little change to the appearance of your mesh between LODs that using 2 iterations of meshsmooth on your model is doing very little but inflating your polycount. There is literally no change in silhouette and very little change in shading from 18,000 tris to 8,000 tris. I understand that it is a fairly time efficient way to model but seriously, the model is quite bloated. With a normal map provided by the higher poly model there would be no difference at all.

Edited July 20, 2009 by Max Power

[MehMan 0]

None of the interior has been mapped yet, all you see is the exterior.

Hmm, the only thing I'd suggest is that you try a bit of stretching with the front bumper and unwrap the top not as a curve, but as a straight line. If you know what I mean. Also, have you tried doing the front wings with a pelt map? I've found it can do some jobs pretty well, others...not so well. Also I guess the bottom is unwrapped, maybe a bit too much of the UV map is dedicated to it? IMO that is.

[OChristie 0]

Baucau Airport, East Timor - WIP Shots

High Quality (1680x1050)

High Quality (1680x1050)

[IrishDeviant 10]

Surely you can see that since there is very little change to the appearance of your mesh between LODs that using 2 iterations of meshsmooth on your model is doing very little but inflating your polycount. There is literally no change in silhouette and very little change in shading from 18,000 tris to 8,000 tris. I understand that it is a fairly time efficient way to model but seriously, the model is quite bloated. With a normal map provided by the higher poly model there would be no difference at all.

Max Power, I agree, I noticed that as well. But, I was running late for work this morning, and didn't feel like messing around with it. Nevertheless, because I'm still modeling the aircraft, I'm not at all concerned about optimization. That's something that I do when the model is finished. Anyway, I know they look the same in the screencaps, but their not. However, after see how well some of the mesh was able to be reduced, I don't see why LoD-0 would need to be any higher than 15k-17k polys. Which I don't think anyone can argue with. Considering that's the poly count of models from Arma 1, which is pathetic. Update your hardware peoples.

Edited July 20, 2009 by IrishDeviant

[max power 21]

I don't know if ArmA 2 can be maxed out with the best hardware on the market. It's an intensive game, and considerations must be payed to that fact in my opinion.

[IrishDeviant 10]

I'm able to max out the settings with my system, but when I get into the cities, I've got to lower my view distance to around 2000-3000m. Even then, I'm still only getting about 15fps. Again, all the LoDs probably do help frame count, but in the cities it becomes counter-productive because of the large amount of verts that have to be managed. However, I really think there probably wasn't any other way to make this game. At least with current technology. The terrain system is 3 times larger than gameworlds in Crysis. Although, the biggest problem with terrains this large is accuracy. And, with the 1cm they managed to achieve, I'm perfectly content dealing with the frame drop in the cities. (would still like some more optimization on the engine though, and that isn't going to come from poly count on the models) --edit-- ... Also, does anyone know if there is even an occluder proxy to block geometry behind buildings and other objects. Cause I haven't seen anything about them, and the lack of occlusion would defiantly explain the frame rate in the cities.

Edited July 21, 2009 by IrishDeviant

[max power 21]

Nvm ot.

Edited July 21, 2009 by Max Power

[MehMan 0]

Also, does anyone know if there is even an occluder proxy to block geometry behind buildings and other objects. Cause I haven't seen anything about them, and the lack of occlusion would defiantly explain the frame rate in the cities.

Yes, there is occlusion ingame, it would be even worse without. You can sometimes spot because the shadows occlude too. So you step into the shadow of a building, turn your back to it and the shadow is gone. Rare, but sometimes happens. Sometimes the occlusion kicks in when you're facing the building but only for 0.5°.