Jump to content

[evo] dan

Member
  • Content Count

    1503
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Posts posted by [evo] dan


  1. 40 minutes ago, oldbear said:

    In fact there are many GT 640 versions, mostly sold with OEM built PCs for office job and/or multimedia.

    But overall this GPU is not for gaming, powered only by the PCIe slot it don't need extra PCI electric connector.

    So you must first have a look at your PSU, if it is in the 300/350 W, you already know you must get a new GPU without extra power supply.

    Such as some RX 460 and GTX 750/1050 and some of the  GTX 1050 Ti.

    You must have look on the specs ...

     

     

     

    Yes. I had a look at the 1050ti (that's what I've linked). I'll probably get my pc apart the weekend. If needs be i'll buy a bigger power supply (a 450 or 500w) as it ain't that much and see if I can get to a 1060 or something.


  2. Hi guys,

     

    I'm wondering if its worth upgrading my graphics card to get some extra frames (or at least keep same frames but much better looking).

     

    I've got a i7-3770 CPU @3.4 GHz processor, 8GB of ram and a GT640 graphics card, with WIn10.

     

    Heres the 640 specs (I have the one on the left):

     

    http://www.geforce.co.uk/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gt640/specifications

     

    And i'm thinking of getting the GTX1050 Ti as it has a similar power requirement to my current card and would save me buying a new one. I can probably stick more RAM in too if that might help (I think another 8GB will fit).

     

    http://www.geforce.co.uk/hardware/10series/geforce-gtx-1050/

     

     


  3. Yeah. Keep collision meshes (geo) as simple as you can. Fire geos can be a little more specific. But don't waste your time making them conform to the res lods. Simple closed shapes are best. The way they look is irrelevant, as you'll never see them. Simpler shapes give an engine less to keep track of.

     

    If you look at Bnae's video on the last page you can see he's using Cycles as opposed to Blender internal. At a base level the output would be pretty much the same. Although Cycles tends to be slightly more accurate. But to be honest, not in a massive way. Not in relation to baking at least. But the one advantage it does have is the ability to use a cage to control the rays. It's not as good as xnormal. Few applications are, seeing as that's what it was specifically designed for. But nonetheless it does work, and depending on the model it can produce comparable results.

    I've been sticking to that video for baking now. I'll have a bit more of a push depending on how the work pans out work wise.


  4. The high detail version of your models don't need any materials or uv assignments. All you really want from them are the normals. The low detail version is the one you bake all the information to. So it will require materials/uvs.

     

    Unless you actually want those sharp edges then you should make sure both models are set to smooth shading. The low poly should follow the contours of the high as closely as possible. For the caps I'm not seeing any faces. So I'll assume they're ngons. Although there's nothing wrong with ngons, there's certain situations where they don't work as well as you'd expect. Especially for game models. I'd break those caps down into tris for the low poly.

    Are tri's ok then? I've been trying to get them into quads as that's what the book i'm using suggested.


  5. I'm hoping this might give BIS a bit of a kick in the bum with regards getting stuff in order when enfusion comes out.

     

    Don't know what it's like to mod though. Are the object types (collada and fbx) generally easier to work with does anybody know? As in to get them game ready?

     

    Would also be nice to see what the water simulation is like for bigger ships and how stuff interacts with it physics wise.

    • Like 2

  6. :Snip: vid

     

    That will explain most of it. It's all optional, it's not too harmfull to create some details to the model, but eventually you (also me) need to learn to bake most to Normal maps. What i do, i make the HP mesh and in the end if the polycount is too high, i'll start either removing details or baking the details to normal map.

    Thanks for that video! The guy makes it seem really easy to do which is nice. I've got a Blender book (I think its Blender by Example by some French guy) at home but haven't managed to get as far as the baking section. I'll assume these normals need no converting for use in Arma or do they need to be brought into .paa format?

     

    I'm away from my home PC all week (with work, as usual) but i'm having a go on my laptop. I've got it working on a cube so i'll probably try and have a bit more of a go throughout the week and see what I end up with come the weekend when I'm back at home on my own PC. Then maybe I can have a go at trying to make some textures for the things!


  7. That is one high quality barrel you're making. I suggest you remove all the excess vertices from the plat surfacess. Also you could use normal map for some of the shapes, mainly for the rounded parts > HP to LP.

    Unwrapping looks like it should although the top and bottom part are bigger than the actual cylinder of the barrel. So the side will be a little bit lower quality than else.

    You can delete and add verts to existing surfaces even after unwrapping.

     

    Something like 1k verts should be closer to reality in basic game models. For comparison weapons should be <20k verts

     

    Didn't read the whole topic so pardon if i'm repeating someone.

    So, just to get this into my head. I should use the existing hp model and bake it onto a plain cylinder (maybe use a higher poly version of my geo lod?) and that will save all the polys or should I just reduce the number of polys in the model by reducing the number of sides?


  8. I know its been a while since i've posted on this thread, but i'm looking for some opinions on my work so far within Blender before I go and start trying ot texture my model.

     

    http://imgur.com/a/CFjH0

     

    Its mainly based around the geometry and the UV unwrap i'm looking for opinions of. I've only done work on LOD0 and LOD1 so far. I'll probably add the Geo and Fire LOD's at a later date during the week.

    • Like 2

  9. Thanks. So I can replicate your method, do you know offhand what chopper and units you used? I tried the RHS CH-47 and two MARSOC units (with default gear) in the back/cargo area. Sitting in the seats, basically. This was me and my AI teammate. The front section had the default pilots aboard.

    Oh, so I did so all this with the chopper on the ground, which I then placed the infantry paradrop waypoint (attached to the chopper). When the chopper takes off and goes to the waypoint area, I do notice it never really gets high enough for me to feel like it would even make sense to parachute down. Perhaps I need to start the chopper in the air for it to work maybe? Or maybe I need to tell it an elevation? I don't see any way to give it an elevation if that's the trick.

    Waypoints usually have an elevation somewhere you can set (Z value). Either that or try flyinheight command (in the heli's init as i recall) and set a reasonably high altitude.

    • Like 1

  10. BAF DLC confirmed? :)

    ?

     

    Anyway, I have been setting up small convoy's with CUP units, sometimes if you place them a little fair away from each other (30m ish between vehicles) they can take some time to catch up. But once they catch up they work well except they show some weird behaviour when going across intersections of roads where they swerve to go around instead of continuing in a straight line like they should.


  11. Everyone seems convinced orange DLC is what THEY want in the game. Darksideofficial, and haleks want naval assets, so they construct some logic that proves orange == naval.  All the Dutch users are convinced it's their faction but only because that's what they want.

    Its actually a commie faction because you know orange is the new red :D


  12. Has anyone seen the latest RHS post? They've apparently fixed tracked vehicles in water again. Maybe this means we may get an amphibious tank or 2?

     

    I'm thinking along the lines of the upgraded PT85 that the PLAN uses (I can't remember the designation though)(type 63?) for CSAT.

     

    I'm hoping for the Stingray 2 though for an "independent" side tank.

    • Like 2
×