[Black Wolf]

I'm too busy atm, and not really talented enough to do it justice, but please make the model publically available prior to the official release, prior to the appointment of a texturer even. There have been lots of cases in the past where both new members and older vets (Karma collossus ) show off these amazing screenshots and then vanish off into the void of the internet for one reason or another. Post the model up and, eventually, it willl get finished, by someone, and used, so the work wont go to waste.

[Enioch]

 

Well, the mesh is done and uploaded (see attachment a few post above). The turrets are missing, true, but they're really only an afternoon's work.

I might try to texture it myself, but it will take months (I'm a veeeeerrrrrry slllllllooooooooowwwww unwrapper and much too attentive for my own good ). And, truthfully, while I enjoy the modeling part, I really hate the tedious unwrapping (it takes weeks and I'm sure I'm doing something wrong, I just don't know what yet ) and I regret spending so much of my free time. 

So, please, get me a texturer and I will do the Zephyrus for you...

[eliex]

Nice turret.

Yeah. Just ONE mission (I think it's the one where it's you VS a NTF Orion and an Argo). I always felt sorry for the poor transport...

I've always wondered why the transport was on the other side on the Orion: where the hangar was.

[Snail]

Very nice turret!
IIRC they do shoot flak in one mission...not sure though.

Yeah either the NTT Inspiration or NTT Venture in King's Gambit or Sicilian Defense, I forget which.

[Rodo]

the mission you are talking about is the one where you blast the NTD Vindicator... the lighting in that mission makes the orion look incredibly awesome with all the lights on... trully like a city in space.

btw.. nice model,I can't wait to see it textured.

[lefkos]

Enioch your amazing!
what a detail!
i cant wait to see any textured pictures of this babe!

[pecenipicek]

i might be willing to it an unwrap but i have a feeling i will suck horribly at it


on the other hand... we have all the needed textures more or less... hmmm *ponders* this will be fun XD


in any case, can anyone explain me the point of triangulating the model for in-game use? it seems kind of... stupid a bit imho XD

[Vasudan Admiral]

Anyone attempting to texture-tile this argo will be shot. It deserves a lot better than that.

Also, triangulation is nessecary for the HTL enginem - it will do it itself if the model is not already triangulated. The only thing it really affects is the number of collision detection tests the engine does (it still uses the untriangulated mesh for that), and even that is only slightly increased unless you have an extremely high and extremely localised area of triangles that could have been quads.

[pecenipicek]

i dont even know how to texture via tiles sooo


thanks for the explanation explains quite a bit.

[Jadehawk]

Create a UV map or tile this and give me a POF model and we'll see

[pecenipicek]

i'll have something for you by new year, not related to this.

[Enioch]

@pecenipicek: So, do I have a texturer, or not?

i might be willing to it an unwrap but i have a feeling i will suck horribly at it

I say try it. Why not? Hell, we only live once. (I just want to see it textured)

And here's the turret, in obj format. If you don't mind, please check if it's non-corrupted. The gwo exporter gave me a bit of trouble.

[attachment stolen by Slimey Goober]

[pecenipicek]

could you give em in non-triangulated form?its easier to work with quads and triangulating doesnt mess up the uv.

[Vasudan Admiral]

Any UV manipulations you perform on quads that wouldn't mess up where a triangulated model would means that those quads should have been triangulated anyway because they're non planar. Besides - there should be a function to safely de-triangulate somewhere in C4D?

[pecenipicek]

it rapes existing uv maps usually, and in general i find it easier to do unwrap with quads. sometimes the untriangulate works, sometimes doesnt, while manual untriangulation rapes uv's utterly.


the bit with "triangulating doesnt mess up the uv." referred to the fact that you can safely triangulate a model after unwrapping, the uv quads just get a diagonal line through them...

[Vasudan Admiral]

There should be no difference between quads and not-quads. If there is, then something is wrong, because internally all quads are triangulated at some lower level in order to be displayed. Here let me illustrate it:


Here you have a quad that has had one edge shrunk in the UV projection - in a way that does not match the model. As you can see, you get heavy distortion from that.
Here's the same quad after triangulation:

It has exactly the same distortion, but the other way up because that just happens to be where the triangulation edge was added.

If you get any variations on this effect, then whatever program you're using is messing something up or cheating, because this is how the concept of UV projection on faces works at the GPU level, and this is how it'd appear in other programs or in-game.

[pecenipicek]

what??

this part with the distortion getting flipped, i dont get it.


in any case, the problem is in c4d's way it adapts the uv's when a poly is manually untriangulated (poly by poly removal of diagonals...)

it doesnt anticipate the two tris as a part of a quad but takes the tri with larger surface area as the main poly. (in other words, you have a quad made out of two tris. you remove the diagonal thats taking up the quad, in the UV map, you dont get a quad, you get the larger tri acting as if its a quad...)


[edit] just to note, i have no problems with textures appearing properly after UV-ing and drawing in c4d.

[Vasudan Admiral]

In the first image, draw an imaginary edge diagonally opposite to the one that appears in the second image - what I'm pointing out is that whether the quad is triangulated or not, the exact same distortion will appear in this kind of circumstance. You'll notice that there is a significant shape difference between the mesh and the UV projection of that mesh - which is where the distortions come in. Whether or not you can see the distortion in your models simply depends on how different your UV co-ordinates are to the polys they represent.

The fact that you don't see it just means you yourself have been keeping your UVs relatively the same shape as the polys they represent in the model.

Basically what I'm saying is that there's absolutely no reason to use quads instead of triangles - because even when using quads you're actually still using triangles - you just can't see the diagonals.

[pecenipicek]

i have less to select. thats my main reason

[edit]quite a thread hijack, eh?

[Vasudan Admiral]

Noble enough cause and somewhat related topic though - and not really worth it's own thread.