Units for TA-springs
Moderator: Moderators
Units for TA-springs
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
Maverick : 1848 faces
Zeus: 1834 faces
Peewee: 618 faces
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
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
Maverick : 1848 faces
Zeus: 1834 faces
Peewee: 618 faces
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
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?
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?
-
- Posts: 704
- Joined: 30 Oct 2004, 14:14
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...
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 578
- Joined: 19 Aug 2004, 17:38
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).
-
- Posts: 704
- Joined: 30 Oct 2004, 14:14
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!
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!
-
- Posts: 704
- Joined: 30 Oct 2004, 14:14