so 263 is not a combat vehicle, isn't it? the mounted MG seems pretty useless
|
|
|
so 263 is not a combat vehicle, isn't it? the mounted MG seems pretty useless
It's a radio vehicle. The MG is for defense only.
It seems you are right and I was misinterpreting the statement that "this vehicle was identical to the 323 with a static turret". I also think this can't be called a turret. But the base is definively the same.
----------
On some pictures it looks only like an addon an some others than like a completely new hull. Not sure about either.i'm also curious, is the 263's superstructure welded on the same 231/232's hull, or it is just a new hull with bigger steel pieces?
I think @Eli is right if he compares the versions with the difference between a panther and a jagdpanther.
On the SdKfz 263, the superstructure plates were extended upwards to form a larger compartment for its 5-man crew and larger radio setup. As part of the signalling detachments for the motorized and armored divisions, these vehicles were not intended for use as fighting vehicles, but rather as mobile bases for a highly-effective communications network.
in English its a field command truck for germans thus hardly a neccesity
As they were used by the signalling units, the only reason you'd see one on the battlefield is if the front line rapidly moved forward and caught them unawares. In which case they would be retreating as fast as possible, since they weren't combat units, and being on the front line does not help them perform their job.
In a game like this I could see them being used as mobile HQ trucks to compare to the British ones, but otherwise that's about it.
Honestly, I'd see an SdKfz 251/3 as being better suited to the role of a mobile HQ in COH than the SdKfz 263, but that's me
#4559
Why settle for one?Honestly, I'd see an SdKfz 251/3 as being better suited to the role of a mobile HQ in COH than the SdKfz 263, but that's meI have a few ideas on paper that require a number of different "command" vehicles, used in the "mobile HQ" role. I'd love to have both the Sdkfz 250/3, Sdkfz 251/3, Sdkfz 232, and Sdkfz 263 available to use as such, and it'd give me the variety to play with rather than having to resort to reskins and substitutes instead.
Gurdy, if it's not too much trouble to model the 263 as well, i for one would welcome it! It would also be a good opportunity to do something "unique" by adding functioning pistol ports that can be toggled open with MP40 barrels protuding from them!!! Many of the vehicles ingame have pistol ports either modelled or textured on, but none function. I'd imagine it would be animated much the same way HT and TD's Jagdpanzer IV is, when it gets toggled on you see the port cover swivel aside, and you see the MP40 barrel emerge from inside. I can't imagine the ports adding much extra polies to the model if you make the hole a simple 5 or 6 sided cone. When it's skinned, the hole can then be painted black, and use the texture to make the hole in the hull round.
@LD not Gurdy is creating this model but Adiya.
I honestly do not see a need for the thing, as sturmhaubitze said, the only time youll see the thing is if the front line been totally overun and the enemy are in your hq. So in all honesty the vehicle is pointles in coh.
i would suggest the 263 and/or the 232 to be used as a Command Vehicle, like an Equivalent to the M20 Command Car
Sorry, guys. No 263.
Oh je, what have I done by starting the question about the 263.
Top notch job on the 232, looking forward to it. Hope the scale won't be off by much, it's a big vehicle already.
It is scaled according to the 234. Our new scaling policy is to scale according to similar Relic vehicles to maintain consistence.
Also, it will have the following states:
sdkfz_variation: 231, 232_(early), 232_(late), 233
Note: 232_(early) has bed frame antenna and 232_(late) has hull star antenna and turret aerial antenna as seen on later models.
upgrade_armor: off, on
Note: Adds the extended armor that some early variants had, which was later removed when the actual front armor was increased in thickness on later models.
commander_upgrade: off, on
----------
Here is a quick preview of the scale:
Keep in mind that not all the textures are present (ocl, gls and spc).
Last edited by eliw00d; 3rd Mar 12 at 7:47 AM.
Looks great!
Left to Right: 231, 232 (early), 232 (late), 233
Textures are obviously not final, just a quick export to show you guys what the states will look like.
Do my eyes deceive me or is that Inuk's MG34 being used as a coaxial weapon?
Shhh...
Are they game-ready yet, of course except the skins? Nice galery.
Ehm @eli, only an idea, is it possible to give those vehicles driving lights via a state, like the Opel Blitz or does it make no sense? The headlights are crying for.
They are animated, but it will be some time before I get to the OE stuff. It is too time consuming for me right now. I am trying to find someone to help ease the workload, though.
I don't see a point in driving lights, as there's only a couple of night maps.
I really wish I could help, but I only have some very little experience with OE and nothing in 3dsmax.
With the lights you are right, I wish there were a way to detect the night ciycle of the atmosphere presets. Or is there way, scar driven?
I am only looking for help with OE, so no 3DS Max experience required. If you are interested, PM me.
You could probably do it with SCAR, sure. Then you could set the state in SCAR as well.
I was not sure about, but sounds good.You could probably do it with SCAR, sure. Then you could set the state in SCAR as well.
Looks very great in-game. I can't wait to have them in my own copy. Good job, lads!
I would like to mention that after the Humber Armoured Car Mk. III/IV and Sd.Kfz. 231 series are finished, we are going to be concentrating entirely on Soviets followed by Finns, Hungarians and Romanians. Since these nations have a mix of their own equipment and that of their Allies, we could use some help skinning existing vehicles to fit each of those nations. For example, the Hungarians used Panthers, Tigers and even StuGs in addition to their homemade tanks, so having skins to set them apart would be awesome!
I'm sure the Hungarian mod would be ecstatic to hear that
Oh, I told them a while back.
inukshuk has already made all the Hungarian small arms and is currently working on Finnish and Romanian small arms. After that, he will be making Soviet small arms. So, this will be the year of the Ostfront!
Those 231, 232 and 233 look freaking awesome!!! Can't wait to play with them....
i still have a problem with the StuG III skirts
i changed them into the rgt but ingame it looks strange
close:
more distance
...more...
and from a different angle on close distance
http://hq-coh.com/forum/index.php/topic,20769.0.html
(if anybody interested to create a late Tiger I model try this:
http://www.cohmods.com/tiger-i-late-t167.html)
You did it wrong, dont ask me how, but you did somthing wrong or tried to mix the gls spc nrm from one of the other versions with it. Dont worry about it your not the first.
Here .
Download Solid Ambush Skirts
Now these work in my game at all angles, so if they dont in yours, its a graphics setting problem, (probebly driver settings antstropic filtering or AA settings) . which i cant help with.
Also for anyone converting dds to rgt, its not just a matter of converting, you have to select the correct format for each dds.
So in all cases that is as follows.
DIF = DXT5 4 Bit Alpha.
NRM = DXT5 4 Bit Alpha.
SPC = DXT1 1Bit Alpha.
GLS = DXT1 1Bit Alpha
OCL = DXT5 4 Bit Alpha.
If you dont do that youll end up with some of or all of the following, flashing\blacked out\brown\invisible\blotchy\flickering ,and even transparrant parts, when there shouldent be any problem there.
ok now it work (the .ocl was wrong i guess)
thx Dmz
The Suomi submachinegun, the predecessor of the Russian PPSh models. Designed, manufactored an used by the Finns. It is 444 polies. I got the uvmap ready but I doubt I will have time to finish the texture in this three days I am still kicking around. I will get it done when I am back though.
Looks fantastic!
which wreckage does the StUG III use?
(or which path do i have to write)
#4587
Inuk, 444 polies for a submachine gun is a bit high isn't it? If it were to be used like the Wehrmacht's MP40, that being in the hands of the basic builder, and as an upgrade for basic infantry, there's gonna be a lot of these around.
Would it be possible to delete the raised bit that is on the stock, infront of the magazine? I think it might be a catch or something. Maybe also simplifying that knob that sticks out the right side near the rear of the reciever (the cocking handle maybe?)?
@LD
It will always be a neverending debate whether we modellers should make a bunch of compromize and especially to what extent. The Stengun I believe is the highest of all the stock smg models and this baby is not exceeding the Sten by much. And Relic made that six years ago. There will be two of these in a squad. I made it from a pentagon first but I decided the hexagon will smooth much nicer, so that alone is responsible for a few dozen polies. The release latch and the cocking handle isnt pushing the limit here. The cutout for the ejector again could be just 2D. The stock could be a simple block.
But I like when my weapons look a little more than just a reminder of the real thing and more than just a stick I can call anything. The reason I am working on weapons is that I got tired of what Relic did to them. I mean look at the M1 Garand or the Brengun or the Lee Enfield but especially the MG42.
In view of what kinda poly-budget Relic used 6 years ago I think it is reasonable to raise it by 70-100 with ease. I have this principal in mind when I make my weapons and although every one could be further simplified I think some 3D details must be added because it is not worth it to built high poly weapon model just for the sake of burning a good normal map in max therefore the normal maps I make for them is made with CrazyBump from a 2D base. But then normal maps just dont do the job in every scenario. One can't make everything from simple primitives because then what is the point to make new models if we dont improve them. But in order to improve them we need more polies, more 3D details and good textures on top of it. If I remove everything that can be half-done by only 2D and work the entire model over then the Suomi will be about 360. More manageable figure, true...but let me tell you something - MoW weapon models are insanely high poly. Their G43 is twice that what I came out with, their Lee-Enfiled is twice that what i used for mine. If MoW runs on your rig then why are we so choked about about polies all the time. I think what the polycount was 6 years ago is hardly the guideline we should work with now. They say a good modeller is good because he can make something good yet cut back on polies. But some compromise is just not worth it IMO.
Last edited by inukshuk; 7th Mar 12 at 3:17 AM.
WIP T-34 chasiss, approx. 3.2k tris each. left 3k+ for turret, should be enough, don't you think?
@adiya
Looks awesome! Can't wait for the turret and other variants!
@inukshuk
The Suomi looks amazing! Looking forward to the textures.
Indeed that Suomi KP looks really damn good. And that T34 looks really realyl nice too.
There are roads which must not be followed, armies which must not be attacked, towns which must not be besieged positions which must not be contested.
Here's hoping we get Finnish colors for the T-34s at some point...
Awesome indeed! Keep it up guys.
#4594
Inuk, you have some good points there, and i agree with pretty much everything you said. I was just concerned, as i always used to play CoH on a lower-end rig up until about 8 months ago, so i know all too well the feeling of having to turn my graphics right down just to play a mod, and not being able to play others like N44 at all, simply due to the high number of models, and the level of detail in those models. When i saw the Suomi was 444 polies, and i imagined how common some modders would make it, i couldn't help b cringe. While most people are using better rigs now than they did 6 years ago, the mods everyone are playing also add on average a lot more models, both copies of Relic models and community-made models, the latter are usually higher poly than the average Relic model, and there's a lot more of them being loaded. While our computers are better, they're also being worked harder than back in the days of vCoH.
For an example, my old comuter was an AD Athlon 3500+, with 1Gb Ram, and a GeForce 600GT 128mb. I could run vCoH on all high graphics settings, even on large 8 player maps. When OF came out, i had to drop all my settings down to Medium and (mostly) Low. When ToV came out, i had to drop everything to Low to be able to still play those large 8 player maps, and with most mods around at the time like BotB and CoI, i couldn't even think about anything larger than the average 4 player match without lag.
While i agree that we should aim for better quality models and skins, and that the Suomi in particular probably couldn't be reduced too much more (i had trouble identifying areas that could be cut back without effecting it too much), i would like to appeal to all the modellers in general not to go nuts with the poly counts. I feel that when modelling something, we should consider just how common such an item would be in the average mod. Sure, HMGs and Heavy tanks can afford to have some extra detail thrown in, but stuff like rifles and SMGs that would be really common could maybe use a slightly more critical eye.
From now on could we post all counts in triangles please, ive noticed a tendancy for people to post counts of 5-600 poly which are in fact 8-900 triangles, to me one triangle is interperated as one poly, but in reality it can be 4 or even 8 tris a poly . @ inuk if the suomi is below 600 triangles its fine m8, but if not its an smg and yoiu should look at relics sten as a benchmark.
@Adiya, if you use 3000 tris on a turret ill be sorely disapointed in you. The T34 is generally a box with sloped sides, so much of its details can be done with skin, i did post over in cmp that 7500 tri would be acceptable, but that would include a wreck and both turrets tbh. The quide i used for that was the hellcat, which although only has a single turret, does have very very high poly stowage and a crew fighting compartment,visible gun, breach plus anim shells.
@LD I agree 100% with your comments, what people do not seem to realise is that COH was not made to have 800 units ingame at one time, and with many mods now, the pop cap is boosted to 200 plus, or unlimited. Also although computers and graphics cards have come along, COH still has the same game engine. It will lag and bring your game to an abrupt halt if you over work it, irrespective of your rig. Anyone who worked in unreal or halflife mods back in 2005 will know this only too well, because although those games were essentially 5 and 6 years old, if you put a a high poly gun pack ingame, where even only one or 2 guns were above 4000 tri, which at the time i hasten to add required a split compile in half life. Your frames per second, even on a good machine would drop from 72 to less then 30.
All of you please bear this in mind when making you main models and wrecks, wrecks im finding a particular problem when i look at some new models, people are developing a tendancy to clone theyre origional model and bend it a little, this is fine if you strip the goblins and unecessarry details off plus replace the barrels and wheels. But what im seing is 3200 Triangle wrecks being left on the field, for an armoured car of light tank, which is to be honest totally unacceptable, a few of those, plus a few replacements of the destroyed vehicals, and even my rig with 8 gig of ddr3 and 3.5 gig a core plus a 2gig msi gtx560ti twin frozr is suffering and dropping down to 25 frps on high settings.
I agree with @LD too. I think our measuring scale of polygon consumption is the overall detail of the game models. If the overall game assets are in a specific level of details, a particular unit with significant higher details is pointless. Sometims it's a crime, while some modelers work their ass off too save hundreds of polygon consumption for a better game performance, some others kill their effort completely by not optimizing at all. A clear example would be Some earlier version of russian vehicles in EF, I was literally in shock when I inspect those models.
Making NM is always the key of polygon optimization. Sometimes we are lazy to make Hi-poly models for making NM, that's fine, we can do it in another way. But it shouldn't be an excuse that Wasting polygons on some details that can be completely done with NM instead. It's the most tricky part in modeling for games.
----------
@DMz I was just express my relief that still having a big polygon budget. Besides, there will be at least 4 completely different turrets, and 2 of them are cast turret.
I think I should ask @eli to replace 231's wreck wheels with 234's
Adiya, ive looked at your stuff and its good, though i do agree with you on the wreck wheels on the 231, but you may want to keep one or 2 in strategic positions that catch the eye.
Ill give an example of how bothered i am about wrecks, this is the wreck for my pak40, all that came off the pack 40 is the gunshield,and the rear part of the barrel (recoil hydrolic) the rest is relics pak 38 bent twisted and with a leg added from clone, then loosly uvmapped onto the pak40 wreck texture. The result it 621 tri, which for an at gun is plenty. At the end of the day its a wreck and is burnt twisted and ugly, but ingame still takes up fps.So the lower tris the better.
@Adiya i know you wer kidding about the turrets, and it also just occured to me that with the t34 you are halfway to a decent su85,su100 and su122. Oh and dont forget, you may have done it, but on the treads, joints above each wheel, (verts) or we wont be able to animate it.
@Inukshuk, i just noticed youve actually modelled the ejector on the Suomi ???? why, it will never be seen ingame, and takes up at least 16 tris, when it could be done on the nrm. And the cocking handle could be done by a box tbh if it isnt already.
Last edited by DMz; 8th Mar 12 at 12:38 AM.
I hope we can lay this subject to rest. You will just have to trust me that I know what I am doing. What @DMz is saying we are talking about surfaces but while a polygon is a general surface the triangle is the surface between three vertexes which can come to a different count and a more important guideline. I agree totally. What can be misleading is that I often use the word 'poly' but what I mean is 'surface' (that I have to texture) - which is a triangle for me.
Because often one has to weld, target weld but again slice or cut and boolean too the polycount tells you nothing. I got into the habit of quoting the tris but I use 'poly' for it. My mistake I will say tris from now on.
So the Suomi KP is 444 triangles and 208 polies which IMO is more than adequate to get a ticket in CoH.
I hope you guys, especially the modellers, realize that weapons are very simple things but exactly this simplicity is what makes them hard to model. Almost everything is a key detail on a weapon and unlike vehicles they dont affor me with much possibilities to shave off a bunch of surfaces. Like a cleaning rod or cocking handle can be simplified, and of course a good skin improves the model 200% I still have to scratch my haed often when I am trying to figure out where I can save only a couple dozen triangles - on a vehicle a cleaning of the model yields you with a couple hundred triangles, on a weapon it is more like 30-40. And that is just about all I can save. And from a 2D point of view - generally speaking larger surfaces can be improved upon by using a good texture while small parts are less forgiving. Like the drum mag on the Suomi looks aweful now made from an octogon but with the skin it will look really round and nice (I textured that first to see). Believe me when I say this - it is not as easy at it seems, every model, no matter how insignificant it looks compared to a magnificant vehicle, takes a lot of planning before it is done. On the other hand it is relatively easy to remake or edit a weapon model and I can afford to make it 3D, then give it a texture and when the texture doesnt improve it by a hundred yards, redo the 3D part again. A vehicle modeller can hardly do that so I am fotunate that way. A good example was the MG34 which I remade with easy and lost about 45% of all the original triangles (after DMz kicked my arse).
@DMz
I used the Sten as an example in my previous post too, lol!
I do hope you didnt mean me.while some modelers work their ass off too save hundreds of polygon consumption for a better game performance, some others kill their effort completely by not optimizing at all
Last edited by inukshuk; 8th Mar 12 at 2:14 AM.
#4599
^ Ok, wow! This puts things into a better perspective. Knowing that you meant 444 tris, and it's 208 polies, the Suomi is pretty good detail-wise for CoH, and has certainly got me easing off my "Panic" button!
lol, I am so sorry @LD. It was totally misleading but I meant well just didnt explain it. I count surface and not general surface. A nice feature in 3ds max is that you can select a entire polygon with a click and that helps uvmapping a great deal. But the very feature hides triangles and one has to constantly check it because it doesnt say 'unless you ask'. So I took a peak at the count but used the wrong word, sorry. Whatever I quote from now on pls know that it is triangles.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
