Propulsion models

[Sekmeton]

Ok... my bad... but take it easy man... O.o I thought you were pointing to half tracks... plus, you made a Neon-sign/post about my mistake xD

Back to propulsion models:

Wheels shouldn't be separated, and I'd like to see 6... That way, it would look like a war machine (IMHO)

Half-tracks, I like what Zarel said... separated parts

Tracks... I'd love to see a new design, like that one in cumandgetit's image... but it should be quite differente (to make a diference with the half-tracks)

[cumandgetit]

Ok... my bad... but take it easy man... O.o I thought you were pointing to half tracks... plus, you made a Neon-sign/post about my mistake xD ...

My sincere apologies for over-reacting.

I have no more to contribute to the topic at this time... so I'll say no more and leave you folks to your constructive discussion.

best regards...

[Olrox]

Ok... my bad... but take it easy man... O.o I thought you were pointing to half tracks... plus, you made a Neon-sign/post about my mistake xD ...

My sincere apologies for over-reacting.

I have no more to contribute to the topic at this time... so I'll say no more and leave you folks to your constructive discussion.

best regards...

You forgot to credit C&C 3's concept art crew for that design of the Mammoth tank.
And I didn't get it, cumandgetit: if you're not talking to Sekmeton or Zarel and don't care about their opinion, send me a PM, I'm disposed to receive and read all of them wether I know the sender or not.

Afer all, I've got a greater tendency to accept Zarel's propositions, because he's one of the most (if not the most) active members of the WZ2100 resurrection project forums. He saw a lot of opinions and propositions and criticism... He's more experienced, and that's enough for me to value the ways he sees things more than new members' point of view. And see, I value the potential of every new member of our community, I incentivate, and try to help in most cases.

No need to be agressive or try to mock people on your posts. This makes me mad, it's really unproductive... :rolleyes:

But I'm not saying "GTFO", no way: I want to know what everyone think about it, but I must respect everyone's ideas, and as I'm talking publicly on a topic, I must consider everyone's point, as far as I can.

[cumandgetit]

Ok... my bad... but take it easy man... O.o I thought you were pointing to half tracks... plus, you made a Neon-sign/post about my mistake xD ...

My sincere apologies for over-reacting.

I have no more to contribute to the topic at this time... so I'll say no more and leave you folks to your constructive discussion.

best regards...

You forgot to credit C&C 3's concept art crew for that design of the Mammoth tank.

It's obvious where your are going with that comment.

The artist signed the work as per the attached and I posted it as i would a signed work by Picasso or Rubens or Titian, etc., in good faith. It's relationship to C & C 3, etc. in an RTS based community bb, seemed OBVIOUS... but whatever.

The whole point and substance of my original post, with all these subsequent comments, may as well have been made with invisible ink so lets conclude this waste of time with a last reiteration.

I'm trying to understand the distinctions here; or rather lack thereof.

This is what is running through my mind.

The engineering requirements for combat vehicles designed to accommodate the safety, efficacy and comfort of human crews are vastly different than unmanned combat vehicles.

What I'm seeing here is no recognition of these engineering distinctions in the designs which is perfectly fine because this is an RTS game and not a simulation of real life and as such the coolness factor can be melded to a verisimilitude that basically ignores the real life engineering distinctions. In this last sense, through the magic of artistry, you can have your cake and eat it too were as in real life, or a simulation, you would have to make a clear choice and abide the engineering design distinctions.

[Zarel]

Meh, stop arguing. All I did was suggest what I believe is the better method of making wheels and half-tracks, since that way they look more distinct from tracks.

cumandgetit, Olrox was joking. Generally, when you see someone say , it's best not to take them too seriously.

[Olrox]

...

Pah, it's unbearable, seriously.
I just meant that saying "Here's a sketch of the Mammoth Tank, from C&C 3" doesn't hurt anybody, I didn't mean "Tell me who made that sketch", "where you get it from", "show me evidences" or anything like that. A slight reference often saves a discussion from getting awfully boring, where one comes after another with a pile of so-called "evidences", such as the ridiculous zoom-in you posted about the signature...

Please, do not mock me as long as I do not mock you.

[Mach10chocobo]

*breaks the argument by complimenting olrox's epic models thusfar*

[Sekmeton]

I'm still waiting the "Sekmeton, your idea sucks" xD!

I'm now trying to "design" a new hover propulsion...

[Olrox]

I'm still waiting the "Sekmeton, your idea sucks" xD!

I'm still hoping it won't happen

I'm now trying to "design" a new hover propulsion...

Good, I've made some sketches right now (Since I've finished those exams and researches at university) with CAD to represent what I was thinking about ground props.
The "Metal bars" are the steering mechanism I've posted a picture of before, in this post, but protected by a metal layer. Those are going to point towards the center of the body, thus are not aligned with the rest of the propulsion: That's why I've made the curves in the end of them - it indicates that the extension has yet to be set (by me, when I make the 3d and can compare them directly to the bodies).

I guess it's very easy to make this conclusion, but anyway: The columns represent the different types of propulsion (wheels, half tracks and tracks respectively), while the rows represent the size of the body that's going to use this layout (small, medium and large respectively).

I think I'll need to add more teamcolored parts on all of the wheels, perhaps a small protection that covers half of the rear, larger wheels' width. While you comment, I'll have some sleep because I'm almost dying here

[Zarel]

Hah, your attachment doesn't show up well on preview.

I don't think having the smaller wheel looks very good. :/

[Sekmeton]

Mmmm I like all the ideas, except the half-tracks and the Tracks for the heavy bodies... It really looks like a WW2 British Tank xD

[Olrox]

Hah, your attachment doesn't show up well on preview.

I don't think having the smaller wheel looks very good. :/

You mean on every wheels layout?
I was wondering about that, also. Might need to make the model to be sure

Mmmm I like all the ideas, except the half-tracks and the Tracks for the heavy bodies... It really looks like a WW2 British Tank xD

But this one got the armour, will have larger width and be put on WZ bodies!
And this design of british tanks were used mostly on WWI, I think :rolleyes:

[Trifler]

I really like the work you're doing on here. The pix are top-notch.

Are you using the same texture that comes with Art Rebalance or did you make a new one for it?

I can't wait to see the Wheels, Half-Tracks, Tracks, and VTOL in-game. Want the Hover eventually of course, but IMO it's the lowest priority.

For Wheels, could you possibly give Light and Medium bodies four wheels and Heavy bodies six? I'm guessing there's a different model used for each regardless, but if they all use the same one then never mind.

[Olrox]

For Wheels, could you possibly give Light and Medium bodies four wheels and Heavy bodies six? I'm guessing there's a different model used for each regardless, but if they all use the same one then never mind.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3940&p=39459#p39337

You've read that, didn't you? :rolleyes:

[Trifler]

For Wheels, could you possibly give Light and Medium bodies four wheels and Heavy bodies six? I'm guessing there's a different model used for each regardless, but if they all use the same one then never mind.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3940&p=39459#p39337

You've read that, didn't you? :rolleyes:

I did read it, and it doesn't say anything about four wheels or six wheels, etc. If you mean the sketches, then no, I didn't look at that carefully until now.

According to the sketches, it looks like you plan on using four wheels on the Light, and six wheels on the Medium and Heavy. I like the wheels for Light that you've presented, and the sketch for the Medium looks good. For the Heavy though, I think you should use three equally sized and equally spaced wheels like on modern wheeled APCs.