...will I encounter any major problems in doing this? The towers are basically smaller versions of conventional gun towers that behave like regular deployable turrets minus the mobility, i.e., stationary yet built by a constructor. Can they be operated without needing a com bunker? And do they need to own terrain as with full size gun towers? I'd like to give them heavy chain guns unless someone can think of a heavier alternative gun? I started to texture the thing but didn't like the results after viewing it in the workspace. I also figured out how to make a simpler version of the terminal podium and attached screen made from 2 cubes and then separating one of the faces for the screen thingy. Hopefully, the thing will come out half way decent; if I can just manage to keep things straight when gluing it all together.
(http://static1.filefront.com/images/personal/l/lppena/106799/qrhvphjpoq.thumb500.jpg)
Despite my ongoing fascination with Blender for creating animated models; I still regularly default back to using GSL for most non animated models as it's way easier to create stuff with then in B3D. I figured out how to use the boolean object union tool to attach dual component objects like turret_x and recoil objects as it easily ties multiple objects together so they move precisely with one another. Another trick I found handy is to open a second instance of GSL to load xsi to cob converted files of models from the xsi data pack to study the parts and hierarchy of existing model files while I work on creating a new x model in the other open instance of GSL.
Guntowers only need the relay if you add the entry into the ODF.
Eg this is the stock one:
requireCount = 1
requireName1 = "ibcbun"
requireText1 = "Build Relay Bunk"
Insead, put:
requireCount = 0
And the building will have no dependancies, which means it is buildable no matter what you have already built (aside from power)
Incase you didin't know, the 'Name' is the basename/odf name (I can't remember) and the 'Text' is what comes up when you try to build it without everything needed.
As for owning terrain, all buildings should own terrain really unless its supposed to be special, either by stating it in the ODF or doing the terrain__h + collision__hc doo-dally with the XSI
buildSupport and buildRequire will determine whether said object can be built on any green square or if it has to be built adjacent to a base building or relay bunker.
use buildRequire = "N" to allow it to be built on any green square like a gun spire. Use buildRequire = "A" for the default gun tower behavior where it must be built adjacent to a relay bunker or another gun tower. Use builtRequire = "B" if you want it to only be buildable if next to a power generator or a base building.
Tanks guys. I wasn't sure because the unit deviates from the standard GT, and I wanted it to be placeable independent of other buildings. The basic platform for the unit is also going to have variants equipped for rockets, mortars, and possibly cannons too. I plan to make the variants available @ filefront once I have them debugged and ready to use by other modders. It's kind of cool making simple stuff like this; just wish I had more knowledge to keep the silly little questions at bay. Tanks again BNG.
Never be afraid to ask questions :), or these boards would die!!!
Agreed. There are no silly question, just silly answers. :-)
And silly people who like asking questions (har! har!)
(http://static1.filefront.com/images/personal/l/lppena/106799/jxnwccdyuz.thumb500.jpg)
I made few more more modifications like recessing the floor to somewhat protect the operator, added a mid section to accommodate the hp_com triangle thingy, and built a ramp for the pilot to get out of the thing after he's done blowing things away. Sorry about the wire frame pic but it better shows the guts of the structure better then with a solid view of the GT. I was also able to copy the terrain_h from the original GT by adding it to the object library and then adding to the scene as an editable object. Still need to create the skin, but the UV unwrapper in GSL is pretty easy to use so that will come next after I'm done with the geometry part. Hopefully, I'll get the thing glued together properly as I screwed up my first attempt working on a assault tank variant a while back.
How about adding a small wall right inside the doorway to protect the guy at the console?
If i'm not mistaken, the GT pilot is unhurtable once he accesses its console. I think he even disappears when he gets in the GT.
Tip.
You will probably want a low poly model, Yes I know it is already, but one without the inside and console, so while your constructing, make a base without the insides as well as one with, then it is simple to just switch the frames when you want to build the low poly one, without having to struggle to get it looking the same as the one you built weeks ago.
I miss my avatar :cry:
you want avatar, you go to bz2md :-P
I'm nobody's avatar... :)
I prefer to make a very highly detailed model first, then 'dumb it down' a little into a LOD1 model, then into a very low poly model to use as the second LOD model.
-Av-
i never worked out what the point was of having these LOD models
Because the further away an object is, the less detail you can make of it. So by making LOD's, you increase performance with a negligible decrease in eye candy. Games such as Oblivion and Crysis would not be possible without LOD's, because you can see kilometers away. If everything was at max detail the games would be impossible to run.
i noticed in crysis how things would suddenly flicker to being more realistic the closer you got
bz2 is like one of the oldest games that is still played so i doubt that it needs LODs anymore - not with todays computers
Haha, thats funny. New games are designed to take full advantage of the videocard by providing full graphics acceleration. BZ2 is too old, before fancy things like "hardware T&L" came out -- it requires the CPU to do most graphics calculations like drawing things on screen. This is horribly inefficient, like hiring a plumber to fix your computer. It ain't pretty. :-D
On top of that, BZII can only run on a single CPU core, right? Well it seems that Intel and AMD are hitting physical barriers in CPU performance. So, they are relying on the increasing number of cores instead of increasing the computational power of each. So, it appears this is about as good as it gets until a new type of transistor technology emerges. Optical transistors and quantum computing are being worked on to be the successors of the current transistor technology.
Quote from: Total Oblivion Omnis on February 18, 2008, 01:10:50 AM
Optical transistors and quantum computing are being worked on to be the successors of the current transistor technology.
i doubt that it will ever get much better than those!! :-D
Yes but how can we make a quantum computer at all? If we query it looses quantum cohesion. So, untill we solve that, all this talk about qubits and quantum transitors is a bit too far ahead.
And even a quantum computer wouldn't be able to hold a candle to a biological computer. Only a matter of time until we find a way to do all of our computing with an animal instead of metal and plastic.
VSMIT.
now im scared - imagine a brain sitting where your computer box is!!
Such a computer would probably be unethical. It's unlikely that such a computer would be acceptable in the united states and perhaps many other countries. Computers might start becoming conscious then... It'll make front page news when a kid throws a temper tantrum at a computer brain and splatters brains all over the place.
LOL!!! :-D
about conscious computers:::: cylons
QuoteAnd even a quantum computer wouldn't be able to hold a candle to a biological computer.
We already have plenty of highly evolved biological computers, they can be very slow and inaccurate at performing calculations and often the output from them is very difficult to make sense of. Indeed many of us consider them entirely worthless, throw them away and just eat the hardware....
Quotei never worked out what the point was of having these LOD models
Just slap a bz2 mod together and try building a large number of high detail models, you will soon see why the LOd models are needed.
I was most distressed when my (first generation) Daleks started loosing their heads in a crowd, literally!
Biological computers are quantum computers.
A swarm of bees, a flock of birds, all exist in a state of quantum stability and could be used as the base for the computer. As I said though, as soon as you query, since it is impossable to observe without effecting it, it will loose quantum cohesion and become inaccurate.
(On a side note I just realized something about the anime NOEIN. The dimensional travelers must have been able to query and otherwise use quantum computers because they themselves existed in a quantum state, where to stablize existance they had to be observed, requiring an artifical observation computer in their dimension. You all should watch it...)
EDIT: Felt like adding. If you ahve a box, and you give it to someone, and they look and nothing is inside, they have cause it to be that nothing is inside. If they find something inside, that is their fault too. If you give them the box though, you know if it is empty or full, or atleast, someone does, and thus, it is already established in our reality and the peron who looks in the box will only see what something already knows is in said box. This something could even be a computer program that puts a compleatly random object in the box because a true computed number is impossable without a quantum computer.
I've seen it. Was an awesome anime. Though, with infinite choice and all, couldn't a quantum computer recieve input from other parallel universes as well?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing
Nothing to do with parallel universes.
I am of the opinion that all that stuff about shrodinger's cat is nonsense, the cat knows if it is alive, but will not know if it is dead...
All this stuff about quantum states...obviously "reality" will be in an indeterminate state until observed because "reality" is a perception only experienced by perceiver's through observation. We will never observe an indeterminate state. To assume that it must exists because you cannot perceive it is unscientific. The drawing board is that way. -> :-D
QuoteNothing to do with parallel universes.
Except for the one the scientists/mathematicians theorising this stuff must be living in!
The idea is, it is observed and thus it exists.
So, if you observe a quantum computer it suddenly exists and looses its accuracy from when it was in a quantum state.
Waga who whats switcher what now?
Doesn't observation change the quantum state because of the subatomic particles (photons, electrons?) used in labs to observe them?
People/critters change their behavior only if they know you are there.
Same with SA particles. If you move something within their field of influence, they change their behavior, much like when you get close to an 'electric' charge and a spark jumps to your finger.
Ooooo, it's alive... :roll:
Everything is alive...
-Av-
Quantum is nice, but back on topic pleez. So the recessed floor is basically just eye candy and serves no real purpose. I noticed the lod thing when I was working on an assault tank variant; ended up deleting it from the odf as the regular ass. tank would reappear in the distance instead of my variant; guess I'll redo the odf and substitute that xsi file with a simpler one of my own design to help reduce the work load on the cpu thingy.
I understand now about the simpler lod referring to the lesser poly model in the odf. I also figured out what GH said some time back about optimizing the model by reducing the poly count by erasing excessive polyies and vertices. In gsl this is done by right clicking an object and using the erase vertice/face tools. Individual faces can also be separated as well essentially this results in single faces remaining where they can be reassembled in a sort of empty shelled object. Like that used to make cockpit objects and many other such objects. GSL triangulates all faces (per x save/export settings) so that bz2me can read the file; otherwise it locks up and stops responding until the faces are triangulated.
The way I texture is directly in gsl using it's own built in utility that applies uv mapping, unwraps it within another window where the uv can can broken up into smaller objects for separation, positioning, and output to any paint program. The nice part is that I can apply the partial complete texture to my models while I'm working on them in the modeler. Only problem there is I'm currently using ms paint; a totally inadequate product. I have gimp but don't really know how to use it. I have another advanced program called ixla artist that I've used in the past and guess I'll give that a whirl as it supports more advanced painting tools. Planar uv mapping seems to yield the simplest uv map layouts like those used by the textures included with the mods I've dl'ed so far. Texture maps of 512x512 seem to be more then adequate for detail painting, but I wonder if I should just go with 256x256 as bmp files seems excessively large in size. Does BZII support the jpeg format? Is the pic format any smaller then bmp files? what about tga files? Tanks in advance for any feedback on these issues...BNG
Lithunwrap is good for uv mapping.
.bmp is much too big, it is best not to use them in the game.
I use photoshop to create skins, save as .pic and then convert to .dxtbz2 for the game. results are great.
I can't stress enough how important a well-made LOD model is, even on today's monster rigs. If you do it right nobody will ever notice the change...
(http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s314/BZ-Avatar/LPadLOD.jpg)
Just keep in mind a few things:
1. No animations in LOD models. Things that move, like the slow turning a GT does, will 'snap back' to straight when the LOD model is switched in.
2. No collisions needed. LOD models don't need the collision stuff.
3. Watch your pivots. Aligning the pivot of the LOD and the Original is what keeps it all lining up properly.
In the shot above the final LOD model, which will only be seen from across a map, even uses it's own 64 square texture. I usually try to keep to the same texture, but in some cases it's better to actually take a snapshot of the original object at the correct distance and use that for the object texture. You can simulate a LOT more detail that way.
Then there's the old ways... BZ1 used models that were many pieces, and just dropped pieces as you moved away. You can do almost the same thing now, just make your model with 'extra' pieces that you can replace with textures for the LOD versions.
-Av-
Bummer neither ixla or gimp support the pic format, but xnview can convert files to pic. There are 3 pic formats it converts to. Is it the softimage version that bzii supports? What's the dxtbz2 thingy? I recall hearing of it but will it work for both bzii 1.2 and 1.3? Also is there a free version of photoshop available? Tanks...BNG
The PIC in question is the Softimage version... Apple uses it too but it's a different format.
DXT textures are what 1.3 uses, and when the time comes all you need to do is convert all of your existing textures using a BAT file. It's pretty easy, really, and DXT pre-processes the 'mips' versions, or smaller versions of the textures for further away viewing, so it saves on processing power to use them.
Not all video cards support them but only the older ones have troubles with them...
-Av-
Which one is the LOD version???
:-P :-D
In mine? The left is the whole thing, the middle is LOD1, and the right is LOD2.
I forget the exact poly counts but the left is ~500, the middle is around 180, and the right is 30-something.
Sloar once told me that one of the secrets to EPIC was proper Lods for everything. At full viewing distance most things just need to 'hint' at what they represent, give you the idea of what you're looking at rather than any real detail. Even on a monster rig such things help, as you never want to deliberately waste polygons no matter how powerful your rig.
-Av-
Apparently, bz2 must support jpeg as I used it on my spiral ramp thingy and it appeared just fine in the map editor. I also converted a ton of existing texture files to dxt after I pointed converter to my gamespace folder and hit go. Only bummer now is I don't have dxt file viewer any suggestions where I can get my grubby little hands on one? I really enjoy modeling for the game and anybody that needs a helping hand on a mod can feel free to pm me anytime as I'm hooked for life on this silly video game. PS: I've learned more about 3d model making appy's in the last 2 years then I ever imagined. I may try my hand at gmax (down the road) again as I have another game called c&c renegade that I'd like to make some models for too...BNG
(http://static1.filefront.com/images/personal/l/lppena/106799/byazjneocs.thumb500.jpg)
Never use jpeg for textures, the lossy compression jpeg does leaves bad artifacts that are very often very noticeable. DXT was designed to be a lossy texture but keeping it looking relatively decent.
(http://www.overminddl1.com/image_scripts/image_sig.php?type=ODL1signitures&image/sig.gif)
QuoteAlso is there a free version of photoshop available?
There are site rules against telling you the answer to this question. Arrr that damn parrot just sh*t down my back again..
Oh, also, as dealing with above, near all of your thoughts on quantum computing are wrong, it is not as ambiguous as you think, mostly it is just treating individual atoms as bits instead of (comparatively very large) transistors, and with bits having 5 states instead of two.
(http://www.overminddl1.com/image_scripts/image_sig.php?type=ODL1signitures&image/sig.gif)
QuoteOh, also, as dealing with above, near all of your thoughts on quantum computing are wrong,
Eh? who me?
I'm no scientist, just read a few things here and there, no claim to be right or wrong, just like throwing opinions about, to see if I get interesting responses. 5 states you say?
Oh yes there is a free version photoshop, I seem to recall that it will work for one month, which would be insufficient for your requirements.
Why not just use GIMP*, does about everything and is free in full...
EDIT: Fixed misspelling...
(http://www.overminddl1.com/image_scripts/image_sig.php?type=ODL1signitures&image/sig.gif)
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script (http://overminddl1.com) via GreaseMonkey (http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/)
You mean GIMP? I've used both the GIMP and Photoshop -- GIMP is not a photoshop replacement yet and the interface is a bit kludgey, but if you want to go the ethical cost-free route -- I suppose you can cobble together a few decent textures if you put enough effort into learning the GIMP's interface, and together with the help of a few extensions/scripts.
One of these I recommend is:
http://users.telenet.be/ev1/gimplayereffects_en.html
I use GIMP at work quite often, and yes we have photoshop as well, I still use GIMP. :)
Compared to the people that know photoshop I can whip up quicker and better looking things in GIMP then they can in PS, at least all the stuff we do (magazine, flyers, etc... type things). And I am not even a graphic artist in the least.
(http://www.overminddl1.com/image_scripts/image_sig.php?type=ODL1signitures&image/sig.gif)
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script (http://overminddl1.com) via GreaseMonkey (http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/)
I did actually try the new photoshop cs free version, But I could not see any clear reason to change to it from my photoshop version 6.
It was considerably slower, thanks to allot of useless interface "improvement". And did not appear to have any new features in the basic install, I had no desire to seek out countless new plugins to replace the ones I have in v6.
I'm quite the die-hard fan of Photshop 7 myself because everything flows together so nicely! It does 90% of the basic important stuff that CS+ does (think the difference between Office 2000 and Office 2007) and have not found myself really wanting for features save for native, cost-free RAW support as well as built in plugins for compiling HDR (hi dynamic range) photos that the CS versions come with.
I'm guessing then that using ixla artist to make the texture files and then convert them using xnview would be my best option as I already know how to use it verses gimp which I'd have to learn which is undesirable as my time is somewhat limited. One thing I've noticed for sure though is that there is a multitude of modeling variations amongst peeps who model stuff for the game. What works for one will not always be practical for another. So far after years of searching, trying and doing I've come to the conclusion that the acronym, K.I.S.S. makes a ton of common sense...BNG
A cheap alternative to Photoshop is Photoshop Elements, which is about $80. I use version 3 and it's very nice.
VSMIT.
So far, other then the countless hours I've spent doing stuff for the game; I've managed to keep my actual costs to a healthy fat zero. If ixla artist doesn't do it for me then I'll just have to bite the bullet and learn gimp. I model as a side hobby and find it most difficult to actually justify spending money under such circumstances. One exception might be to purchase the full CD version of gamespace @ 200 US, because, it's the only 3d modeler I've ever used that actually makes any logical sense to me as a non professional lay person. Ironically, I did have an earlier version of photoshop on another computer that had win 98 on it, but gave it away to one of my cousins some time back. Se la vi; oh well. Gimp, is beginning to sound better to me as a logical no cost alternative for modeler like myself. Besides, I wouldn't be surprised if when I purchase my next digital camera or scanner that I obtain a free basic version of photoshop.
OT: Heh, looks like OM is posting his footer in his post...
No, OM has a ghost doing that for him... lazy showoff... :)
-Av-
Generated by Av's hard working, over typing, cramped and arthritic fingers...
Gimp sounds like a pretty extensive painter compared with ixla which doesn't support multiple layer textures. It does have a few cool features, but it's mostly oriented to photos and such. I've been playing around with some 64x64 textures and some are actually nothing more then simple patterns I created in mspaint and tiled on my models. One that looked particularly nice was a texture made of squares equally distributed and tiled onto a building type to simulate windows on a tall building. I was truly amazed that 5x5 uv repetitions didn't distort at all on the 4 sides of the structure. Then I started going nuts with all kinds of different pattern types. I wonder if individual objects or at least faces might be one alternative to creating more detailed models and then just gluing them together onto the main frame of the model body. For example, something like pin striped objects like emblems, vehicle numbers, and other decal type objects. I'm going to try experimenting on some existing models to see what happens. Using the separate object tool in gsl allows like a copy of a face or group of them to be created apart from the model body where they can be somewhat reshaped via vertex manipulation while still keeping the same basic angles but allowing the pieces to be custom painted and then reglued onto the chassis again. Making stuff like grills, windows, and other common parts easier to paint. I know it adds extra poly's but might prove useful for making models look more customized. I save most of the parts I make in my object libraries under different folder names; even the crude shapes I use in conjunction with the subtraction tool for cutting away model geometry. I guess I'm somewhat of a pack rat refusing to throw away stuff that I might use again on some future project.
i was under the impression they were experimenting with a type of gate that traps a single electron... operation like a transistor i guess
if we are talking about single electrons determining values, how fast are the processing speeds going to be :D
you make them any faster than that the human brain isnt going to be up to speed. well, maybe lol
EDIT: sorry just realised we were talking about this two pages ago :D should really get into discussions sooner
sooner? maybe 3 months sooner!!!!
Some people figured out a good way to cheaply etch out graphene transistors that are 10 atoms by 1 atom, maybe that is what you are thinking of?
(http://www.overminddl1.com/image_scripts/image_sig.php?type=ODL1signitures&image/sig.gif)
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script (http://overminddl1.com) via GreaseMonkey (http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/)
Paint.net, is another handy paint alternative to PS and Gimp. It has a nice pencil sketching effect for assisting a modeler in making a paintable outline for custom model skins. Fairly easy to use, but seems to lack an airbrush tool. Still, it is free and there seems to be a ton of free plugins to make it quite useful for the average BZII modeler.