Hard Light Productions Forums
Community Projects => The FreeSpace Upgrade Project => Topic started by: Lc4Hunter on December 12, 2013, 06:05:57 am
-
Hello together.
This im my first post here and i want to start with a ship i missed so long here, with the best regards of Aken Bosch: The NTF Iceni :D
I started the mesh a long time ago and already finished it, based on the current MediaVP-Model.
Because im working on a X-Rebirth Mod where i rebuild every ship again with a much higher polycount i also started the Iceni and i thought: Maybe the SCP-Upgrade Project (i´m a big fan! :) ) can use the model, too.
Here some first impressions:
(http://s7.directupload.net/images/131211/temp/my3lew2x.jpg) (http://s7.directupload.net/file/d/3468/my3lew2x_jpg.htm) (http://s1.directupload.net/images/131211/temp/89ptptz7.jpg) (http://s1.directupload.net/file/d/3468/89ptptz7_jpg.htm)
(http://s14.directupload.net/images/131212/temp/i38jxwjz.jpg) (http://s14.directupload.net/file/d/3469/i38jxwjz_jpg.htm)
The building process has just started and as you can see there are some parts still missing :p
After finishing the mesh i would like to share it with you for usage.
I´m sure there will be some (hopefully not too much) work for you to bring the ship ingame.
Hope you can give me some feedback what you like/don´t like and what i can improve.
If it interrests you, here you can find the thread (with some other models i´m working on): Link to Forum (http://forum.egosoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=356665)
I will update all of my threads with current progresses and pictures here at the first post (if the forum allows it from technical site ;-) )
-----------------
12.12.2013 - Added another picture
-
O_o
What a start man! That's fantastic!
(http://www.hard-light.net/forums/Smileys/HLP/welcome2hlpbb.gif)
-
Looks quite good thus far :yes:
There's another HTL'd Iceni but IIRC it's years are already showing up so a new version might come in handy for the MVPs.
-
We're absolutely interested in this, the current Iceni is showing its age, not only with its mesh but with the texturing and what you have here so far is absolutely fantastic. One thing, your turrets look fairly similar to the ones on my Orion (http://p3d.in/IGlFO) so if you want to use those for consistency I can send you the mesh. Of course, you don't have to if you don't want to.
-
We're absolutely interested in this, the current Iceni is showing its age, not only with its mesh but with the texturing and what you have here so far is absolutely fantastic. One thing, your turrets look fairly similar to the ones on my Orion (http://p3d.in/IGlFO) so if you want to use those for consistency I can send you the mesh. Of course, you don't have to if you don't want to.
Hello Hades *wink*
Glad to read those words from you. You should remember the turrets of course because they´re relating on yours.
If you follow the link at the first post you will see that i also created an Orion that looks very similar to your one. I used your model i could see at the screenshots here to create my version. At the first sight, they look very similar, the differences are the details. Hope that is ok for you.
Well, and please don´t wonder about my Deimos, same story :rolleyes:
Currently, the turrets are just placed there for a better feeling how much space i need at the top of the ship for them.
But later, for the SCP-Version, they can be replaced by yours, sure :)
I will (maybe) update them later. But one thing is definitely clear: They have to be smaller (about 80% of the size) then the Orion turrets.
Can you maybe give me an ~ polycount the ship should have for Freespace because for X-Rebirth i can have >100k ;) ?
Edit: And as you can see i also try using rounded edges at the models to give them a more modern look
-
If you follow the link at the first post you will see that i also created an Orion that looks very similar to your one. I used your model i could see at the screenshots here to create my version. At the first sight, they look very similar, the differences are the details. Hope that is ok for you.
Well, and please don´t wonder about my Deimos, same story :rolleyes:
No problem, it's fine. Though you can use our models from the FSU in your mod if you wish, so long as you give proper credit, there's no need to replicate them, even if your models do look good. :)
Currently, the turrets are just placed there for a better feeling how much space i need at the top of the ship for them.
But later, for the SCP-Version, they can be replaced by yours, sure :)
I will (maybe) update them later. But one thing is definitely clear: They have to be smaller (about 80% of the size) then the Orion turrets.
Can you maybe give me an ~ polycount the ship should have for Freespace because for X-Rebirth i can have >100k ;) ?
Edit: And as you can see i also try using rounded edges at the models to give them a more modern look
Depends on the size of the ship. The Sathanas is almost 300k I think? Frigate/corvettes can be around 50-80k easily, and the Iceni can have more simply because it's a 'unique' ship that is typically only seen once in a mission. So basically, go nuts, I don't think 100k for the Iceni would necessarily be unwarranted.
-
Welcome and thanks for sharing! You have an amazing set of ships over there. :yes: :yes: I love to see someone giving the Iceni such a nice upgrade. :)
If it's not too much to ask, could we get a better view of the Ursa and Zeus shown here?
(http://s7.directupload.net/images/131122/zsihkg2u.jpg)
-
I would love that Ursa for FSU...
-
I´m not 100 percently sure but i thought the level of detail of the Ursa and Zeus should be the same like in the current Media-VPs. These are mmodels from about 2006.
You can download all ships in 3ds and max-format from the follwoing link:
http://forum.egosoft.com/viewtopic.php?p=3388003
Sorry but i just found the german thread. Between a lot of german blabla there is just the Please to name me in the credits when using the models - the usual stuff :lol:
So please feel free to download, take a look at and use the models :)
It would be my pleasure :P
edit: but anyway i want to rebuild and update nearly all of the models.
edit2: And please excuse my english... it´s not the best, i know.
-
Your Iceni looks great already :)
Lc4Hunter, I think I've read your name before, have you been on the X3-Babylon 5 Mod team?
-
Your Iceni looks great already :)
Lc4Hunter, I think I've read your name before, have you been on the X3-Babylon 5 Mod team?
No longer, but i was a member. Well, exactly i founded the mod but i had some personal problems and left the team.
I´m very proud of the work the have done, but to say the truth, i think the mod is dead.
Not enough interest, to many technical problems and limitations with the X3-engine...
The Vorchan and the Warlock are my babys :)
Edit:
Added a few new parts:
(http://s14.directupload.net/images/131212/temp/i38jxwjz.jpg) (http://s14.directupload.net/file/d/3469/i38jxwjz_jpg.htm)
Not really happy with it at the moment. Will see how it looks when i add details to the parts and merge them to one body.
-
Sorry for doubleposting :sigh:
Some progress:
(http://s1.directupload.net/images/131214/temp/mwkt5vug.jpg) (http://s1.directupload.net/file/d/3471/mwkt5vug_jpg.htm) (http://s14.directupload.net/images/131214/temp/8frdvgz2.jpg) (http://s14.directupload.net/file/d/3471/8frdvgz2_jpg.htm) (http://s1.directupload.net/images/131214/temp/x89u22wm.jpg) (http://s1.directupload.net/file/d/3471/x89u22wm_jpg.htm)
Hope the modeified frontpart (behind the nose) is no problem? But i think this looks more modern and much better.
And what do you think about the turrets?
Which ones fits better? The turret i got from Hades (same like on the Deimos) or the other one (not much detailes at the moment).
Another problem: I don´t know which turrets fires which weapon. Especially all the small "things" at the sides are not really clear for me. Is there any information which one is what??
-
I suppose you could play the Rebels & Renegades mission, since you get a few moments of quiet before the Vasudans arrive, you could study the ship and cycle through it's turrets.
The wiki tells you the types and number of turrets on the ship, but not their location:
http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/NTF_Iceni#Armaments
-
Nice work so far.
Also, to find what turret has what weapon, just compare the POF's turret list to the turret list in the Iceni's table file.
-
Wow, this is an awesome HTL! :yes: Welcome, hope you stay a while.
-
Checked out the weaponplacement of the Iceni in a selfcreated mission:
(http://s1.directupload.net/images/131215/temp/nrm8s7ni.jpg) (http://s1.directupload.net/file/d/3472/nrm8s7ni_jpg.htm)
The placement makes absolutely no sense to me.
Ok, it just has 3 Bgreen, 4 would be more logical but why the hell both missilelaunchers are on the same side?
Another stupid point is, that the large-turrets at the top are just TTs, no THTs...
Maybe there is an error with this?
I wanted to make unique weponmodels for each type, but with this configuration... it makes ot much sense. :confused:
-
I would be careful with the turret placement. while it might not make sense it is retail so if you want this in something like the mediaVPs then the model will need to be compatible with retail weapons layout. There is of course nothing stopping you from making a "fixed" version but something you might want to make a note of.
Also really loving the progress you are making on this and cant wait to see how it turns out
-
Yeah, I wouldn't worry about the nonsensical nature of retail turrets. Anyone with FRED can change the loadouts so that it makes sense. Just don't break retail so that we can get your model in-game. :)
And I don't think any of us would mind if you changed the default in your mod. I'd like to think that we aren't canon freaks, considering that canon contradicts itself in so many ways.
-
I think it's all about retail missions ballance. AFAIK the Iceni used to have different beam layout in every mission. In SOC loop with Hinton and Iceni, it has two forward BGreens to tear Asar to shreds, where in tables these two turrets are standard, yellow blobs. If you want to make custom turrets for every type of weapon used by the Iceni, I think you should place them like the Iceni would have regular, symetrical configuration [like 2 beams on front, 2 for left side, 2 for right or something like that] but leave retail naming convention. Thanks to this, your HTL Iceni would be retail compatible, while new turrets might be used by Freders, who wants the Iceni with new weapons setup.
-
To clarify.
In order for a model to be considered for use in the MediaVPs, the turrets need to be in the same locations as the retail model and more often than not, should be the same type. (IE disks for disks, multiparts for multiparts.) You can, however add extra turrets that would be tabled in a special way for FSU. The HTL Typhon does that.
-
To clarify.
In order for a model to be considered for use in the MediaVPs, the turrets need to be in the same locations as the retail model and more often than not, should be the same type. (IE disks for disks, multiparts for multiparts.) You can, however add extra turrets that would be tabled in a special way for FSU. The HTL Typhon does that.
Thanks for this information :)
Of course i would love to see my Iceni in the next MediaVPs. Thats the reason why i opened this thread here ;)
I will make the Freesapce version with "universal" turrets like the current version has.
Because i´m also doing a version for a X-Rebirth mod i will give her more unique turrets and a fixed weapon-layout.
-
IIRC the Iceni's turret layout varies a lot from mission to mission too. Generic turrets are probably the only workable solution here.
-
IIRC the Iceni's turret layout varies a lot from mission to mission too. Generic turrets are probably the only workable solution here.
I totally agree with that :nod:
Shame on you, :v-old: olition, what have you done :P
18.12.:
Just a small update:
(http://s1.directupload.net/images/131218/temp/eeuv4x9r.jpg) (http://s1.directupload.net/file/d/3475/eeuv4x9r_jpg.htm) (http://s14.directupload.net/images/131218/temp/u7ygmvsi.jpg) (http://s14.directupload.net/file/d/3475/u7ygmvsi_jpg.htm) (http://s1.directupload.net/images/131218/temp/gk2k7g7m.jpg) (http://s1.directupload.net/file/d/3475/gk2k7g7m_jpg.htm) (http://s14.directupload.net/images/131218/temp/qxuygg7x.jpg) (http://s14.directupload.net/file/d/3475/qxuygg7x_jpg.htm) (http://s7.directupload.net/images/131218/temp/qy99rnkt.jpg) (http://s7.directupload.net/file/d/3475/qy99rnkt_jpg.htm)
Made a few smaller details like the plates at the rear, the bottom part where the turrets sits and some smaller things at the front like the windows-section.
What do you think about the brace at the rear behind the mainbody? Is this ok? or better not? I´m not really sure about that...
-
I like the bracing.
-
If it isn't too much to ask, could we get a p3d link for the model?
-
If it isn't too much to ask, could we get a p3d link for the model?
I approve of this message.
Here is the link to the p3d website. http://p3d.in/
-
How you wish, my friends :-)
Here it comes:
I will upload some further models (not only FS2) later :)
-
Very nice.
just something that might be worth looking into but I noticed some artifacting on the model that is reminiscent of overlapping faces in blender on the big multi-parts and near the top of the model on one side, but didnt notice it on the other.
edit
Also another thing that a lot of people dont pick up on when new to p3d is that the site lists every new model as private mode which means that only people with the direct link to the model can see it. if you want it to show in your "gallery" then there are two ways to change this, 1) at the bottom of the thumbnail for the model the most right hand icon is for privacy and you can click on that to change the setting if you want. 2) in the upload/edit screen the third icon down on the left side (the padlock) allows you to control the setting during upload/edit of the model
[attachment deleted by an evil time traveler]
-
Thanks for the information. No idea where this comes from. Maybe from exporting to obj (i´m working with 3ds Max).
The model is mirrored so the same problem should be on the other side, too.
Because my workplace computer is VM it has no graphics card and i can´t look at the p3d-mesh i have to take a look on it later when i´m at home again.
edit: changed the settings to public :)
-
cool. I did wonder if it's an export->import->view created bug as with the multiparts I cant see a reason for it but thought better to mention it.
Like I say, this thing is looking really cool and I cant wait for the finished product
-
This looks fantastic. Many kudos. :yes:
-
This is a bit off the subject, but is anyone else having p3d fail to load the model? I've never had this problem before but for whatever reason I just get the "Oh frak" message... using Chrome no less.
-
nope, works fine in here. Chrome too.
-
Very frustrating... used to work just fine. I'm not aware of any recent updates to chrome and haven't made any other changes at all to my system. Not working on any p3d model anywhere currently.
Edit: Whatever it was, re-installing Chrome fixed it.
-
The problem really seems to be the export to obj-format and the unoptimized state of the mesh.
Have to try it another way. :(
-
very pretty
keep it up
-
Were those turrets originally part of the mesh or are those the imported ones from Hades?
-
Were those turrets originally part of the mesh or are those the imported ones from Hades?
the ones hades used
-
*Shrugs* It looks to me like the glitched polies only appear on one side, so it could be part of the mirror or it could be due to the imported turrets(Highly unlikely though, something like 1/100000 chance I'm guesstimating at).
-
Were those turrets originally part of the mesh or are those the imported ones from Hades?
the ones hades used
Thats right. I love consistency. Thats the reason why i would like to use some similar components from other ships.
Don´t understand me wrong, i don´t want to make some kitbashing, i just want a look where people can see: this is/was a GTA / GTVA ship.
As i unterstand the Iceni was build very quickly as the commandship of bosh. Why should they (for example) create new turrets for her? Why not using similar ones to the Deimos. That saves time for production, costs and ressources. Thats the reason why my turrets look so similar to Hases´ ones (except the "more technical" one at the front, thats from Hades *thx*).
Another small thing are the engines. If you take a look, you will see they look similar to the ones the Deimos uses :P
I checked the errors at the mesh again: in 3dsmax there is NO issues with the mesh. I deletes the "broken" geometry from the mesh and replaced the faces with mirrored ones from the good side.
Same problem... I have this problem with a lot of meshs except my old Babylon5 Vorchan... no idea why.
Will test this again with another obj-exporter and maybe with an export from Blender... we´ll see.
Please excuse this :o
-
If that's the case then no worries.
You're pretty much right about the Iceni, it must have been made from the scrapped remains of a corvette and some cruisers as well as using the turrets of a few destroyers. The NTF is a "rebel" group and will do what they must to survive, even if it means recycling old materials that would normally be disposed of or used to repair other ships (difference between "build a new ship" or "repair old ships to keep them in service"). In the case of the GTVA, option 2 is far more likely as they already have access to industry to create more ships as well as repair and upgrade older ones. With limited materials from ships that could never be repaired, option 1 is the best bet for the NTF, because it means they can utilize equipment combinations that may even out do other older ships using the same tech (example of this in the SOC loop where you escort the Iceni to a jumpnode, the Iceni takes down a cruiser and maybe a corvette if the mission progresses correctly with only about 30-50% hull loss).
My explanation does seem strangely rationalized, it sounded better in my head but trust me it makes at least some sense.
-
From what we know, Bosch oversaw the construction of the Iceni while still a GTVA admiral, so it wasn't something that was just cobbled together by the NTF. I'd imagine the GTVA initially intended it to be a general high-powered strike frigate, but then Bosch took the reins and directed the project towards his own needs.
-
If that's the case then no worries.
You're pretty much right about the Iceni, it must have been made from the scrapped remains of a corvette and some cruisers as well as using the turrets of a few destroyers. The NTF is a "rebel" group and will do what they must to survive, even if it means recycling old materials that would normally be disposed of or used to repair other ships (difference between "build a new ship" or "repair old ships to keep them in service"). In the case of the GTVA, option 2 is far more likely as they already have access to industry to create more ships as well as repair and upgrade older ones. With limited materials from ships that could never be repaired, option 1 is the best bet for the NTF, because it means they can utilize equipment combinations that may even out do other older ships using the same tech (example of this in the SOC loop where you escort the Iceni to a jumpnode, the Iceni takes down a cruiser and maybe a corvette if the mission progresses correctly with only about 30-50% hull loss).
My explanation does seem strangely rationalized, it sounded better in my head but trust me it makes at least some sense.
I totally agree with that.
As i remember from a discussion the construciton of the Iceni was started some time before the revolution which could be the reason the ship has a uniquer design then we could expect from a rebelgroup. Maybe the ship wasn´t completely finished when the rebellion started and they had to use parts from other ships (engines, weapon-systems,...) to complete the ship.
Like the idea because it makes sense (in my head :D )
-
From what we know, Bosch oversaw the construction of the Iceni while still a GTVA admiral, so it wasn't something that was just cobbled together by the NTF. I'd imagine the GTVA initially intended it to be a general high-powered strike frigate, but then Bosch took the reins and directed the project towards his own needs.
Exactly.
-
Found a way to fix the issue with the faces and uploaded the model again.
I also did some small improvements on the mesh. Currently i don´t really where i can add details and what for details because i don´t want to place some "standard" greebles...
-
http://filesmelt.com/dl/turrets.rar Here's the Orion turret and the angled Deimos turrets.
As for the mesh, it looks good. What I'd suggest is studying the retail texture patterns and trying to work that detail into the model, putting piping and mechanical greebling on the black parts on the original texture etc.
-
I can't wait to see this beauty emerging from the Boadicea ! (except the Boadicea itself is still pretty ugly ^^ )
-
http://filesmelt.com/dl/turrets.rar Here's the Orion turret and the angled Deimos turrets.
As for the mesh, it looks good. What I'd suggest is studying the retail texture patterns and trying to work that detail into the model, putting piping and mechanical greebling on the black parts on the original texture etc.
The Deimos-Turrets are really pretty after converting them to work ;-)
But i prefer my Orion-turrets :-)
Added all turretpoints now but i think i have to do a special multipart for the SCP because the small one looks terrible ... small :P
-
Hmmm... I'm mapping Your Support Carrier for my project and I've noticed you're modeling details of your models with many geometricaly independent objects. The same method as I see here. My question is, are you going to merge them all into single geometrical object, or rather leave them as they are now?
Also, great work with both Iceni and Demon :D :yes:
-
Hmmm... I'm mapping Your Support Carrier for my project and I've noticed you're modeling details of your models with many geometricaly independent objects. The same method as I see here. My question is, are you going to merge them all into single geometrical object, or rather leave them as they are now?
Also, great work with both Iceni and Demon :D :yes:
Hy :)
The support carrier? Do you mean the one i´ve rebuild from Sins of a Solar Empire?
And yes, i´m working with a lot of single objects. The reason is: it´s easier to make LODs with that method and in a lot of cases i can save polygons without merging the objects.
The "main" objects of a model do i merge, of course. The mainparts of the Iceni will be merged to prevent rendererrors ingame.
For example: i make a cube and want to add a cylinder on top:
(http://s1.directupload.net/images/131230/temp/8n262d4t.jpg) (http://s1.directupload.net/file/d/3487/8n262d4t_jpg.htm)
When i merge the objects i have 60 polygons used.
If i just place them in each other, i have 48 polygons - saved 12 polygons for this example.
With complexer models you often have a much more polygons saved.
It´s maybe mot the cleanest method, but for ingame usage its good enough :P
-
Four things:
1. Polycount is not important.
2. Models like those may end up causing problems for the renderer and collision detection
3. For every model that is being rendered, FSO needs to invoke its render pipeline once for each submodel and each texture. Having lots of subobjects is a sure way to make inefficient models in this engine.
4. Modelling that way makes pretty sure that you're wasting space on the UV map.
-
Four things:
1. Polycount is not important.
2. Models like those may end up causing problems for the renderer and collision detection
3. For every model that is being rendered, FSO needs to invoke its render pipeline once for each submodel and each texture. Having lots of subobjects is a sure way to make inefficient models in this engine.
4. Modelling that way makes pretty sure that you're wasting space on the UV map.
Really E? I mean, I know you're a coder and all, and you definitely know the engine better than I do, so if you're sure about all of this stuff then that's that, but some of this sounds very different to the advice I've received in the past, as well as the methods that I know a lot of the really good modellers around here use when going about their business (as well as myself, since I definitely wouldn't put me in that category). As long as the independent models are being merged into a single submodel before pof conversion (as opposed to being booleaned together as appears to be the case in Lc4hunter's image example), in my experience there are few of the consequences you describe. Certainly not in terms of rendering or collision detection in my experience, and not always significantly in UV space if you know what you're doing and are at least basically careful about it (doing things like deleting invisible faces and minimizing the amount of hidden polygon space).
Now, obviously we both know how much help you've been to me in the past with technical engine stuff, so I don't disagree with you lightly, but I really think you need to clarify what you mean here, because it's got some pretty big implications for how people model - it sounds a lot like the "non-manifold meshes are evil" ideas that had been, as far as I knew, entirely debunked.
-
Yes I've also seen Hades and other great modelers around here being somewhat loose in this general rule with great success.
-
It's not about manifold or otherwise.
It's about it being a separate mesh.
Every mesh to be rendered is a separate "block of data" that gets packed up and sent for rendering.
The act of sending for rendering takes is quite expensive to do, so you want to invoke the "Render Mesh N" the smallest number of times you can.
-
No, the post Lc4Hunter made is exactly about whether the mesh should be manifold or not. It is possible to group meshes like these in a single subobject without making them a manifold mesh (I've done it), and I've also heard that manifold meshes are not entirely necessary for collision or rendering (so I'd also like The_E to clarify his post, since I consider him a very reliable source for engine advice).
(the point about wasting UV space is moot since you don't have to map hidden polygons. I always map them to a single point and shove them off to the side)
-
I think the point about UV space is worth considering. Let's say that you have a rectangular extrusion out of a flat face. If the mesh is manifold, then there is an actual cutout from the flat face. If it is not manifold, then the flat face continues behind the extrusion. This saves a few polygons, but the invisible part of the face is also mapped to the texture but (possibly) unused. If the mesh is manifold, then that cutout in the map can be used for something else, for instance the front of the extrusion (which is the most LOD friendly thing to do). Though even in the non-manifold case you could map the front of the extrusion to that location (again, which will yield the best result on lower LODs), but this takes some extra work and might require some fiddling to get AO to work properly.
-
True, if there's a significant amount of polygon space on the hidden detail. I guess my point should be made with the caveat that polygons that do have visible UV space should have as little hidden space as possible.
-
Guys, there's no 'right way' with this... Stop arguing like there is. There are pros and cons to either method and they both work just as well. Yes, you could save a little UV space. No, you won't kill the engine with little render mesh N calls or whatever Tomo is thinking. Alternatively, you could copy your little details as many times as necessary and save time modelling and UV mapping while also having your polygons match exactly and have an easier time texturing later.
I've done both. Many times. Both work juuuuuuust fine.
-
Guys, there's no 'right way' with this... Stop arguing like there is. There are pros and cons to either method and they both work just as well. Yes, you could save a little UV space. No, you won't kill the engine with little render mesh N calls or whatever Tomo is thinking. Alternatively, you could copy your little details as many times as necessary and save time modelling and UV mapping while also having your polygons match exactly and have an easier time texturing later.
I've done both. Many times. Both work juuuuuuust fine.
QFT. The Rakshasa, Sobek, and Arcadia have non-manifold portions. No collision problems. Tip though: Bake an AO map. Lets say you have a tube that extends through a flat surface. That flat surface will have a portion that isn't visible to the user. Baking an AO map will place a precise outline in the form of a shadow, allowing you to actually use that UV space. One final point: going all manifold doesn't add a few polies... it adds a ton of polies. Consider a two triangle flat surface. If you wanted an 8 sided tube coming out of the flat surface, you would need a minimum of 16 tris for the flat surface to accomplish this. Now multiply that scenario out all across your model. Yep, not worth it.
-
Thanks mjn.mixael and Rga_Noris for the statement.
As usual i will try to merge the most post parts to an object, but i don´t really want to merge the whole ship into one single ... thing.
Another reason for haveing multiple objects are smoothing problem. Had a lot of them in the past when merging nearly everything :rolleyes:
Well, but one thing i have to say again: I have not much experience making textures... the only textures i´ve ever made were for some Wing-Commander ships:
(http://img693.imageshack.us/img693/1223/image9vc.th.jpg) (http://img693.imageshack.us/i/image9vc.jpg/) (http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/5163/image2hfs.th.jpg) (http://img185.imageshack.us/i/image2hfs.jpg/)
And this were easy ones...
I´m not good enough to map a ship like the Iceni and i´m sure nobody has the time and pleasure to explain it :P
I have to spend some more time with Photoshop and MudBox...
-
MS Paint...
Seriously though, hop into the IRC channel #scp-fsu. Many FSU heavy weights hang in there and are helpful.
-
Some thoughts on adding detail:
The front of the two lower nacelles evokes the front of Hades' Deimos' lower nacelle. A similar style of greebling might work there.
The area immediately above the front of the nacelles should have more armor panels, to evoke the retail texture.
The upper half of the front of the main hull should have the densest collection of greebles. Pipes, struts, hatches, vents - go nuts!
On the back, between the engines, the retail texture has some sort of enourmous brackets, plus vertically oriented, horizonally striped columns or pipes.
For the front face of the forward hull, the panel lines from the golden retail texture could be copied more or less as-is.
I like the relatively clean look of the port and starboard faces of the main hull. It could use some gentle panel lines, but nothing fancy.
-
Guys, there's no 'right way' with this... Stop arguing like there is. There are pros and cons to either method and they both work just as well. Yes, you could save a little UV space. No, you won't kill the engine with little render mesh N calls or whatever Tomo is thinking. Alternatively, you could copy your little details as many times as necessary and save time modelling and UV mapping while also having your polygons match exactly and have an easier time texturing later.
I've done both. Many times. Both work juuuuuuust fine.
All that's true. (Though it is possible to break the collision detection, that's fairly rare and should be easily fixed.)
Modern model-related slowdowns mostly come from excessive OpenGL state changes (eg render calls) and from running out of GPU memory.
The former has a relatively small effect so only matters for 'many ships', the latter has a very large effect.
The actual number of polygons and vertices is doesn't really matter these days. (As long as it's below the maximum allowed.)
Vertices don't eat much GPU memory, textures do.
What I meant was that using 'many subobjects to save polygons' as a rendering optimisation technique actually has the opposite effect.
If you're using subobjects to make your task of building the model, texturing etc easier then great, do it!
The time you and others spend to create the model and get its gorgeousness into the game is far more valuable than the time the GPUs will spend rendering it.
All details aside, in a capship 'small optimisations' like this don't really matter anyway as there's never going to be very many capships in a mission!
These kinds of tweaks only make a difference if there's lots of them.
-
Guys, there's no 'right way' with this... Stop arguing like there is. There are pros and cons to either method and they both work just as well. Yes, you could save a little UV space. No, you won't kill the engine with little render mesh N calls or whatever Tomo is thinking. Alternatively, you could copy your little details as many times as necessary and save time modelling and UV mapping while also having your polygons match exactly and have an easier time texturing later.
I've done both. Many times. Both work juuuuuuust fine.
All that's true. (Though it is possible to break the collision detection, that's fairly rare and should be easily fixed.)
Modern model-related slowdowns mostly come from excessive OpenGL state changes (eg render calls) and from running out of GPU memory.
The former has a relatively small effect so only matters for 'many ships', the latter has a very large effect.
The actual number of polygons and vertices is doesn't really matter these days. (As long as it's below the maximum allowed.)
Vertices don't eat much GPU memory, textures do.
What I meant was that using 'many subobjects to save polygons' as a rendering optimisation technique actually has the opposite effect.
If you're using subobjects to make your task of building the model, texturing etc easier then great, do it!
The time you and others spend to create the model and get its gorgeousness into the game is far more valuable than the time the GPUs will spend rendering it.
All details aside, in a capship 'small optimisations' like this don't really matter anyway as there's never going to be very many capships in a mission!
These kinds of tweaks only make a difference if there's lots of them.
It's unclear what point your trying to make. You're listing valid points, and then downplaying them.
1) "The actual number of polygons and vertices is doesn't really matter these days. (As long as it's below the maximum allowed.)"
This number is VERY easily hit with modern ships these days. So any technique that can lower the vertex count will cause fewer head aches later.
2) "What I meant was that using 'many subobjects to save polygons' as a rendering optimisation technique actually has the opposite effect."
How? If you are referring to UV map wastage, there are plenty of techniques that minimize or eliminate wastage (nothing stops you from drawing in the occluded portions where non-manifold polies intersect...) However you do seem to have a better grasp on this than I do, so I concede that I may be missing your point here.
3) "...there's never going to be very many capships in a mission!"
People love to whore out cap ships. The other thing is fighter poly counts are climbing as well. We see missions with more and more ships because FSO makes it possible, so trying to use that as a point is pretty short sighted.
So in conclusion, there still is little to no reason to make your mesh entirely manifold.
EDIT: Apologies for the rude flavor above. I would just change it, but in the off chance you are reading this before I can, i'll just tack it on. My main point is that if we agree that:
1) Multiple sub-objects = slower game
AND
2) Hitting the subobject vert limit more often means you must have more subobjects
Then the only conclusion is that fewer verts and polies = better performance, just not for the reason that most people think.
-
I'll try to write an analogy that might help.
Think of rendering as physically sending stuff somewhere.
The models are packed into crates (subobjects).
When run, the game puts each of these crates onto its own van.
Each frame, the game tells the GPU driver which vans need to go to the screen, the order to take them and what to do with each one.
If the driver runs out of vans (GPU memory), then it has to store the stuff in your warehouse (main RAM) instead, and swap it between vans.
"Take Van #1" - GPU drives Van #1 to the screen, Stuff Happens and it comes back.
"Take Van #5" - GPU drives Van #5 to the screen, Stuff Happens...
It's obviously fastest if everything fits into one van.
However, if your stuff won't fit in one van, more trips are necessary to send the stuff.
If the game knows that a particular van isn't necessary it can skip it - this is the purpose of detail boxing.
To stretch the analogy a little further:
If you run out of space in your warehouse then your logistics manager (operating system) has to store it in another, much bigger warehouse out of town (hard disk).
That's incredibly slow, we really, really don't want to do that.
(This is a lie-to-children* of course. It's more complicated than this.)
In conclusion, fewer vans makes your ship go faster.
How you get fewer vans depends on the model - and it's always possible to go too far in one direction.
My last point is that your time is more valuable than the computers time, so as mjn said, you shouldn't worry about any of this too much unless it becomes a problem.
* Ref: Dr Cohen and Prof Stewart
-
Great analogy, even if it was mostly to confirm what I thought.
I am mostly addressing your original meaning: "What I meant was that using 'many subobjects to save polygons' as a rendering optimisation technique actually has the opposite effect."
It misses the mark. Non-manifold is not equal to multiple subobjects, which I think is where the confusion set in for many. And reducing polygons does matter, and your van analogy states why.
Each van holds 65535 vertices. The fewer vertices I have (and consequently, though not proportionately, fewer polies) the fewer overall vans I will need. Hence, better performance. Case closed.
Finally: "My last point is that your time is more valuable than the computers time, so as mjn said, you shouldn't worry about any of this too much unless it becomes a problem." Not the way I see it. If my model is too ineffecient, then I wasted my time, as fewer people will be able to play it.
-
For me, the Iceni is now nearly finished (except the Meshoptimization, this will be done as the last step.
Just a question to all of you: Would you like to see the Iceni more like Hades´ Meshs? I mean with extrudes Armorplates or would you prefer a more "clean" look, for example at the mainbody, where the engines are.
I will do this by your wishes because this model is, of course, not just for me. It´s for all of you :-)
An updated version of the mesh will be uploaded at p3d today, but later because my officeday still started.
Thanks in advance for your opinions und your reply.
Cheers, Lc4Hunter :)
-
Just a question to all of you: Would you like to see the Iceni more like Hades´ Meshs? I mean with extrudes Armorplates or would you prefer a more "clean" look, for example at the mainbody, where the engines are.
I found it as a bad idea, and the reason is very simple. Single extruded armor plates are waste of numbers of polys. Things like this are usually done via diffuse and good normalmapping.
-
Just a question to all of you: Would you like to see the Iceni more like Hades´ Meshs? I mean with extrudes Armorplates or would you prefer a more "clean" look, for example at the mainbody, where the engines are.
I found it as a bad idea, and the reason is very simple. Single extruded armor plates are waste of numbers of polys. Things like this are usually done via diffuse and good normalmapping.
I'm not that sure about that. What Betrayal says has merit - a good normal map is quite capable of bringing a flat polygon surface to life. However, consider what a 'good normal map' would entail for a ship the size of the Iceni. You'll need multiple 2048^2 maps, to cover the entire ship with uniform pixel density and they will be blurry and smudged up close. Plus, the multiple maps will hog a lot of resources. Since FSO really crunches polygons for breakfast and spits out beamz, I believe that you can get away with Hades-like armoring on LOD 0, heavily reduced in LOD 1.
-
Like Enioch said, polygons are really cheap, it's pretty hard to waste them.
-
I also realized that in my package with the two turrets, I sent the wrong Deimos turret.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/54ljrqbr3keo9lc/bigturret1d.obj
Here's the old, angular one, in case you want to use it. :)
-
Latest version:
Some details are currently missing, like some greebleparts at the rear of the mainbody (engine-section) and the front (the eyebrows for example).
The polycount is absolutly ok, i can add some more without any problems ;-)
i know, the progress is not much, but i had a lot to do at work and with my EA Warlock model... if you´re intrested, its in the galery.
-
Great progress if you ask me.
The Warlock and that asteroid base look awesome as well :yes:
-
@Rodo : Asteroid base ? Are we talking about the Boadicea ?
-
Narn asteroid base.
-
I really like it, especially the ribs on the belly and the bottom engines, which look like an enlarged version of those of the (still unfinished?) upgraded Apollo :)