Warzone 2100 Forums

MaNGusT wrote:

Jorzi wrote:Yeah, I guess I could just export the scav model (and other animated stuff) as a .pie without any normal mapping for the time being.

agreed.

On the other hand, there's plenty of other stuff that can be done while waiting for a better solution.

lol, no one is working on it.

P.S. so, If the I-nod's fork will be "someday" merged with master, we could use pie and wzm models in AR mod in the same time.

where can we download that version? does savegames work on that?

Jorzi wrote:Can you fix it? Imo just scrap the whole animation system if you have to.

Its unrelated to animation. Those problems come (flattening, constructor beams, etc.) from fact that there is no longer a way (one can, but shouldn't for speed considerations) to directly read model vertexes as they are in gpu memory, either need to adapt current stretch system or design a new one. Its better to design new ways for those cases. I can think of bounding box vertices for constructor rays, i now think its like in supcom...

@I-NoD: So the smartest fix right now is to just disable vertex stretching in the shader?

Started doing the campaign transport. Tried to stay true to the original design, although some parts, like the angled fans blowing out from the inside (or whatever they're doing), bother me. Suggestions?

From the videos, the transport looks like the tanks are attached outside the body structure, and the cockpit is not on an indented plane, but sticks out as well.

Jorzi, very nice as usually.
I have no opinions other that I want to see those fans spinning finally also in game, although that is framework issue anyway.

cybersphinx, attached or loaded from bottom?

at this stage I would say that you have introduced not enough details for a such big model, although this transport model should be used only in campaign, so the poly count limit could be significantly increased.
or you are planing to make other details on high poly model?
also keep in mind that wzm can handle more than one mesh, at least in future purposes.

Jorzi wrote:@I-NoD: So the smartest fix right now is to just disable vertex stretching in the shader?

Yes.
I do not know if its needed at all, given deep basement in ARmod walls.

I've tried to scale models a bit so they overlap on joints, but without stretching they are z-fight now There should be some way to solve this... maybe with joints in meshes with game logic switching one joint if there is a wall section connected...

Thanks guys

@I-NoD: Yes, z-fighting is a natural result of overlapping joints. That's why I simply had them line up instead. Your Idea is interesting though...
@MaNGusT: More details on the hipoly of course Maybe on the lowpoly too, I'm currently at ~750 triangles. My flying saucer was ~2000 and it worked well, so I can probably add some more still.
@Emdek: I think he meant tanks as in the cylinder thingies
@cybersphinx, thanks for the images, those are always useful. (if only they were more hi-res...)

Jorzi wrote:@Emdek: I think he meant tanks as in the cylinder thingies

Yep, I've thought about that possibility but dismissed it as too small proportionally to unit size (assuming that this propulsion under transport belongs to unit, not the transport itself, without rechecking this video clip).
I would say that they host living space for crew and supplies or (as stated in another thread) they could be helium filled and explain this way why we have flying unit before researching VTOLs.
Also it would need to rotate to attach units in those places or use complicated elevators inside.

What I meant was: "tank" can mean two things, and I think he meant the cylinders, not the vehicles

Hmm changing the shader worked well, but the hardpoints are still screwed (but interesting).

Blah, I'm victim of allies idea to confuse Germans by reusing word that has different meaning to keep development of tanks secret.

Jorzi wrote:@MaNGusT: More details on the hipoly of course Maybe on the lowpoly too, I'm currently at ~750 triangles. My flying saucer was ~2000 and it worked well, so I can probably add some more still.

Yeah, you could, transport is not a model that you can build as masses.
You could add a special part(s) where mg will be placed btw.

also, if Olrox could give me his transport model, I would adapt it to the mp uses.

What I see when I look at the original transport model and it's texture is that the complete aft section (the grey part, including the fin) can be swung open for loading and unloading cargo. Everything above the equator pivots up, everything below pivots down to make a loading ramp. That could be something to elaborate on.
The overall look of the transport, with the cylindrical tanks and tiny wings leads me to believe the transport is a crossover between airship and VTOL, so the tanks would be gas cells to generate static lift. This implies the vehicle would require release valves on all the gas cells to vent a portion of gas before unloading, else it would just shoot into the air once a tank rolls off the ramp, as the transport would become 40 tons light (compared to ground level atmospheric pressure) in a instant.
As far as the fans on the body go... maybe they're impellers with radial intakes? That transport needs to generate some kind of forward thrust.

@Corporal punishment: In the middle picture that cybersphinx posted, as well as the cutscenes you can see that they seem to be entering the transport by a ramp thingy at the rear, buy I don't think the upper part would swing up. I think they only reused the texture to save space. The airship theory sounds believable, although I think I'll stay with the fairly metallic texture...
@Emdek: A cunning plan indeed

about the walls fix.. we could still return to additional foundation model idea