3D modelling

Post mods you have finished or are working on here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by Nerei »

Turns out it is from September 2017 not January 2018.
1646, 2, 0, 1, , -1, -1, -1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, -1, 0, -1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 14, 2, 2, , 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1646, , , , , , 0.033,

1764, 15, 0, 0, , -1, -1, -1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, -1, 0, -1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 14, 2, 2, , 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1764, , , , , , 0.049,
1765, 2, 0, 1, , -1, -1, -1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, -1, 0, -1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 14, 2, 2, , 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1765, , , , , , 0.05,
1766, 15, 0, 0, , -1, -1, -1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, -1, 0, -1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 14, 2, 2, , 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1766, , , , , , 0.065,
1767, 15, 0, 0, , -1, -1, -1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, -1, 0, -1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 14, 2, 2, , 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1767, , , , , , 0.055,

1816, 15, , , , -1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2, , , , 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1816, , , , , , 0.40,

1873, 15, , , , -1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2, , , , 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1873, , , , , , 0.082,
User avatar
number47
General
Posts: 2655
Joined: Sep 15 2011
Human: Yes
Location: X:913 Y:185

Re: 3D modelling

Post by number47 »

Thanks, that makes more sense. If it was from earlier "build" than it is more likely it was overwritten by BG update at some point.
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
User avatar
sparky282
Colonel
Posts: 384
Joined: Dec 31 2011
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by sparky282 »

Nerei wrote: Mar 16 2018
sparky282 wrote:Your right its an odd thing really the MIV competition makes much more sense to me really.

If you look at the numbers of Ajax going into service only 245 will be turreted the rest being ares or engineering variants.
That does kind of signal to me that they never really expect the ajax or ares to ever really see heavy combat
You are probably right. Still feels like an expensive vehicle for that role especially as it cannot be written off as job investments or "national security issues of local manufacture" given that the majority of production takes place in Spain.
I knida sort of want to make a FV107 Scimitar and FV501 Warrior now. It might not be for next batch of units but I will write them on my list.
Yeah that would be pretty cool of course most the stuff your already doing boxer etc is in the MIV competition
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by Nerei »

First render of the T-55 with some texturing done. Still a good deal of work left though.
The texture map should support turning it into a TR-85 and say a T-55 Enigma. A MT-55 Bridge layer should also be possible but likely with the same possible issues as the Type 91 bridge layer
Image
The shading so far is quite limited hence why many of the details on the turret are not visible.
User avatar
sparky282
Colonel
Posts: 384
Joined: Dec 31 2011
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by sparky282 »

looking great so far!
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by Nerei »

Some work done on the Boxer. Like the T-55 though still a significant amount of work left
Image
The Remote weapons station is as mentioned taken directly from the M1126 Stryker ICV
MK4
Colonel
Posts: 488
Joined: Oct 08 2011
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by MK4 »

I`ve tested the land and air units from the January release and I`d suggest the following values for their size (most are just small adjustments):
T-90A - 0.042
CV9040 & LVKV 90 - 0.037
T-72B - 0.04
Mirage 2000 - 0.07
EH-101 - 0.057
M1A1 Abrams - 0.047
Mi-28 - 0.07
AH-1S - 0.07
AH-1Z - 0.06
AH-64D - 0.07
The M48 is fine as it is I think. I haven`t tested the naval and missile/bombs yet. The thing is I`m running out of space in SR2020`s 2 UGBITS and I`d need to upgrade my mod to SRCW. It would mean alot of work unfortunately and all for a pretty limited platform so it might be a while before I commit to that.
The texture map should support turning it into a TR-85 and say a T-55 Enigma.
Are you referring to the original TR-85:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 5_tank.jpg
or the upgraded version (TR-85M1)?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 1_-_01.jpg

EDIT: does your legacy Cobra (AH-1S) show four propeller blades rotating? Because that`s one of the main visual differences between it and the latest AH-1Z Viper (the later being the first to have four blades; all previous versions having just two).
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by Nerei »

I was mainly intending to focus on the TR-85M1 as it is more visually distinct. The standard TR-85 is not that different from the T-55 at this scale except for the lengthened which I suspect most will not notice. On the other hand it can probably just be made with a lengthened chassis and standard turret which should not be that hard to do.

As for the AH-1S I really do not remember (and I cannot check right now). It is entirely possible I took the rotors from the AH-64. However if that is the case changing it should be fairly simple as just about everything is on separate layers from what I remember.
MK4
Colonel
Posts: 488
Joined: Oct 08 2011
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by MK4 »

It`s gonna take me a while to get used to this new interface. I keep looking for buttons where they aren`t anymore.
Nerei wrote: Mar 22 2018 I was mainly intending to focus on the TR-85M1 as it is more visually distinct.
I was hoping to find some modelling scale plans for that (the M1), but so far I haven`t. In any case, if you can adjust the standard T-55 to look like a TR-85M1 even if it`s not necessarily a perfect representation of it it would still be awesome.
The standard TR-85 is not that different from the T-55 at this scale except for the lengthened which I suspect most will not notice. On the other hand it can probably just be made with a lengthened chassis and standard turret which should not be that hard to do.
The aspect and number of wheel discs is also different (valid for all TR versions) and some side-skirts would make it look apart, but I wasn`t advocating for such version. As you`ve said, at this scale the T-55 is sufficiently similar to it. I`d be very happy if you can make your model to resemble the TR-85M1 though.
As for the AH-1S I really do not remember (and I cannot check right now). It is entirely possible I took the rotors from the AH-64. However if that is the case changing it should be fairly simple as just about everything is on separate layers from what I remember.
That`s why I`ve mentioned it. I imagined it`s a pretty simple alteration.

Nice job on the Boxer and Ajax!
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by Nerei »

There will probably be a few inaccuracies where I might have to rely on the T-55 due to a lack of reference but in general I think I have enough to go from with wikipedia pictures and the like. Where I might have issues is the top of the turret and engine.

There is space to do quite a bit on the UV map including building a proper turret and modifying the engine. Sideskirts is not a problem either although if I am unlucky I might have to scale them down a bit as they are items that take up a lot of space but we will have to see.
Moving the roadhweels around is easy enough. They are just texture objects. I will be modifying them anyway as the size and style I used for the T-55A is different to that of the TR-85M1.
The real issue is having the space on the UV map in the first place to extend the chassis withtout having to either distort the texture or scale it down. The sideskirts will help a bit there but still.

I will try and cut the T-55 apart and see if I can turn it into a TR-85M1.
I will also take a look at the AH-1S at some point. Remind me again if I forget
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by Nerei »

Here is a quick hack together of a TR-85M1 based on the T-55 model
Image
There is still a lot of work left as it is not even UV mapped.
MK4
Colonel
Posts: 488
Joined: Oct 08 2011
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by MK4 »

Looks good to me! Thank you for taking the time!
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by Nerei »

Quick preview of the JH-7.

Image
Next collection of models will probably be when the recent AFV's are done. After that it is back to making aircraft (naturally already done aircraft will also be included). That and probably finishing off some ships. I got a CVN-65 that is fairly far along amongst others.

Edit:
Also forgot I had this one. Including it in the next model collection however is not high priority. It will most likely be part of a Navy model collection together with some US, Russian, PRC and 1-2 US, UK and Japanese vessels
Image
I think I started on it maybe 6 months ago.
MK4
Colonel
Posts: 488
Joined: Oct 08 2011
Human: Yes

Re: 3D modelling

Post by MK4 »

Great to see that China finally gets to have a more distinctive roster. Have you decided what you want to cover for it in the foreseeable future?

Speaking of aircraft (and I may have asked this before) do Russia and China still have a fetish for air-power in SRU? In SR2020 they would build so many air producing facilities (in the slots they had empty) which adding to the considerable number already available at the start resulted in some massive air fleets. This in turn meant that along the front, long after they had exhausted their offensive capabilities on land, they would be able to scramble dozens of squadrons in a swarm of something like a thousand aircraft that would obliterate any AI lead enemy offensive in seconds. Plus it would be mega annoying for the human player too as it forced him into unrealistic solutions. It`s one of the things that killed the joy of many campaigns for me because aa systems in game, even in great numbers, would struggle to have a significant effect in such cases and the plausibility of so many aircraft being airworthy and able to share such a small airspace at once is zero.
Post Reply

Return to “Modding Show & Tell”