cl10k

OK, it's your decision. Just one last picture to show you what i mean. Promise, that i stop bothering you with the topic from now on ;-) That picture is from http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=39&t=479896

I agree with sholio. You have a beautyful model there. But like you said, quality is more important than quantaty. That means for a gaming model that you have to use all possibilities to reduce polycount - that is a sign for quality! Try out his suggestions. For the same reasons you mentioned, my first models were all too high poly - untill i realized that you don't see many of those details ingame. Nomalmapping can be very convincing if it's done right! You should do some simple testing. Just build a pipe and look how many sides you need with smooting groups / normalmapping to make it look convincing - than adapt it to your model. Don't get me wrong - your model is really nice, but the real art of realtime-modeling is achieving a good look with the lowest polycount possible. No offence, but many modelers can have a beautyful model at the price of a high polycount - only good modelers make models that still look good with low polycount and that are suitable for the gameengine...

Hello everyone, i once tried modelling for opf but due to rl stuff i did not have the time to finish my first attempt. With ArmA being quite nice i want to give modelling a second try and got some very basic questions - i hope this is the right forum and i haven't overseen a topic already covering my questions, allthough even if using the search-function it is really hard to gather all the bits and pieces together.... now to my questions: 1. what is the avarage polycount for the different vehicles and their lod's? !ok explained! 2. how many lod's are used? !ok explained! 3. what different textures (spec, normal,...) are supported by the engine and what texturesizes are used? !ok explained! 4. is it possible the detect how a vehicle was destroyed, p.e. by mines, rockets or normal bullets? thx in advance cl10k PS: if there is already such a topic, a link would be very nice^^ @mods: if this is the wrong forum, please move it to an appropriate place ;-)

I think the plot needs some work to be more convencing, otherwise an excellent idea. There are some movies dealing with this idea and some games (p.e. Hearts of Iron2, Panzergeneral) that could provide a good start on the topic. Imo it should stay as realistic as a fictional timeline can be - there no need for Nazi UFO and that Zombie Wolfenstein stuff...

Wrong again. But this is leading nowhere...

Tomahawk... Where do you see a black uniform on your link? The belt is black but not the jacket - are you colourblind? Maybe you should increase brightness on your monitor... Those trousers are grey and the jacket is some shade of olive The fielduniform was "feldgrau" some kind of grey (sorry i don't know the correct names of the colours in english - i am not a native speaker - i am German...). http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Uniformen/UniformHeer.htm just klick on one of the soldiers and see it yourself lol Â

You are wrong! Type wehrmacht into google and show me one black uniform except tankcrews, etc. But why do i bother? Faulkner will handle that *giggles*...

I don't see any need to compare the polycount to bis motorcicle. Your bike is a very simple model - why waste polies?

Only one wireframe in perspective view? No polycount? Maybe those shaded views look more fancy, but nobody can judge the quality of your model by those screens. Please tell us what POLYCOUNT you have... Ok let's talk about some improvements (hope you get what i am saying - i'm not a native speaker). - the chain: Way too many polies! also it doesn't wrap nicely around the gears. I haven't worked with Max for many years, but try the following thing: Draw a spline witch fits exaxtly around the front and back gear. Then take a small rectangle and extrude it along that spline (google for it if you don't find the appropiate option in Max). That should give you a 4-sided chain which wraps nicely aorund both gears. Chains are not cylindrical like yours, there are more rectangle-shaped. You don't need more detail, the rest is done with normalmaps and textures. -all those cylinders of the frame: Also way too many sides. You don't need a 20 sided cylinder to achieve a convincing round look. Make them p.e. 10 or 12 sided. The Rest it done with smoothing-groups and normalmaps. Google abit about normalmaps - depending on the viewing angle they can fake convincing geometry! -the part were the small cylinder of the saddle is connected to the bigger one of the frame (puuuuh crude english....) You extruded the smaller cylinder from the bigger one. You could save some of those tiny faces there, if you simply stuck both cylinders together without actualy connecting them. 'Also delete all faces which can't be seen. P.e. if you stick to cylinders together, delete the top part of one of them... PS: I know a paintover would help, but my tablet isn't working on linux... --------------------------------- Some general ideas about saving polies: Always keep your polycount as low as possible! The lower you keep it, the more models can be shown on screen without lag. Google for "low polycount strategies" - there are some tricks p.e. at the top of cylinders were you can save polies. EVERY POLY COUNTS!

If you really want any hints in improving your model, you need to show wires! I really don't want to be too harsh, but the model is not very good.It looks to me like there are way too many polies. Also the overall shape of many parts could be drastically improved.So whats the polycount? PS: Don't stop! Everybody started like this. It's a good start to learn the basics on such a (simple) model. With some small tweaking, your bike will become very nice.

@whole mod: the visual quality of your stuff is beautiful! all of you are doing a great job! take your time - don't rush anything....

any news? when will it be ready? what about this what about that? o god maza94 how old are you? really born in 94? then behave like being 14 and not like 6! stop spamming! btw: @mod: any news? (just joking...)

@maza: if you don't have anything usefull to add (like 99,9% of your posts) just please shut up! @mod: GREAT! love your FT-17!! could you please show a wire?

Hi, I just wanted to say that i really love your work!! You've made excellent models and textures!!! ATM Project'85 is the only reason to come to the forums. I hope that you keep your top quality and really look forward towards a release! regarding nva and bundeswehr material: here in germany, there is a shop called RÄER selling old army stuff like suits, gear, etc. unfortunately the page is in german but with the help of online translation, maybe the link is of any use to you... http://www.raeer.com/

Hey plaintiff beautiful model! But what is that ""cannonshaped" thing in the back of the marder? I was in the Bundeswehr and never saw something like that...

thank you Pathy!!!! @Ike_fin: Island looks nice! we need more of that. ps: now a mod can slap me - i deserve it!

actually today solid became the smaller brother of catia (which doesn't mean that it's not as good - just limited in certain "non modelling" areas) the problem is that catia/solid uses nurbs-like surfaces, while game engines use polygon models. not every converter is capable of "translating" these nurbs-surfaces in good/efficient poly models. but i remember that somebody here in the forums said that max is quite good at converting...

thank you baddo for your words - i see you are as impressed by catia's features as i am! i wouldn't call myself an "app. fashists" but as i haven't tried all applications available i can only speak about the ones i've actually used. really no offend here neph, but i tried instancing and parametric modelling in maya but you simply can't compare it to the features a pro CAD application offers. I have to agree with baddo about constructing something new. A normal 3D app. is excellent for being creative or making organic shapes, but when it comes to industrial like, prezise design of p.e. planes, cars, etc... nothing can beat a pro app. like catia, which was made by dassault for the alpha-jet. I saw it running at Daimler, Audi, Porsche, and i know that especially the aviation industry use it - and there is a reason they do so... but back on topic: so as long as you have an effizient way of exporting your models into max/o2 or whatever there is nothing to say against modelling with solid, catia and other comparable programs. just a last thing: trying to (round-)bevel a complex shape in maya or modo was a real! nightmare and now try the same in a CAD app...

i was not refering to you neph. I know by now that you're a pro and know everything about any topic...

could all the people who never used a real cad program please shut up? i used maya for nearly ten years, but now after i have started using catia at university and work, i have to say that the modelling features of a real 3D CAD program (not autocad - it's good in different areas) are incredible!! I have to admit that i also had problems converting nurbs-like "step" models to real polygon models in maya. for me the solution was to convert some parts of my model directly into polygons and to use other parts (round bevels, etc...) as some kind of template for poly-modelling which works fine. i am not sure about 3max's abilities to convert such files, which seems to be far better than maya's. BUT IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE! besides the already mentioned problems there are also big benefits of a real 3d cad application. Please believe me - every modeler who once tried catia for technical modelling will refuse to go back to 3dmax/modo/maya/etc... stoneage modelling....

excellent modelling. really looking forward to the normal maps which prog do you use for modelling and the normal map?

GiJoe please not again. No one will finish modelling for you! Modelling is like a very personal handwriting - everyone does it a bit differently - it is really a pain to rework or continue a model somebody else made - unless it's made in a "professional" or "common" (sry missing the right english word here) way. How will you ever achieve a good result if you give up that easily. My first advice would be to skip working in o2 and to try a programm like wings3d (freeware). i know some people here fancy o2 but imo it's quite hard for a beginner to learn because the way you place your vertices and polys is a bit "oldfashioned" (no offence - please no fight argument about that topic). Wings is easy to learn and use and has an export to 3ds so you can easily import your model into o2 and there are tons of videotutorials for it (just google wings3d and video tutorial). It's not that hard to round up things. If you learned how to build your basic car then finish it and learn to improve your model. Texturing and Scripting is something completly different. But texturers are a rare species around here and you will need a good modell to motivate people to do the finishing.. no offence and just my 2 cents

Hey GiJoe, there is a free photoshop clone called "gimp". I understand that you don't want to texture a complex object like the sherman, but i think your fieldbed is the ideal thing to start with. if i remember it correct, it is your first selfmade addon so why don't you give it a try and texture it yourself. just google for some "texturing tutorials" and some textures like wood, metal, etc. and start... believe me, texturing is quite easy as long you have a simple "boxshaped" object like the fieldbed probably is...

by who? google found nothing....

@[AIF] Kris: what you say is bullsh!t. read churchills biography called "the second world war" and learn about your own history and the importance of american help for the british troops. cl10k