61
Artwork / Re: New Rocket Launcher
« on: July 03, 2010, 01:06:32 am »
How's this?
News:
New board
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
62
Artwork / Re: UGV weaponry
« on: July 02, 2010, 07:54:21 pm »They're the 1x1 unarmed reconnaissance UGVs. We don't need guns for them.
The near future will bring in a big way roughly man-sized armed UGVs that can follow soldiers wherever they go, be it through cramped urban environments, or terrain impassible to larger machines.
TALON SWORDS, MAARS and 'BigDog' are strong examples of this direction.
Similar such UGVs could make a good compliment to and fill a role between the backpack recon and 'tankette' UGVs. I could model a couple 1x1 combat UGVs for UFOAI if you'd like.
Quote
We have a wheeled version, a tracked version and (I think) a hover version, but they all have the same turret mount.
It looks like you only have a wheeled and hover version, the ares and phoenix, respectively. At least that's all that seems to be in your svn data sources directory, unless I missed it.
If the the phoenix was a UCAV, it would need to have its turret on the bottom, like a gunship, to engage targets on the ground, rather than on the top like a hovercraft.
63
Artwork / Re: New Rocket Launcher
« on: July 02, 2010, 07:14:56 pm »
@ Mattn
Thanks, and yes it does count.
I'll upload everything as soon as final approval is given on the ammo. Looks like it will be 11mb including source files, is that not too much?
BTW, I'm not sure what to do about your 'roughness' map though; I don't really know how your engine will interpret it.
@ Winter
Do you think this is good to go then--
Thanks, and yes it does count.
I'll upload everything as soon as final approval is given on the ammo. Looks like it will be 11mb including source files, is that not too much?
BTW, I'm not sure what to do about your 'roughness' map though; I don't really know how your engine will interpret it.
@ Winter
Do you think this is good to go then--
65
Artwork / Re: New Rocket Launcher
« on: July 01, 2010, 06:32:58 pm »My thinking was, the fins are spring-loaded and retract when being stored. Having the fins out helps increase the visual effect. However, I suppose that practically the fins would be locked inside -- perhaps even hidden inside the cartridge -- until the shell leaves the barrel. That's fine with me.
So then will this work--
66
Artwork / Re: New Rocket Launcher
« on: July 01, 2010, 05:31:38 am »I like the one on the right more, but neither shape is right. In a recoilless cartridge, the bottom two thirds of its length are solely propellant while the top third is the actual shell. The fins would have to be on the shell to work, since the propellant is used up during firing.
Check this image out for reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Recoilless_Rifle.png
Okay so to be clear, you are talking about a weapon system that is purely a gun, there is no rocket motor, just a fin stabilized round that travels down range out of inertia, right? What was confusing me then was the trail of smoke the current 'missile launcher' produces as its projectile flys through the air; I guess you intend to remove that effect in the future.
The question is then, should this model have both the cartridge intact and the fins deployed (which would probably never be the case both at once) or just one of the two?
Cartridge intact, fins retracted makes more sense for stored ammo.
Cartridge gone, fins out makes more sense for the weapon in flight on the battlescape.
67
Artwork / Re: New Rocket Launcher
« on: June 30, 2010, 08:47:45 pm »
@ Mattn
Sorry, missed your post before. I guess I'll host the files on my divshare account then, as soon as I'm finished with the rocket ammo model/textures.
@ MCR
Every weapon system comes with a complimentary normal map when you buy from Flying Steel Arms.
@ Winter
Alright so what do you think of these possibilities as far as the shape of the rockets go (slits for the fins to retract into will be visible in the textures).
Sorry, missed your post before. I guess I'll host the files on my divshare account then, as soon as I'm finished with the rocket ammo model/textures.
@ MCR
Every weapon system comes with a complimentary normal map when you buy from Flying Steel Arms.
@ Winter
Alright so what do you think of these possibilities as far as the shape of the rockets go (slits for the fins to retract into will be visible in the textures).
68
Artwork / Re: New Rocket Launcher
« on: June 29, 2010, 10:31:25 pm »
So Winter, why don't you give me all the specifics of how you want to have look, the model/textures for each rocket type this thing can shoot.
Think about the shapes of the warheads, whether the rockets have stabilizer fins (those fired from true recoilless rifles, do not, the rifling in the barrel provides the spin/stabilization), etc.
Think about the paint jobs that might help differentiate them, bright color coding or just a single letter code (like "H" for high explosive rounds), etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MSPO2007-40.jpg
69
Artwork / Re: New Rocket Launcher
« on: June 29, 2010, 05:35:18 pm »Honestly, I think that's actually tarted up a bit too much now. :p Especially the 'we come in peace', Mattn says we can't have clearly-legible text on items, and I don't think it should show up on every single launcher in the game anyway.
I'm not sure about the red all around the exhaust either. I think a few yellow arrows, maybe 4 in total, would do the job far better than the red arrows and circle.
Is this what you mean?
70
Artwork / Re: New here. Want to help
« on: June 29, 2010, 05:55:20 am »
The models look amazing.
The only thing I'd change is the should pad on the powered armor (the one on the right). It looks like it's almost in two pieces, with a gap between these two sections, but they are still connected by a thin piece of continuous material, instead of a hinge or such. I guess they could only be connected by flexible fabric, but that seems weird given there appears to be a solid exoskeleton, hard joint and motor around the elbow, while the shoulder is left unaugmented and forced to support that extra weight.
Just a thought anyway.
The only thing I'd change is the should pad on the powered armor (the one on the right). It looks like it's almost in two pieces, with a gap between these two sections, but they are still connected by a thin piece of continuous material, instead of a hinge or such. I guess they could only be connected by flexible fabric, but that seems weird given there appears to be a solid exoskeleton, hard joint and motor around the elbow, while the shoulder is left unaugmented and forced to support that extra weight.
Just a thought anyway.
71
Artwork / Re: New Rocket Launcher
« on: June 29, 2010, 05:42:01 am »
There's quite a few instructions and warning labels on it now, though mostly too small to be legible, at in-game texture resolution. The "this side towards enemy" is used on real life US military claymore mines, but it was also painted on the side of the Halo "Jackhammer" rocket launcher, as a tip of the hat to the famous claymore mine.
@ Mattn
Which directory do you what the sources uploaded to. I will release this under the GPL (Version 3 I guess).
@ Winter
How's this? (The scuffs weren't set correctly last version, now I have raised their specular to the correct level.)
@ Mattn
Which directory do you what the sources uploaded to. I will release this under the GPL (Version 3 I guess).
@ Winter
How's this? (The scuffs weren't set correctly last version, now I have raised their specular to the correct level.)
72
Artwork / Re: New Rocket Launcher
« on: June 28, 2010, 06:54:48 am »It's really shaping up, but is there any possibility of adding more texture greebling or just a few more details? A sticker or two, or even some sudged writing, to break up the black.
Like this? (Also I scuffed up the paint job a bit.)
73
Artwork / Re: New Rocket Launcher
« on: June 26, 2010, 11:25:50 pm »
Normal, Diffuse and Specular Mapping:
Not sure what's supposed to be done with the 'roughness' map, only a very vague idea.
So what do you say devs, is this a wrap?
What formats do you want this turned in as?
Not sure what's supposed to be done with the 'roughness' map, only a very vague idea.
So what do you say devs, is this a wrap?
What formats do you want this turned in as?
74
Artwork / Re: New Rocket Launcher
« on: June 26, 2010, 07:39:14 am »
@Origin
Indeed, AO bakes are very useful. You can use them for high quality self shadowing, to see where unconnected geometry intersects in UV space, and for scorch or grit effects. I just finished a final quality AO bake for this model earlier today.
Out of curiosity, what's your strategy distributing your AO bakes across the diffuse and specular textures?
@MCR
Thanks. I think I'll look for more direction from the design folks directly though when it comes to replacing more of the legacy weapons' graphics, to cut through some of the red tape of the approval process.
As for levels of detail, this model is only 500 tris, which is the max the wiki said weapons should be, and LoD's don't make sense for a model that will at most add 16,000 tris to a battlescape scene, which is nothing. So the polycount for weapons would need to be raised for there to be any sense in making LoDs, imo.
@Hertzilla
My guess is dynamic camo on weapons probably isn't supported either.
A non-reflective, matte look would basically make the normal, specular and roughness maps pointless. It could be done, but it wouldn't enhance the visual quality over the model it is replacing. Plus, looking at some real world references, it wouldn't be any more accurate or realistic, I don't think.
But if there is no disagreement put forward, I think I'll go with your second choice of glossy black.
Indeed, AO bakes are very useful. You can use them for high quality self shadowing, to see where unconnected geometry intersects in UV space, and for scorch or grit effects. I just finished a final quality AO bake for this model earlier today.
Out of curiosity, what's your strategy distributing your AO bakes across the diffuse and specular textures?
@MCR
Thanks. I think I'll look for more direction from the design folks directly though when it comes to replacing more of the legacy weapons' graphics, to cut through some of the red tape of the approval process.
As for levels of detail, this model is only 500 tris, which is the max the wiki said weapons should be, and LoD's don't make sense for a model that will at most add 16,000 tris to a battlescape scene, which is nothing. So the polycount for weapons would need to be raised for there to be any sense in making LoDs, imo.
@Hertzilla
My guess is dynamic camo on weapons probably isn't supported either.
A non-reflective, matte look would basically make the normal, specular and roughness maps pointless. It could be done, but it wouldn't enhance the visual quality over the model it is replacing. Plus, looking at some real world references, it wouldn't be any more accurate or realistic, I don't think.
But if there is no disagreement put forward, I think I'll go with your second choice of glossy black.
75
Artwork / Re: New Rocket Launcher
« on: June 25, 2010, 07:20:21 pm »
Thanks!
So what kind of paint job do we want on this thing? A cool glossy black? Or just a boring olive drab green?
Phalanx operates in every environment, so camouflage colorations are probably more or less irrelevant.
Finally, we need think about lighting for this model/textures. You folks have shaders now. While you're legacy models have faked static lighting painted (or baked) into their diffuse textures.
If the model is still going to be lit by ambient lighting on your maps, come version 2.4, then you would need the lighting baked into the diffuse texture for this model.
If your battlescape environment(s) will have realtime lighting though, in version 2.4, then you probably don't want fake lighting in your diffuse texture. Because you want your normal, specular and roughness maps to be doing all the reflection from those realtime lights, dynamically.
So how do you want me to do this?
So what kind of paint job do we want on this thing? A cool glossy black? Or just a boring olive drab green?
Phalanx operates in every environment, so camouflage colorations are probably more or less irrelevant.
Finally, we need think about lighting for this model/textures. You folks have shaders now. While you're legacy models have faked static lighting painted (or baked) into their diffuse textures.
If the model is still going to be lit by ambient lighting on your maps, come version 2.4, then you would need the lighting baked into the diffuse texture for this model.
If your battlescape environment(s) will have realtime lighting though, in version 2.4, then you probably don't want fake lighting in your diffuse texture. Because you want your normal, specular and roughness maps to be doing all the reflection from those realtime lights, dynamically.
So how do you want me to do this?