AT_Stalky
Rep: 27.4  
votes: 10
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:21 pm Post subject: This is separated from the main CCMT Bugs & Suggestions |
 |
|
This is separated from the main CCMT Bugs & Suggestions List:
Suggestion of improvement no 8: Add all the vehicle images, they were in CCM3.1 but not in CCMT. Its useful for knowing if your tilted.
SimTec PR-man answer: Atomic had the 3D programs and know how. No one else does.
How sad that non has the know how.
Hmmm, the 17 images for each tank in original CC5 are in a top down angel as follow:
Im thinking,
What they used?? How about draw the crude tank-moddel in more or less any 3D program, and then changed the camera angles accordingly to set angles and took pictures, and tidy up the pixels?
Stalk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
|
CSO_Sbufkle
Rep: 32.2
votes: 1
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote:
|
|
SimTec PR-man answer: Atomic had the 3D programs and know how. No one else does.
|
Two things.. BOTH Important!
First of all Drill is not a Simtek PR person, in fact hes no longer employed by Simtek or the new entity that has the ball in thier court to proceed with CC. So hes giving his opinion as a layman, not a Sitmek employee, nothing more. He doest have insight because he was with Sitmek before on this project.. but hes not talking now under thier banner. So you must take it at that, believe him or not, and I find points on that original list/thread where I htink hes wrong and right. (Which makes Mooxes points the same, THATS ONLY MY OPINION)A few of these are down to opinion in what some people dont like about CCMT.
Second, you are 100% correct, making 3D tank models is NOT rocket science, were talkign a SLIGHTLY angled 3D model.. not a big deal!! Were not talking a full blown 3D model from every angle.. You really can google 3D programs or evern tutorials on how to give graphics a 3D look. Atomic doesnt own a monopoly on 3D games graphics! 
Personally Im not a fan of the slight 3D edge to buildings or tanks. Soem maps alreayd have the buildings like this.. I think it looks silly.. HOWEVER I have seen alot of people like it.. so if the majority wants more of it... well then thier voice shoudl be heard and taken seriously! |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
schrecken
Rep: 195
votes: 15
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Every one is taken seriously!
Everyones voice can be heard...err....read. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
platoon_michael
Rep: 56.2
votes: 25
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sometimes the images look a little to silly.But thats most likely due to the scale.
Load up the original CCIV and have a look.
I have only seen one person do it.It was a small video shared with me but the guy nailed it.Atleast I thought.
No one does it due to the amount of worked involved.17 images 1 vehicle multiplied by how many more vehicles?
Oh yea and then theirs the ATguns too. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
CSO_Sbufkle
Rep: 32.2
votes: 1
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It takes a little time to import them in, but the artists get paid for this.
If the developper wouldn't be willing to put the time in to do this, then why would they expect the clients to go to the trouble spending their hard earned money on it?
Valid point... No???
Having to take TIME to impliment this is a big difference from not being able to do it. Its not a mod, its a commercial product. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
AT_Stalky
Rep: 27.4
votes: 10
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:39 pm Post subject: Forget this post. |
|
|
| I deleted my post as Buf was faster and posted as I was wrghting and I said more or less same thing as he did,with other words. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
mooxe
Rep: 221.7
votes: 25
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is certainly a time consuming job. However, these titled images and "3d" buildings do have an effect on the game. Removing these features detracts from the games appeal.
Knowing where the windows and door of a building are quickly is essential, as well as knowing the full state of your vehicles. These are "ground level" tactical decisions that a commander must know about without right-click and dragging. |
Join Discord for technical support and online games. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
CSO_Linebacker
![]()
Rep: 5.9
votes: 1
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CSO_Sbufkle wrote:
|
|
It takes a little time to import them in, but the artists get paid for this.
|
I'm not aware of any artists that were paid for work on CCMT
| Quote:
|
|
it is certainly a time consuming job. However, these titled images and "3d" buildings do have an effect on the game. Removing these features detracts from the games appeal.
|
You're right, larger buildings do look good when rendered in 3d. I can usually model and render a building in low detail in about 30 minutes. The churches on the GJS Bayeaux map, and Shane's St Marie du Mont map took some time longer. Your point on windows and doors is only valid for 2 sides of the building...the two other sides will not be visible. Even the majority of buildings in the stock games are almost completely top down...mainly just the larger buildings. CC3 had the most isometric buildings of all the CC versions.
The vehicles, the vehicles. Half the people don't care, the other half do. I never even noticed the tilting in game until a couple of years ago...that's how much I cared about them and how much they added to gameplay for me. I have LW setup to render the 17 images. I for one am not a master modeler, which is not a big problem, because the rendered vehicles are so small that little detail is bir really visible anyway...when people praise the look of new vehicles in mods, it's because they look so much better than the stock ones...which lost their detail because of how small they have to be rendered at. I personally, prefer more detailed vehicles, over low detail images that tilt, that I don't really notice or care about. The 17 images could be done, but as I said, the small render size means detailed vehicles would be lost. As far as time on a vehicle, right now it takes about 5 hours per 2d vehicle for the hull, turret and custom ground shadows...with about 4 of that being the creation of an extremely low detailed 3d model for rendering ground shadows |
'If it does not have a gun, it cannot be fun' |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Tejszd
Rep: 133.6
votes: 19
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
The multiple vehicles help prevent floating vehicles. It is not a huge thing as Atomic has been the only one to date to put in the required effort but they were selling the game unlike the mod makers....
The size of the vehicle images and the tilting affect are separate issues.The tanks/vehicles could be more detailed and tilting IF THE EFFORT was put in.... |
Last edited by Tejszd on Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:08 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
CSO_Sbufkle
Rep: 32.2
votes: 1
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote:
|
|
I'm not aware of any artists that were paid for work on CCMT
|
You mean you did the work for free??? Thats very kind of you!! (Possibly others)
I got paid for my work on CCRAF, as did Olorin, Jim and I believe Shane as well (For Honington and Rumjun) Thats what I was told by Chros. I know for a fact Olorin got paid because we both collectively worked on the GUI which took a long time.
If the artists WERENT paid out of thier own decision to do it for free, its kind of suprising.. and this is NO insult to the artists Jim and neil.. but dont you think that the artists work is MUCH more modivated and better when they get paid for it?
As someone who has a sideline doing graphics now.. if soemone is making money or trying to with whatever I am making for them, I charge for my work. If its for s charity or non profit sports organization, its done for free. Maybe Neil and Im assuming Jim both didnt mind working on CCMT for free? But Im not sure who did and didnt get paid!! If they didnt and didnt want to.. thats thier choice.. but a curious business tactic.
the boxart was very good on CCMT, a real professional job.. who made that? Jim or you? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
CSO_Linebacker
![]()
Rep: 5.9
votes: 1
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="CSO_Sbufkle"]
| Quote:
|
the boxart was very good on CCMT, a real professional job.. who made that? Jim or you?
|
Matrix made the boxart, and I agree, very nice job. The best boxart I have seen on a CC title to date |
'If it does not have a gun, it cannot be fun' |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
CSO_Linebacker
![]()
Rep: 5.9
votes: 1
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tejszd wrote:
|
The multiple vehicles help prevent floating vehicles. It is not a huge thing as Atomic has been the only one to date to put in the required effort but they were selling the game unlike the mod makers....
The size of the vehicle images and the tilting affect are separate issues.The tanks/vehicles could be more detailed and tilting IF THE EFFORT was put in....
|
I know everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I completely disagree, they are not separate issues...the vehicle scale of CC just kills the details when rendering to get the tilting effect you want.
Here is an example. A professional 3d model of the Bradley IFV...more than 10000 polygons...the man who made this said that he had about 30 hours into the model and texturing. He sent me the model with a tutorial to try and help me improve my modeling.
I have removed the textures...just as Atomic rendered vehicles in greyscale and added the color layer after rendering.
I rendered it through my own 17 image animation...noticed that I have a hiccup at frame 2...It is rendered to 8 pixels per meter...the higher end of stock CC Scale.
We all have our own opinions, and there will never be a consensus, but for me...they trade off in detail for something I don't consider an important part of CC is not worth it. It would take a full time artist with their multi-thousand dollar 3d software, and a salary to pay them...I think that can wait to a whole new game that is made from the ground up.
The other thing to remember, is that none of us really know how to use the second set of hotpoint coordinates for vehicles and turrets. They are related to the 3d nature of the stock vehicles...I'm sure we could probably make due with only having unique values in the first set...unless someone from Atomic ends up giving us some insight into how they were used.
 |
'If it does not have a gun, it cannot be fun' |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
CSO_Sbufkle
Rep: 32.2
votes: 1
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
While I have siad Im not a fan of 3D tansk or buildings.. I think were trying perhaps to reinvent the wheel were as you odnt need to!!
When Im referring to 3D tansk I mean SLIGHT 3D. In essence think a slight drop shadow of metal from the turret and 1 or 2 of the 4 sides of the tank.. (Depending on the angle) were not talking major 3d rendering with 100% accruate shadows ect ect. Not a severe angle like say A&A.
Look at soem otf the RTB maps that were rehased for CCMT and thier slight 3D angle... soemthign actually a little smaller thanb that on the tanks woudlnt be tough.. in fact if you take the 'metal drop shadow' idea, then the hotspot stays in the same place.
Now woudl this look good if overlayed to sheo effect? Dunno.. but again.. not a really massive 3d job, just ever so slight liek the buildings on soem of the maps.
For me.. I dont want 3D!!! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
CSO_Linebacker
![]()
Rep: 5.9
votes: 1
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CSO_Sbufkle wrote:
|
drop shadow of metal from the turret and 1 or 2 of the 4 sides of the tank...
...'metal drop shadow'
|
Not sure what you mean here....could you explain what a drop shadow of metal is.
Are you talking about how shadows lay and perhaps move on a vehicle during the animation?
I was wondering if a more subtle 'rocking' movement would suffice for some people. This could be done outside of a 3d rendering so the detail level on today's mod tanks can be maintained, while still giving the appearance of the vehicle rocking with terrain. Of course a vehicle rocking on pavement would look stupid as opposed to uneven ground...but it can't be both ways. The 17 image animation cannot be turned off and on based on the type of ground...at least, not at this moment. |
'If it does not have a gun, it cannot be fun' |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
AT_Stalky
Rep: 27.4
votes: 10
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Na, just plain simple 3D added to it. And the pixels tidy up and details enhanced.
Not a rocking lumb.
This is just side tilt in ONE step for each side:
But no matter how bad my vehicle is (im not a pro, not even a good amatur), its just an example from tecnical point of view I do think it suggest that one can maintain detail and make it 3D, 3D and detail is not opposits I belive, one may have both. Or am I wrong?
Stalk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
CSO_Linebacker
![]()
Rep: 5.9
votes: 1
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| That's what I was talking about...make a subtle left-right rocking motion, and the current 2d drawn vehicles could be used with all the details that come with them and still give the apearance of the 3d rendered animations |
'If it does not have a gun, it cannot be fun' |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Therion
Rep: 27.4
votes: 4
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I dislike isometric buildings in CC, because they don't look natural and show only one or two sides anyway. Generally, I dislike maps with such buildings and don't play on them, because they are ugly. |
Wonderland - my mod for Armored Brigade
Killing for peace is like fucking for orgasm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
SFC_Klemer
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Damn stalky that tank looks awesome....and if you think you dont have professional stuff there, and you made it on your own, you need to render the vehicles, and fire whoever is currently making them....LOL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
AT_Stalky
Rep: 27.4
votes: 10
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hehe |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
