Modell format

[Min3mat]

what zwzsg said would be awesome

[Dragon45]

This suggestion is as a part of the scripting as the modeling, but here goes:

What I would like to be able to do is swap out entire model pieces (perhaps even entire models) for other pieces/models from other sources, but not necessarily modify the piece hierarchy at the same time. So for example, a unit just might be viewed as a collection of many pieces, but I would want to have access to another unit's collection of pieces at any given point.

Lets say I was making (for example) a World War I mod. I would have many different types of infantry, each their own unit, but i would want to create them from the same "template". So I might have an "empty" infantry unit model named something like InfTemp. The "bazooka" infantryman model would then be InfTemp plus a "bazooka" object at a certain position relative to the InfTemp model.

Taking this one step further, I would want to be able to have three types of helmet models, "Shiny", "Dented", and "Crushed", so i could say

Code: Select all

If (this.properties.damage > 60)
{
    this.model.helmet = objects.helmet.crushed;
}

So that even if the model changed, the piece/name hierachy did not.

Furthermore, lets say I was still making this World War I mod and i was creating the airplanes. I would want to be able to say

Code: Select all

var currentSide, previousSide;

currentSide = this.meta.side;

if ( currentSide != previousSide )
{
     this.model.pilot = objects.inftemp.currentSide;
     this.model.decals = currentSide;         
}

previousSide = currentSide;

where this.meta.side would return the current side the unit was on.

The purpose of the above wishful snippet would be to swap the pilot models in case the plane unit was captured, and swap the "side" decals.
One can easily see the benefits of it: it would be possible to visually accomodate side changes without wasting time creating a whole new model.

The benefits of this system include:

• Being able to easily script and model a variety of different units from a basic template
  
  Bringing some more "modern" OOP-ish principles to unit scripting
  
  Providing for rapid creation of a variety of different unit types.

I suppose I'm also asking for a merging of the script and unit properties (or non-existent barriers between them) but that's a topic for a different thread

[Doomweaver]

I actually think that in the, so called, FPS mode, the camera should not become FPS but, instead, 3rd person view. That way we would not need to define cockpit, we would see the unit for coolness and we would end up those problems with driving a unit when we don't know where the unit is facing.

Yeah, I SOOO agree!
Anyway, is it possible to support bones? This would be useful for a mod similar to warcraft III, where organic units are quite big, and nice animations are essential.

[bobthedinosaur]

personally i like driving the units around, and i dont see a need for cocpit models, thats just me.

[Guessmyname]

how about pieces that don't rotate with the unit?

(non rotating pieces + billboarding = icons!)

[Guessmyname]

how about pieces that don't rotate with the unit?

(non rotating pieces + billboarding = icons!)

EDIT: Sorry...

[mongus]

Liked very much the "modularity" used in machinations.

To do so, different pieces (units), must join and become a "single" unit.

then, that kind of "union" have to be supported for the units.

Joining points?
modularity in the spcripts also?
(so you can "append" a part (unit) script into another).
lower grade "part" units?

Some others have proposed this but with different words, havent they?
e: of course they have, is what dragon45 said...

[jokerr]

I would love to see...

1.A custom model format just for TA,no more .3do
2.Complete UV,Texturing support(id rather do better textures in 3dsmax and PS rather than using 3dobuilder
3.Way to completely animate a model in max

Just what id like to see,if it hasnt been already said,but im sure a good amount of it has been

[Warlord Zsinj]

I just want skeletal animations. Animating units right now is bloody difficult, and incredibly time consuming.

[mongus]

also on the "union" thing, can different unions have different "union strength" value?

this way... a kbot will break appart, but depending on the power of the hit, it will brake, and it will brake in the unions that where succesfully braked by that ammount damage/power.
it will be funny to watch a mech break appart throwing its torso in one direction and the traction system decimated into several other parts.


a more demential idea, is to include material, or mechanical data with the models, and the engine could analize this data and "compute" different faliures and model breaks, but how hard is this to compute for 300 units exploding...
these data will make easier to generate new units based on modular parts, and generate, dinamycally in-game, the durability/performance/breake points.. of these new modular units , providing the posibility to "create" new units into the game itself. and all this influentiated by different material types.

[jcnossen]

If really we want to support all features people are mentioning here, I think it would be good to abstract the unit rendering and animation system (possibly through DLLs). This way there is no need for one format that supports everything. Bonus is also that the old 3DO system can still be used as well, just as a plugin.
Once I get my AI released and working nicely, I'd really like to help with this too (It's always nice to code more eyecandy)

[zwzsg]

I sure hope old 3do are still supported, otherwise Spring will be rather empty.

[Guessmyname]

Finish off gnomes model work on diffrent models for different environments, and implement the idea I had of high res models at close up then zoom out to ordinary models then zoom out to low res models.

Using that you could create the strategic-view-where-units-are-icons by making the model version with the lowest detail a billboarded dot...

[IMSabbel]

that would be really cool (as i currently sometimes abuse the minimap made fullscreen as strategic view, which has the drawback that the rest still has to be drawn-> low speed, plus no control options)

[GrOuNd_ZeRo]

I say 3DO should still be supported, otherwise it would be a conversion nightmare.

And please, keep that bones and all that GMAX stuff optional since I only have Rhino and Milkshape, using LithUnwrap for UV mapping.

[maestro]

ummm... keep the model simple and crisp... TA play with hundreds to thousand units (compared to thing likes WC-3 where you have 20 super unit and win) so overly fancy format will make da game damn slow....

some UV mapping will be nice but actually I likes 3do format. Quadrangle i the most efficient format compared to triangle based and it also more practical (imagine make triangle based texture... stupid no )

[RightField]

You don't make triangle formed textures. You just make one big texture that is on 512x512 or so and place all the textures the unit uses in there then wrap it on the different parts of the unit in any shape. That way you can have more unique complex textures per. unit.

[Guessmyname]

I say 3DO should still be supported, otherwise it would be a conversion nightmare.

And please, keep that bones and all that GMAX stuff optional since I only have Rhino and Milkshape, using LithUnwrap for UV mapping.

Gmax is free you know.

Also, any support for smoothing groups for us wings3d'ers?

[AF]

models can be as asimple and as complicated as possible if the zoom thing I suggested is implemented, simple far away, detailed upclose, less lag alltogether. Perhaps arbitrary tags to show build up, such as soot or snow...

[Tim Blokdijk]

Support for LARGE units.

So large that you can build a fully functional base on the unit itself and have room left.
Something like a flight carrier in the year 4000.
And so that parts of this unit (like the command tower or engine) can be targeted and destroyed separately.
Or captured?