UFO:Alien Invasion
Development => Design => Topic started by: Majki-Fajki on May 14, 2012, 12:38:19 pm
-
Okay, I have visited TODO page for modelling. You need 2x2 alien tank unit. Any ideas for it's design? I took quick sweep on Deviant Art and you can find many useless stuff, many ideas in general.
Currently I can't see in Wiki any kind of gathered ideas for this unit. So I'm starting a thread for that.
I guess we can go in two general directions. Tank per se and walker.
Nice design for tank, very alike Tau Army from Warhammer 40K. Not sure how many tris it would need, a lot of curves.
(http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs5/i/2004/313/e/a/alientank_by_Hazzard65.jpg)
Or something like walker, similar to those from "War of The Worlds" by Spielberg:
(http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2012/033/8/e/alien_tank_by_stevoe26-d4oed48.jpg)
It could be sweet to combine armor with "meat" parts.
Just few minutes on Deviant art.
EDIT
I have no idea how to make it below 1000 tris, but awesome design too
(http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2012/057/a/1/assault_walker_by_gulaschnikov-d4r1xcm.jpg)
-
Are you offering to make the model or just discussing it? Concept art is nice, but modellers volunteering their time usually prefer to work on their own designs. Apart from the general specs, I don't think we'll be forcing a particular design on a modeller.
That said, I think the third would be my favourite, perhaps with more of the deep purple color we have on our UFOs/alien base material.
If you are offering to make it, you can go above the 1000 tris. Our soldier models are nearly 2,000 when you add heads. For such a big unit, I could see getting up to 1,500-2,000. Just try to conserve where you can.
-
Well, I'm not offering YET :) Trying to research you and your game first to see if I'm skilled enough to help :p
Design should be taken care of by separate person - modelers usually work on conceptual art. Since you don't have conceptual artist (Am I wrong?) we need to use someone's else work. Modeling is a different skills area than creating designs.
Walkers are awesome, but someone have to animate them later. Walking, rotating, animation of explosion - tons of skills are needed.
-
Modeling is a different skills area than creating designs.
Perhaps but you are just as likely to find this creative design skill in a modeler as a painter, so why have the middleman then? Where 2D art is truly needed is in texture maps and gui graphics IMHO.
For concepts, what is mainly useful is a list from the primary developers (those with commit access and who are still active on the forum) of general requirements/preferences as to how the end result needs to look in order to qualify for inclusion in the game. The list can be very short and vague or long and detailed depending on the preferences of the primary developers.
-
For concepts, what is mainly useful is a list from the primary developers (those with commit access and who are still active on the forum) of general requirements/preferences as to how the end result needs to look in order to qualify for inclusion in the game. The list can be very short and vague or long and detailed depending on the preferences of the primary developers.
Trying to develop a clearer and more comprehensive list. (http://ufoai.org/wiki/index.php/TODO/Content_Roadmap)
-
Great, really great job. If there is any accepted by main devs design, it's needed to be there (a pic).
-
Great, really great job. If there is any accepted by main devs design, it's needed to be there (a pic).
No it doesn't.
Because first of all, the concept art itself has to be compatibly licensed, you can't just go randomly pulling other folk's IP off of deviant art and expect to be able to make derivative works from them legally. Uploading those pics to the wiki would be a bad and risky idea.
Secondly a pic is just one possible idea. What could be more helpful is written down per-unit visual design requirements so artists know what aspects of the design are must-haves for inclusion and by omission what features they are free to play around with.
-
Or something like walker, similar to those from "War of The Worlds" by Spielberg:
I know what you were trying to say but the delivery on that sentence just made me gag.
And not just because there's no noteworthy similarity in the first place.
Aesthetically, I think getting a rough idea of what the artists are supposed to be making and then starting from scratch would be a far better approach.
Personally, I'm thinking low profile hexapod mech with either a heavy or repeating plasma weapon mounted on a segmented tail right now.
I'd have suggested a particle weapon but I think those are cover piercing so they might be too big an advantage. Though, on the other hand, AI gets its very own crysalid!
-
I' making a floating alien disc-tank. Like in the original X-Com...
-
And how it will be float? Don`t forget, this Universe does not have Antigravitation.
-
Well, it should.
Flying suits without it would be silly (especially given the weight of armor and weapons)
But you can always make something like a hovercraft I guess.
-
with alien tech inspired engines you should easily be able to produce the thrust, its just a mater of controlling flight on a platform with highly variable geometry
-
Well, the moon landing happened with a computer weaker than what you find in a typical washing machine nowadays and the game is set seventy years into the future so fly-by-wire ought to work.
-
Dude, the alien armor is supposed to be very heavy and their ships are large, unaerodynamic bricks, that don't even show a slightest hint of VTOL capability. Even with anti-matter engines, trying to land those craft or keep them howering would be grossly ineffective.
Something like harvester?
That's like a howering 747..at least (since a 747 isn't armored)
And jetpacks have a huge problem wiht fuel, exhaust, mobiltiy and weight.
Anti-grav seems the only practical solution. Playing the "it's not realistic card" is pointelss given the sentient, psychic virus.
-
Why do I get the impression you always bring up that fucking virus when you want to shoehorn something else in.
-
Because it's a great example of anti-realism?
-
and because it is, we should have more unrealistic stuff?
-
and because it is, we should have more unrealistic stuff?
Yes please, i dont care if its unrealistic as long as the description sounds "realistic" resp. makes sense. Btw anti grav isnt unrealistic. We use some primitiv methodes already today - Quantum Levitation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VyOtIsnG71U#t=162s) for example. Iam sure aliens are capable of developing something that is usable "in the field".
-
I'm a stounch propenent of as much beleviability/versimiltude as possible (note: it's not the exact same thing as realism), but gameplay and "the cool factor" should never be ignored either.
Flying bricks with anti-matter engines aren't really any more "real" than flying brick wiht anti-grav.
-
I'm texturin the UGC now..any ideas on how to animate it?
I'm thiking one animation for start of movement (the little wobble a veichle does when gaining momentum)
One for for stopping
One for moving.
Turining left/right? (for wheels)
turret?
-
Check the wiki for character animation (http://ufoai.org/wiki/index.php/Modelling/Character_Animation) information. We don't support the animations you describe (start/end of movement, turning), but if you include them they'll be there for the future if we ever do incorporate them.
-
Oh I have read that, but I didn't see anything specifying what your plans for UGV's are, so I was asking if you want any extra animations..or if UGV's have different animation sets.
Good to know.
Also, any way I can get my hands on a fully animated human soldier (with skeleton) in 3D max or blender?
I want to try making more animations.
-
I am unable to open the .max files provided by Origin for the new female and male soldiers. I believe he's using a plugin or just newer software than my 3DSM supports.
-
Send it over to me. I got several version of 3D Max installed, including 2011 and 2012.
:)
-
You want to look at female.max and male.max (http://ufoai.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=ufoai/ufoai;a=tree;f=models/Origin;h=1c473db7582a8604eebdcb395e69caf0c5eefc91;hb=refs/other/data_source).
-
Right....as I am now texturing hte UGV, and I'm gonna naime and export it when I'm done, I figure we need ot break down some basics.
As it is, a UGV only needs 1 frame of animation, since nothing it does actually requres any animation.
Turining? Done by the engine.
Turret? engine.
Death? Hmm.... normally I'd just say you play a nice, big and concealing eplosion effect and remove the model. Works and can be prettified later.
I'd propose a short and simple "fall apart" animation that is played the same tiem as hte explosion effect, and once it's done, the model is replaced with a destroyed model.
Apart from that I really dont' know. I guess I could probably animate the sensor dome to rotate in a loop or something.
And I don't think it's specified how the turrets would be attached (how would the attachment point be determined?)
-
In the discussion for the buggy drone I have in the works I think we discussed the possibility of handling the turret as a head object but not sure if anything was decided
-
Yo...question..animated maps are supported?
I just got to the tank threads and I realised I better repalce them with wheels, cause I din't think it will look good without animated maps.
Hm...but even if we did have animated maps....wouldn't they be on all the time? So the threads would turn evne when standing still...
Hmm...can a model support more than 1 map? (as in 1 texture for teh chassis, 1 for the tank threads)
-
What do you think about to put a particle effect under the hover tank in case animated maps are not supported?
-
Turret? engine.
Ideally, you should place a tag_weapon and animate it's position for the relevant firing animations, so it looks like it is recoiling. (The actual weapon barrel could be a second model attached at the tag_weapon position, but the weapon will not be animated -- just the tag position.)
Death? Hmm.... normally I'd just say you play a nice, big and concealing eplosion effect and remove the model. Works and can be prettified later.
I'd propose a short and simple "fall apart" animation that is played the same tiem as hte explosion effect, and once it's done, the model is replaced with a destroyed model.
Unfortunately, it does not work. Not with our current implementation. I don't thikn we can spawn a particle effect on death (explosion). And we don't remove the model. We use dying animations and a final dead frame, so that the death animation should end in a destroyed state. Then you can specify this destroyed state set of frames in the .anm file.
And I don't think it's specified how the turrets would be attached (how would the attachment point be determined?)
Look at the tag information in the wiki. The turret would be attached as a weapon, and if you want to simulate a recoiling barrel, you'll want to make just the barrel the weapon tag, because you can animate the tag position but not the weapon model itself.
-
Unfortunately, it does not work. Not with our current implementation. I don't thikn we can spawn a particle effect on death (explosion).
Well isnt that the same as spawning a pool of blood on the ground?
-
Well isnt that the same as spawning a pool of blood on the ground?
Could be. I know our team definitions include a hit_particle parameter, but I think that handles the blood splatter on a hit, not just death. I could be wrong, though.
-
Ideally, you should place a tag_weapon and animate it's position for the relevant firing animations, so it looks like it is recoiling. (The actual weapon barrel could be a second model attached at the tag_weapon position, but the weapon will not be animated -- just the tag position.)
So the basic UGV chasis with a tag for the turret (which rotates independently, that tag is not animated)
On the turret itself a animated tag for recoil (for guns that have recoil), and the barrel is attached to that?
Unfortunately, it does not work. Not with our current implementation. I don't thikn we can spawn a particle effect on death (explosion). And we don't remove the model. We use dying animations and a final dead frame, so that the death animation should end in a destroyed state. Then you can specify this destroyed state set of frames in the .anm file.
Hm..no way to make it look good if you can't switch to a destroyed model.
For the UGV to just stop...won't look good.
It needs to blow up, have scorch marks and the like.
There may be a way to muck about by combining both into one model, but it's unwieldy.
-
could a grenade explosion effect be tied in to the sequence, like the blood effect when someone gets shot?
-
could a grenade explosion effect be tied in to the sequence, like the blood effect when someone gets shot?
So everytime someone hit it, it explodes? ;)
-
So the basic UGV chasis with a tag for the turret (which rotates independently, that tag is not animated)
On the turret itself a animated tag for recoil (for guns that have recoil), and the barrel is attached to that?
No. Our character models include a body model, with optional tags to attach secondary models. We use that for the head and left/right hand weapon. I was suggesting that you make the barrel the secondary model which attaches to the weapon tag. Then you can animate the position of the tag in the body model to simulate recoil. We don't support animations in the secondary models, so you couldn't attach the whole turret and then animate just the barrel. Please look at the wiki (http://ufoai.org/wiki/index.php/Modelling/Character_Animation).
-
I'm cunfused....
There are 3 models involved - chasis, turret and barrel.
Or 2, in which case turret+barrel are one (and thus no recoil animation).
How is turret attached to chasis? With a tag, or trough the definition file for the UGV itself (type in the coordinates)..
Or is chasis + turret one model and the barrel is a separate one?
-
I'm cunfused....
There are 3 models involved - chasis, turret and barrel.
Or 2, in which case turret+barrel are one (and thus no recoil animation).
How is turret attached to chasis? With a tag, or trough the definition file for the UGV itself (type in the coordinates)..
Or is chasis + turret one model and the barrel is a separate one?
Right, we don't support the three model setup you are talking about. We have a base model that things can be attached to.
I think our current setup supports your last method best: chassis + turrent = body. Barrel = weapon. That's the only way to get the firing animation effect unless we design a new model handling system for our UGVs. I don't think it's likely to happen soon, so if UGVs are going to finally make it into 2.5 I'd suggest pursuing a simpler implementation.
-
If turret+chasis are one model, how can the turret turn? UGV's would have to have forward fixed weapons.
-
Yes.
-
I'd suggest that a non-swiveling turret is a bigger issue than a non-recoiling barrel, and advise the chassis=body/turret+barrel=weapon approach, but my powers of visualization can be suspect at times.
~J
-
I am with Jon_dArc on how to structure the turret.
1. From an animation point of view the only 1 short animation that is needed the recoil/firing cycle as i presume the model axis rotate with the model
2. The mounting for a rocket launcher will probably be different turret from a gat gun
3. It standardizes the look for a weapon so that no matter that UGV it is attached to there is no scaling or visual inconsistency
4. We dont have several versions of each weapon for each UGV so if one gets removed or replaced it only needs to happen once.
5. Easier to make the turret look directly at the target rather than being something close such as animating using an 8 point compass
-
I've just been trying to describe what is possible now. Of course it would be best to have a chassis, with a swivelling turret, with a recoiling barrel, but we can't support that without reworking our movement system. What, for instance, should a right-click mean to a UGV? Should it turn the chassis or just the turret? If it turns just the turret, how will the chassis be turned? Should turning cost TU or not?
All of this requires new mechanisms on the backed, in the UI, and with the code that runs animations. If you want to increase the chances that your work will be useful, I recommend building it to work with the current system.
-
And it requires all weapons to use the EXACT SAME turret regardless of how bad it would look.. Either that of you have to have different models of the same UGV, but with different turrets.
Seriously, how many weapons on a tank would even HAVE recoil? missiles? no. Lasers? No.
Is recoil really that important to have?
-
Is recoil really that important to have?
Your choice.
-
I'm a contributor, not one of the original devs. Wouldn't that be your choice?
-
Modelling isn't my area of expertise, but what would be wrong with having two tags one for the turret an other for the barrel (characters have three tags -- head and right/left weapons) both attached to the body and have both rotating in sync, ok maybe overcomplicated, so I shut up.
-
I'll make that first page last one. It's cool and easy to make.
-
Somehow missed this topic earlier, so will clarify things now.
1) Current code already supports unlimited tag chaining, so you can chain hull->turret->gun with a few bits of code.
2) Tags are not limited to head/heft/right; actually, there are max 16 tags per (sub)model with arbitrary names.
3) Animations for submodels are not supported for now, that's true; not sure about how much work is required to implement them
4) Turret tag rotation is a no-brainer to implement, but will also require support in networking code.
-
Just a thought, a legged 4x4 model will probably look pretty silly and will be a pain to model. Like a lot of games with the moon-walking sliding legs thing, going across the ground, I'm sure you've seen it. A tracked or wheeled robot drone is ok. Wheels and treads are still efficient and able compared to legs, even in the future. Treads can be covered with a skirt and easy to model.
Maybe the the alien tank is just a big sphere, it rolls around, opens up into a shooting platform when it stops and shoots when it needs to shoot. Or it just has two or three wheels, with a turret. Or maybe It's a just a wide, squat, meat-based humanoid cyborg life-form on two legs.
The game universe might not have 'antigravity' or anything, but maybe a VTOL drone with anti-matter fueled rockets keeping it level and hovering. Like an unmanned, green miniature version of the alien spacecraft, for mining asteroids or whatever, but it's just a recon drone with a plasma cutter on it, the aliens use it as a combat weapon out of desperation in the late game.
I get with sci-fi stuff, people try to think of something more interesting then a box with treads and a turret on it, but the walk'n mecha-legged thing is getting even more trite. A tank with legs and a turret is just awful.
-
My thoughts about the alien tank.
It should be big and slow. It should look similar like ships. after all it is not organic. The canon can be Plasma or Particle. The Tank can use some sort of Tracks ... Bloodspider has legs. Hovernet uses hover . No rotating turret .... That's it.
Sims
-
Some more ...
-
(...) after all it is not organic.(...)
First, it is a nice model here you made. I would also congratulate the artworks made by hand in the last pages. Ok, but just a notice. The aliens need to be organic in order to receive orders (psi-orders in fact) and behave as a team. So if you design a 100% mechanical tank that doesn't make too much sense, it is less efficient than if it was at least driven by an alien organic unit, or at the very least an alien brain included somewhere in the tank.
That doesn't necessarily change your design, but I suppose that if you agreed with me you would show partly the alien organic part driving the tank.
-
We don't know for a fact you can't make a mechanical psi-receiver. And at least one alien type is cybernetic with an organic brain and mechanical body already.
It could go either way. I'm pretty sure Bloodspiders are fully automated and once psi-warfare goes in there may be some advantage to autonomous robots that can't be psi-hacked.
-
First, it is a nice model here you made. I would also congratulate the artworks made by hand in the last pages. Ok, but just a notice. The aliens need to be organic in order to receive orders (psi-orders in fact) and behave as a team. So if you design a 100% mechanical tank that doesn't make too much sense, it is less efficient than if it was at least driven by an alien organic unit, or at the very least an alien brain included somewhere in the tank.
That doesn't necessarily change your design, but I suppose that if you agreed with me you would show partly the alien organic part driving the tank.
Thank's. I think the Breeder is half-organic. So i thought the tank is made not organic. But i's not necessary .... Below description in Proposals
Alien tank
Role: The purpose of this unit would be to be very tough and heavily armed. It's an enemy to attack from cover, because a direct engagement would result in almost certain death. It should be a 2x2 unit, so it can't enter confined spaces. It should also be mechanical. Mode of movement could be tracked, wheeled or legged, whatever works. Think ground-based, alien UGV.
-
We don't know for a fact you can't make a mechanical psi-receiver. And at least one alien type is cybernetic with an organic brain and mechanical body already.
It could go either way. I'm pretty sure Bloodspiders are fully automated and once psi-warfare goes in there may be some advantage to autonomous robots that can't be psi-hacked.
You are absolutely right that aliens may have some non psi stuff, they cant be only organics. But I was thinking about how all that stuff is finally controled. Above all, mind control sounds to me very secure.
In my opinion whereas a captured alien is in one sense unactivated totally, it wouldn't be the case for a mechanized unit. Even with a broken mechanized unit the phallanx may be able to study very far such an unit and so to counter it easier than if it was partly linked to a psi and autopsy feature. And what to say about the potential re-use ? At least it is food for thought.
Thank's. I think the Breeder is half-organic. So i thought the tank is made not organic. But i's not necessary .... Below description in Proposals
Alien tank
Role: The purpose of this unit would be to be very tough and heavily armed. It's an enemy to attack from cover, because a direct engagement would result in almost certain death. It should be a 2x2 unit, so it can't enter confined spaces. It should also be mechanical. Mode of movement could be tracked, wheeled or legged, whatever works. Think ground-based, alien UGV.
This is the description proposal I had in mind. You may follow it or not, it is up to you. I made my own interpretation but you may have other planes.
My purpose was only to question you so that you dont forget an element that would make you think at the end that you would have prefered finally to add such or such thing in your model. The crucial detail you know :)
-
I agree that the Tank must be controlled somehow. It can have "a Brain" somewhere under the Armor ...
-
I agree that the Tank must be controlled somehow. It can have "a Brain" somewhere under the Armor ...
Can I ask you if you use Google-sketchup as 3D editor? It is to know if it is able to handle md2.
I opened the model directory of my 2.4 and faced this tank model below (I 'm also working on a tank idea). Will it be discontinued? It is pretty close in the general idea of what proposed just above.
(http://hfr-rehost.net/self/2bc67dc0c96969bfc2fa566541a47f719befeb4e.png)
To anyone who wishes to explore the UFOAI models in order to see how it work or for any reason, I use personnally Misfit3D as a fast md2 viewer. It asks a very short learning time (just play with the view menu in general) and can also play animations. It's GNU.
-
Hi,
I use Solid Works and Blender, Gimp. Guys i need some help on the Textures. You can see my Inspiration of the tank. But i am not that god on making the textures itself. I can use some ideas or direction how to texturize the tank.
Thanx
-
Difficult to tell you a lot of things. You will probably need first to choose a material orientation. Do you want your tank to look metal, plastic, organic?
Then for the job you already have done in the last pic provided, you have obviously a grain issue. I mean this texture is not scaled correctly according to the surface involved. At least it is my opinion.
Finally I will would personally try first to make it fully metalic. Blue metal for instance. Try this for instance : http://www.ipad2wallpaper.net/wp-content/Wallpapers/Blue_Metal_Holes_Pattern.jpg. It is surely not free licence but you can always get an idea. In general try many materials, ideas will come from this.
Once you get the general texure, you can add or paint the other details, like the green parts.
-
Hi,
thank you for reply. Yes the picture is a "test" one. I made different part textures and did not scale them right. I try to make it metalic. I post some Pictures when i am done with the basic structure texturing.
-
Hi
I didn't want to make another thread about Alien Tank, so i post in here.
I also made a tank concept. There are opinions that it could also be player-controlled UGV. I think it fits better as an Alien Tank, but I want to know your opinion.
It's not yet textured and needs more polishing but it shows a general idea.
-
Wasn´t there the weapon mounted rotable on top in earlier pics? The way it is now it can only fire in moving direction, which is kinda regression compared to tanks from WWII, not to speak of modern ones.
Without the weapon I could imagine it beeing an unarmed human scout drone. It seems to move through the air, and as aliens already have the Hovernet, I would like to have the alien tank different from that.
Of course, the model looks great and will serve well in whatever role. ;)
-
Wasn´t there the weapon mounted rotable on top in earlier pics? The way it is now it can only fire in moving direction, which is kinda regression compared to tanks from WWII, not to speak of modern ones.
Well, it does avoid the problem that we can't actually support rotating weapon mounts at the moment, and it's not a trivial task to add that.
Without the weapon I could imagine it beeing an unarmed human scout drone. It seems to move through the air, and as aliens already have the Hovernet, I would like to have the alien tank different from that.
My understanding was that the edges were small treads and that it would be able to roll around on the ground in addition to hovering.
-
I like the concept. I see it also as a human scout drone. And armored drone. Very cool model.
-
i also like the concept. about the head mounted weapon: it should not be included in the body anyway - it should have a tag where the weapon should get mounted and if we support rotating weapons one day, it can easily be added to the model.
-
My only problem with the model that is isn't like our aliens' technology... It is very different...
-geever
-
That is true geever. I was trying to make something different a new unique shape, that wouldn't look like ordinary tank.
Just as H-Hour wrote, I removed rotable mounted weapon because game doesn't support rotating weapon yet. Ofcourse it is not a problem to add a socket on top for future weapon change.
If this tank would be used as a human UGV it would require a little hull change. I could make a different hull for each weapon (RPG, chaingun, laser, plasma, etc.)
-
I agree with Sims - that would look great as a human scout drone. Quadrocopters already exist, and by 2084 they will only get better. Give it 40 AP, paper-thin armor, no weapons of any kind, robotic equivalent of IR goggles and price of about 5000 and you have efficient, cheap and plausible robo-scout.
Does the engine allow flying units? Like, could this copter fly in a cell directly above soldier?
-
Considering that the aliens are an amalgamation of several races, their equipment doesn't all have to have the same aesthetics. PHALANX explicitly uses equipment from several sources, so I don't see why the aliens shouldn't. The alien tank should probably start with flight capability, whereas humans have to upgrade to it, assuming flight ability is still planned.
Incidentally, if scout UGVs are going to be added, would it be possible to make them troop carried equipment? Current tech quadricopters are entirely small enough to be carried in a backpack, and still be useful. Is it possible to spawn an actor during a mission?