NEW STRUCTURE MODELS

[Zarel]

Ehh. I guess I don't really like the "bent" towers in either the factory or research facility. I think it needs less "futuristic" and more "post-apocalyptic".

[Olrox]

Any idea on what to put in their places or what to change on them for them to look more like the way you want?
:rolleyes: hmm... anything post-apocalyptic would be futuristic, because apocalypse didn't happen yet.
Should I only put them straight up?

[Zarel]

I don't see anything wrong with straight up. Less polygons, too!

[Olrox]

I don't see anything wrong with straight up. Less polygons, too!

wowowow...
wait...

>_< COMPLETELY DEFEAT THE PURPOSE, WHY DON'T YOU?

The purpose of my models is to raise the detail level of the buildings and make them look more like something of next (post apocalyptic, in this case) generation. Select the whole text of my post before. Go, select it. You'll lol.

I wouldn't reveal that, but... Well, I can make the vents straight, no problem... But chill out dude, the current count will not overload the game. And you should hate warzone 2100 if you don't really like futuristic things... Look at this page. The current model hardly hits 200 polys, less than the value for 2x2 models, and it is a 3x3.
O_O Well, no need to check every post with smileys, that was only occasional.
Here is the model with the straight vent anyways.
I'm sorry about the little joke in my last post.

[Per]

That previous screenshot shows two different buildings with an expanded version, right? So the one with the tree is a research facility, and the other one is ...?

In any case, I think a park-like accessory to a military structure in a post-apocalyptic setting is somewhat ... odd.

[Kamaze]

These research buildings look like a hospital.

[Olrox]

These research buildings look like a hospital.

hahahaha, yeah, that's true... If i'd put a heliport atop it it would be exactly the same as a hospital
Any idea to make it look more like an office building?
I'll remove the tree already.
Gonna make version 1.2 when got one more opinion.

That previous screenshot shows two different buildings with an expanded version, right? So the one with the tree is a research facility, and the other one is ...?

The other one is the (ground vehicle) Factory model. It's almost the same as version 1.3.4, but with straight vent towers.
By the way, which one do you prefer, version 1.3.4 or 1.3.5? I mean, the structures from this post are factories with different module levels, while the structures from this one are just research facilities, being the top-left the one with no module, namely R1, the top-right the one with module, namely R2, and the below ones being the same, but rotated 90 degrees counter-clockwise.

[elio]

It's almost the same as version 1.3.4, but with straight vent towers.

imho 1.3.4 looks better than 1.3.5 except that the vent towers are too "heavy" i dunno, somehow it's misproportioned xD

[Olrox]

Version 1.3.6 done, what about the vent towers? I've reduce their scales, gonna make them look like metal ducts, separated from the main context of the module, in the texture.

I have a question for everyone. Would you like structures like:

I-Nowaday structures, nothing special, walls with exits and something to indicate their function.

II-Iron-clad structures, with evident concrete reinforcements outside, looking like they're ready for war, despite there's hardcrete walls protecting them of not.

III-Futuristic structures, with high-tec outfit, looking like they estabilish a new concept of military structures and are protected by hardcrete walls already.

IV-Something very cool

Post your answers, with short comments if thought needed, before anything more, please. Alternative IV does not count. xD

Edit: Afriend of mine reminded me of something very important. If you're on the north hemisphere, expect my textures on winter, not summer. I live in Brasil, so summer vacations are actually same as november+december+january.

[MetalBeast]

I think "II." match best the ambience of this game.
Too new and clean is unrealistic, too futuristic match not the units style.

So, If you want futuristic buildings, you have also to remodell all the units, what should be many, many work

[Zarel]

I don't see anything wrong with straight up. Less polygons, too!

wowowow...
wait...

>_< COMPLETELY DEFEAT THE PURPOSE, WHY DON'T YOU?

The purpose of my models is to raise the detail level of the buildings and make them look more like something of next (post apocalyptic, in this case) generation. Select the whole text of my post before. Go, select it. You'll lol.

I wouldn't reveal that, but... Well, I can make the vents straight, no problem... But chill out dude, the current count will not overload the game. And you should hate warzone 2100 if you don't really like futuristic things... Look at this page. The current model hardly hits 200 polys, less than the value for 2x2 models, and it is a 3x3.
O_O
Here is the model with the straight vent anyways.
I'm sorry about the little jokes in my last post and the one in the version number.

Well, in case it wasn't obvious, I meant "futuristic" as in the artistic style, which isn't the same as "futuristic" as in "anything from the future". The artistic style called "futuristic" is different (and happier, and more shiny, and more glowy, and with rounder shapes, and more unconventional) than the artistic style called "post-apocalyptic".

My "less polygons, too!" comment wasn't in any way implying your current poly count was too high; it's about right.

[Olrox]

Ok, I've got it, thanks for your patience explaining.

I-Nowaday structures, nothing special, walls with exits and something to indicate their function.

II-Iron-clad structures, with evident concrete reinforcements outside, looking like they're ready for war, despite there's hardcrete walls protecting them of not.

III-Futuristic structures, with high-tec outfit, looking like they estabilish a new concept of military structures and are protected by hardcrete walls already.

IV-Something very cool

?
Well, I've got it already, it isn't III.
xD

[whippersnapper]

Well, in case it wasn't obvious, I meant "futuristic" as in the artistic style, which isn't the same as "futuristic" as in "anything from the future". The artistic style called "futuristic" is different (and happier, and more shiny, and more glowy, and with rounder shapes, and more unconventional) than the artistic style called "post-apocalyptic".

pure, unadulterated, hogwash. i'm an artist, grew up in art (mom a painter / author, dad a musician, both pros...all my sibs too, 2 bros & a sis), have moved in art circles all my life, my formal art education is rock solid and i've made money at it too.

but the point is most of yu folks have not even done your homework on the current science projecting a post nuke holocaust-winter world. pumpkin's extrapolations in wz were colored by their liking the road warrior movies first off as far as scavs but for all the rest that many of yu all spout as if holy scripture it IS VERY WEAK extrapolation if yu bother to do any rudimentary research on the sciences involved.

no offense zarel, and i do really appreciate & admire the work you are doing elsewhere, but you are obviously no artist and to speak as if you were is just plain fool-hardy.

Olrox, appreciate what you are trying to do, HOW you are going about it AND your temperament in dealing with the responses to what you've done. imho, all admirable. dealing with warzone source-game in any active way is a great learning experience that can also be tons of fun.. but beyond that, as far as re-creating a cohesive, quality, 21st century rts game - there is an elephant in the room so to speak, that belies that goal ever being achieved... but, even though that directly relates to this an every other upgrading effort, here is not the place or time for a strict, impartial, feasibility analysis that amounts to exposing what is in truth an exercise in whack a mole and what amounts to encouraging a state of denial in those who are not coders and cannot on their own appraise the real potential of the original source - engine (or its current transformed state) and it's very real shortfalls that amount to deal breakers as far as realizing much of what is spoken of and even begun in haphazard fashion, as a working, stable, whole.

[fisk0]

:

I-Nowaday structures, nothing special, walls with exits and something to indicate their function.

II-Iron-clad structures, with evident concrete reinforcements outside, looking like they're ready for war, despite there's hardcrete walls protecting them of not.

III-Futuristic structures, with high-tec outfit, looking like they estabilish a new concept of military structures and are protected by hardcrete walls already.

IV-Something very cool

I think II is the most appropriate for the game, but I'd like to make a small suggestion for the style as well - I think your research labs looked a bit too elaborate - the original models had a simpler feel to them, not only because of technology limitations of the time, but because I think they are not meant to look like the kind of buildings you take years to construct and who are supposed to stand there for all eternity - but rather as fortified, somewhat bunker like buildings that are constructed in a short time and are only meant for a temporary military base, which is to be deconstructed again once the war is over or the front lines have moved on to another location. the glass covered skyscraper things with that little park and tree in front of it just looked too complicated (as well as not fitting too well in the post-apocalyptic setting). It looked more like the kind of building a super power constructs in one of their cities to impress their citizens rather than something you mass produce for your military bases and whose purpose is primary military.

[Zarel]

pure, unadulterated, hogwash.

Happens sometimes. I have a tendency to act like I know more than I do - definitely feel free to call me out in those cases. I look forward to hearing you explain how I was wrong.

i'm an artist, grew up in art (mom a painter / author, dad a musician, both pros...all my sibs too, 2 bros & a sis), have moved in art circles all my life, my formal art education is rock solid and i've made money at it too.

That's nice. We need people like you to help in our project, and I'm glad we have you.

but the point is most of yu folks have not even done your homework on the current science projecting a post nuke holocaust-winter world. pumpkin's extrapolations in wz were colored by their liking the road warrior movies first off as far as scavs but for all the rest that many of yu all spout as if holy scripture it IS VERY WEAK extrapolation if yu bother to do any rudimentary research on the sciences involved.

Okay, so, I'm apparently wrong in my interpretation of "post-apocalyptic". But I'm not sure I understand how I'm wrong.

no offense zarel, and i do really appreciate & admire the work you are doing elsewhere, but you are obviously no artist and to speak as if you were is just plain fool-hardy.

I freely admit that. I'm no artist - I'm an interfacer and a designer. I'm good at making things have high usability, although I code, too, since it's easier than getting people to code for me. My art sucks - the most I've gotten is something like third place in a statewide middle-school-level art competition. I try to guide works so that they're usable - in that structures are easily recognizable. I also make some comments that are more along the lines of "This is how I, as a user, feel" because that's the essence of interfacing. And I felt that the structure didn't look the "run-down" and "designed for functionality rather than aesthetics" feel I get from the rest of Warzone, as a user, not as an artist. Doing extrapolation, I call Pumpkin's style "post-apocalyptic", but I care more about making newer structures somewhat close to Pumpkin's original design ideas than adherence to any particular thing called "post-apocalyptic".

Olrox, appreciate what you are trying to do, HOW you are going about it AND your temperament in dealing with the responses to what you've done. imho, all admirable. dealing with warzone source-game in any active way is a great learning experience that can also be tons of fun..

I agree.

but beyond that, as far as re-creating a cohesive, quality, 21st century rts game - there is an elephant in the room so to speak, that belies that goal ever being achieved... but, even though that directly relates to this an every other upgrading effort, here is not the place or time for a strict, impartial, feasibility analysis that amounts to exposing what is in truth an exercise in whack a mole and what amounts to encouraging a state of denial in those who are not coders and cannot on their own appraise the real potential of the original source - engine (or its current transformed state) and it's very real shortfalls that amount to deal breakers as far as realizing much of what is spoken of and even begun in haphazard fashion, as a working, stable, whole.

Wait, wait, what? What's the elephant in the room? I think you're trying to say there's some sort of problem, but I can't figure out what the problem is.

I think II is the most appropriate for the game, but I'd like to make a small suggestion for the style as well - I think your research labs looked a bit too elaborate - the original models had a simpler feel to them, not only because of technology limitations of the time, but because I think they are not meant to look like the kind of buildings you take years to construct and who are supposed to stand there for all eternity - but rather as fortified, somewhat bunker like buildings that are constructed in a short time and are only meant for a temporary military base, which is to be deconstructed again once the war is over or the front lines have moved on to another location. the glass covered skyscraper things with that little park and tree in front of it just looked too complicated (as well as not fitting too well in the post-apocalyptic setting). It looked more like the kind of building a super power constructs in one of their cities to impress their citizens rather than something you mass produce for your military bases and whose purpose is primary military.

Hear, hear. This is exactly what I'm thinking (although, echoing my earlier statements, I make no guarantee that "what I'm thinking" is what's right).