Units for TA-springs

Units for TA-springs

Various things about Spring that do not fit in any of the other forums listed below, including forum rules.

Moderators: Moderators, Moderators

disciplus
Posts: 20
Joined: 03 May 2005, 23:46

Units for TA-springs

Post by disciplus »

Here is some testing units made by Sinclaire (creator of Evolva). He don't have Internet at this time, so he asking for me to put his units on this messageboard.


Right clic on this link and ... save as.
http://membres.lycos.fr/stock3d/cortex/Objects3D.zip
Unzip the file in your TA-Spring directory

And some screenshots with the number of faces of each unit...

Commander : 1452 faces
Image

Maverick : 1848 faces
Image

Zeus: 1834 faces
Image

Peewee: 618 faces
Image

Other number of faces of units including in this little pack.
Frelon : 635 faces
Pitbull: 552 faces
Fing: 749 faces
Foudrax: 469 faces
Thunder: 718 faces


And other screenshots
http://axvaude.free.fr/temp/screen5.jpg
http://axvaude.free.fr/temp/screen6.jpg
http://axvaude.free.fr/temp/screen8.jpg
http://axvaude.free.fr/temp/screen10.jpg
http://axvaude.free.fr/temp/screen12.jpg
http://axvaude.free.fr/temp/screen13.jpg
http://axvaude.free.fr/temp/screen14.jpg
http://axvaude.free.fr/temp/screen15.jpg
http://axvaude.free.fr/temp/screen18.jpg
http://axvaude.free.fr/temp/screen19.jpg
http://axvaude.free.fr/temp/screen21.jpg
http://axvaude.free.fr/temp/screen22.jpg
http://axvaude.free.fr/temp/screen23.jpg
http://axvaude.free.fr/temp/screen1.jpg
http://axvaude.free.fr/temp/screen3.jpg
0 x

User avatar
NOiZE
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 3984
Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 19:29

Post by NOiZE »

they look great, but won't they overload our computers...
0 x

User avatar
aTTacK
Posts: 90
Joined: 23 May 2005, 13:00

Post by aTTacK »

they look damn good

but i think this will kill my 800mhz pc... i will see (*dl it*

[edit] link doesnt work o_O (with right click save as...)
Last edited by aTTacK on 24 May 2005, 18:54, edited 1 time in total.
0 x

User avatar
Storm
Posts: 443
Joined: 12 Sep 2004, 22:23

Post by Storm »

Indeed, they look great, but I fear uploading those might cause furthermore compatibility problems. I, for one, would rather wait for a semi-complete version.
0 x

User avatar
Nemo
Spring 1944 Developer
Posts: 1376
Joined: 30 Jan 2005, 19:44

Post by Nemo »

yow, those look absolutely amazing...the only problem is that i'm thinking they might cause serious slowdown with the high number of faces


what a treat for those with the computer to use it though.
0 x

SJ
Posts: 618
Joined: 13 Aug 2004, 17:13

Post by SJ »

Sigh if units start looking that good I will have to improve the rest of the graphics to match. :)
0 x

User avatar
Storm
Posts: 443
Joined: 12 Sep 2004, 22:23

Post by Storm »

No, SJ, don't do it! Think of the children!!

^_^
0 x

User avatar
Dragon45
Posts: 2883
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 04:36

Post by Dragon45 »

Arghs! We dont need more polys, we need UV mapping! More polys == teh suck. UV Mapping == teh win.
0 x

User avatar
Zoombie
Posts: 6149
Joined: 15 Mar 2005, 07:08

Post by Zoombie »

U...V Mapping? what? eXplain please
0 x

User avatar
Zoombie
Posts: 6149
Joined: 15 Mar 2005, 07:08

Post by Zoombie »

When i clicked on the link it lead to a cool story bord. THAT SOULD BE THE INTRO! Just dont have it be in the launguge it is in (French i think) cause i cant read french (or whatever it was). But it was still cool
0 x

User avatar
Ace07
Posts: 348
Joined: 21 Apr 2005, 20:46

Post by Ace07 »

They look crazy good. I liked spring before, but with an update to the models, spring will be unstoppable!

Although, the commander can be as many polys as you want, the other units (Maverick and Zeus) might need to be scaled back a bit to increase speed. Possibly you can create low poly and high poly models for the lower end computers that can't handle the high poly ones?
0 x

Doomweaver
Posts: 704
Joined: 30 Oct 2004, 14:14

Post by Doomweaver »

Can't we make it so that the models used don't need to be synced betweem players? So you can play with lower-polygon models if your computer sucks? It shouldn't affect gameplay..., and we NEED those models! They damn well rock!
0 x

Doomweaver
Posts: 704
Joined: 30 Oct 2004, 14:14

Post by Doomweaver »

Will we have models like these for every unit?
0 x

Gnomre
Imperial Winter Developer
Posts: 1754
Joined: 06 Feb 2005, 13:42

Post by Gnomre »

Well, the main thing with different models is the location of the firing point. In OTA, you could simply kind of raise the firing point of say, a Samson, to allow it to fire over any wreckage... Sure, it could be made so the models have the exact same firing point location, but the slight differences could make a world of difference...
0 x

disciplus
Posts: 20
Joined: 03 May 2005, 23:46

Post by disciplus »

Sinclaire made this units to know the limit of the number of face we can reach.
I think too that the Maverick and the Zeus must be optimize.
But finally the question is, Ta-Spring will be a wargame with a top view? Indeed this units have too many faces, or TA-Spring will be a strategic game with a near view like FPS, in this case the models must be more detailed.

It is possible to make units with own texture, or we must be used the TA maps? Because made units with own textures can be a solution.


Thank's Zoombie, the storyboard (in French sorry ;) ) is for a little animation that I make with a friend. And when I discover TA Spring project I was thinking too this animation will be a good intro for the game.
Last edited by disciplus on 25 May 2005, 09:18, edited 1 time in total.
0 x

Sean Mirrsen
Posts: 578
Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 17:38

Post by Sean Mirrsen »

These units do indeed look good. However. They are WAAAAY to detailed for Spring. This isn't GC2, where they don't have more than a hundred units at any time on screen, and even there they have like 4 LOD stages to reduce polycount. I'd suggest to make a simple LOD system that would take similarly named 3do files (ARMCOM, ARMCOM1, ARMCOM2, etc) and set them as the unit's model depending on its distance from the camera. Currently, these units can only be used as the LOD0, the most detailed stage. 600 faces for a PeeWee isn't something most PCs can handle. The Evolva models qualify as LOD2 (or LOD1, since we don't have other models), and the OTA models could be used for LOD3. Later, a switch could be made so that when a LOD level is lacking, either the first higher level, or the first lower level is used, so in case with the current state of things, at the LOD1 distance, either the new ultra-detail model will be used (next higher, more CPU load), or the Evolva model (next lower, less CPU load).
0 x

disciplus
Posts: 20
Joined: 03 May 2005, 23:46

Post by disciplus »

Yes it's a good idea...
0 x

User avatar
Storm
Posts: 443
Joined: 12 Sep 2004, 22:23

Post by Storm »

I concur, my vote on Mirrsen.
0 x

Doomweaver
Posts: 704
Joined: 30 Oct 2004, 14:14

Post by Doomweaver »

Guys we can't use the OTA models, legal reasons. So how about we use the ultra-high ones (the have less than double that of Evolve, don't they, so they are not that mega high) and have lower-poly ones for a distance. The thing is that they both have to be based on exactly the same model - we can't go from Evolva to this because they look nothing alike. How about for the low ones go for keeping the shape and removing the detail - try and half the number of polygons for the low ones. Remember, at a distance you can replace polygon detail by just having it directly on the texture.
Anyway, I am just NOT willing to sacrifice these models for performance reasons, because just imagine where computers will be in two years time. You will have to redo all the work! Currently we need springs requirements to be high, although not outrageous, because they won't stay that way!
0 x

Doomweaver
Posts: 704
Joined: 30 Oct 2004, 14:14

Post by Doomweaver »

Also, remember that detail become more obvious with dynamic lighting - the flatness of simpler models will look ugly, whereas the complexity of these new ones will look even better! If it does become a feature (and it probably will, in a year or two)... :wink:
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”

cron