[WIP] Gamemodel Arado Ar 196

(EterneX) #21

wow very nice, I tried to use milkshape and I didnt like it that much.

Eddie

(Higgins) #22

Er, No. That’s a sure-fire way to get nothing show up because you’ve broken the MD3 vert/poly limits.
You can mirror individual groups across the axis in Milkshape (something I still can’t figure out if Max can do). This will allow you to keep the model in separate groups, which means you stand less chance of violating the 1000 vert per group limit.
Note: The entire model vert/poly count CAN break the limit as long as the model has groups in it that don’t (maximum number of groups is 32 I think).

This is some thing Iam new to find out, as I made a santas sack for a friend, and it wouldnt load for him in et, but would for me. I then detached parts of the mesh, saved it, and sent him it. It worked fine after that. What I mean with mirror welding, is that you get a perfect mirrored image side of the plane, so both sides match. You can later, detach them in pieces, save the file as plane body, and it will be a soild object in radiant and et, so you dont need to worry about any thing.

PS: Ive used 3dmax for 2 years soild, and around 1 and 1 1/2 years on and off. I started moddelling back in… 2001. Ived used many 3d packages.

(No1_sonuk) #23

PS: Ive used 3dmax for 2 years soild, and around 1 and 1 1/2 years on and off

That’s fine, but TBH, if he’s asking about Milkshape (which he is), talking about things in Max is only going to confuse him.

(]UBC[ McNite) #24

I really admire you guys that do all the cool models I can use i my maps… i m just a humble level designer come to look at it.

One small suggestion from me: plz do look at it that the model will be in the right “real” size in ET when its has modelscale 1. I loved Detoenis Opelblitz trucks right from the start, but they were too large in the beginning (he adjusted that right away). And its just something you can’t handle well when a model has to be scaled to get it into the right size in the map.

(Shaderman) #25

Thanks. I like Milkshape because it isn’t really hard to understand compared to professional modelling software like 3dmax or Blender for example. Perfect for someone like me who wants it just for fun :wink:

Oh, this doesn’t matter because I’m confused all day in any case :stuck_out_tongue:

I already checked that for this plane. If my calculation is correct, I have to scale it by 3.5 later from the working size it has now. Maybe you want to cross check it?

Shaderman

(Detoeni) #26

With the scale I would say go with what “looks” right, rather than what is right, as they very rarely the same.

(]UBC[ McNite) #27

Do check with r_thirdperson 1 and a good thirdpersondist, i think that s the best way.

(No1_sonuk) #28

That would be “cg_thirdperson 1” and “cg_thirdpersonrange” with a number.
You’ll need to enable cheats or use devmap to allow them though.

(EB) #29

…I can’t wait until he starts skinning it. :poke:
oh, the, fun, to, come.

(]UBC[ McNite) #30

That would be “cg_thirdperson 1” and “cg_thirdpersonrange” with a number.

True… i always gotta look them up before using them, no wonder i got them wrong there :bump:

(Shaderman) #31

Thanks guys. Here are some third person screenshots. Judge yourself:

@EB
Fun is guaranteed :suspicious: If it won’t look like I want, I still can wrap some ribbons around it… :twak:

Shaderman

(]UBC[ McNite) #32

Well looks like the guy would be able to sit in the cockpit and still have all arms and legs right? Also he wouldnt need a cushion to look out of the window :smiley:

Maybe as a last check calculate the “real size” it has now. I think 1 unit = 1 inch, so just do a cross-check there to see what the result is. Bear in mind that the playermodels are 72 units = 1,83 m (heroical size, lol, all the WW 2 pilots i knew were smaller n me and i m only 5 ft 9 = 1,75 m).

But i think the model dimensions look cool now.

(Pytox) #33

LoL, would be funny to see that drivable :stuck_out_tongue: nice model :slight_smile: for what map are u going to use it?

(Shaderman) #34

Yes, I already did that calculation. I calculated the length with about 360 units and have about 372 units when I scale the model by factor 3.5. Regarding the hints mentioned above, I’ll have to redo almost everything (that’s my job for this weekend). I’ll keep the working size until the shape is finished and scale it before I start my texture experiments :slight_smile:

Call me stupid but I don’t try to make this model because I need it. I’m doing it just for fun. The map I am/was working on (either I have a break at the moment or I will never finish it - not sure about that yet) is called “the quarry” and looks like this (going offtopic):

I’d say there’s no need for a water plane :moo:

Shaderman

(Shaderman) #35

Back to the topic :moo:

I’m trying to remake the model now but I think I’m still missing a very important point :banghead: But let’s see some screenshots first:

Milkshape:

ET:

Now let me try to explain what I’ve done. In my first attempt to build this model I made two wings (two meshes (groups in Milkshape)) which I now think wasn’t the best solution. My new plan is to have one single mesh for the wings (that’s what you see on the screenshots above) which penetrates the body. My understanding is, that I should try to get seamless surfaces at best without any shadows in Milkshape an therfore in ET, too. To get such seamless surfaces, it seems to be necessary to weld vertices together. I think it’s ok to select the whole mesh and weld all interleaving vertices together. The screenshots show the unwelded mesh in the upper half and the welded one in the lower half and as you can see yourself, it doesn’t look like a perfect surface :confused:

Now I’m really confused because I don’t get the point how to design and smooth meshes. Do I need more vertices to chamfer the mesh? Should i better have two meshes for the wings again? Should I weld only specific vertices (which ones then?) and not the whole mesh?

Thanks,

Shaderman

(Detoeni) #36

My new plan is to have one single mesh for the wings (that’s what you see on the screenshots above) which penetrates the body

This will be fine if your using the model as a misc_gamemodel. If you use it as a misc_model the seam in the middle will be in shadow, and the surfaces ether side will get darkened.

There are two ways to control the smoothgroups, one by using the texture layout to contol where surfaces are split, the other is to contol the smoothgroup by detaching objects.

grab this:

http://www.aztica.com/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=20

Fire it up, load your test model and hit “rebuild normals”.
Have a look to see what it does to themesh smoothing.

Wing shape, have another look at the example I posted, all surfaces are made as quads and are only devided at export. By having lots of trangle meeting at one vert the lighting gets distorted, this should be avoided.

(No1_sonuk) #37

The easiest way to do it in MILKSHAPE (I’ve never had to use NPherno’s) is to weld ALL the vertices, then assign the top of the wings to 1 smoothing group, then assign the bottom to another. Milkshape’s MD3 exporter should sort out what to unweld automatically.

(Detoeni) #38

then assign the top of the wings to 1 smoothing group, then assign the bottom to another

But that would leave a seam in the surface normals along the front edge where there should be none.

clicky

In the above I used NPherno’s to recompile the wing model to base the smooth grouping on the wing texture/uvmap. This way you get the hard edge at the back and the front is an un broken curve. It can be used as a game model or map model and be correctly lit in both uses.

(Shaderman) #39

That’s what I want - a misc_gamemodel. Sorry, I didn’t mention it before :slight_smile:

There are two ways to control the smoothgroups, one by using the texture layout to contol where surfaces are split, the other is to contol the smoothgroup by detaching objects.

I think I get what you’re saying but I’m afraid I’m not able to consider these two possibilities in my early stage of study :frowning:

grab this:
…
…

Thanks for pointing me to this tool. It may be useful to refine the model later but of course it can’t fix such a mesh-chaos I’m building at the moment :smiley:

Wing shape, have another look at the example I posted, all surfaces are made as quads and are only devided at export.

I’m afraid there’s no way in Milkshape to build with quads :confused:

By having lots of trangle meeting at one vert the lighting gets distorted, this should be avoided.

Understood, but this seems to be related to a “quad building technique” which I can’t handle with MS :confused:

Thanks No1_sonuk, this seems to do the trick in Milkshape. That’s what it looks now:

Sorry for this big picture now but Imageshack doesn’t want to give me a working preview link :slight_smile:

I think this looks ok now, maybe those sides still need to be smoothed someway.

Another strange thing I noticed is this:

Is it the sky light color affecting the misc_model or what is causing this difference please?

Thanks for your answers!

Shaderman

(No1_sonuk) #40

But that would leave a seam in the surface normals along the front edge where there should be none.

Yeah. TBH, I tend to separate the leading edge of wings anyway. Quite often, the leading edge is reinforced, so separating it makes it look right.

Another option for Milkshape:

[ul][li]Separate the top and bottom faces into 2 groups.
[/li][li]Weld all of the vertices in each of the separate groups.
[/li][li]Smooth them separately.
[/li][li]Weld the leading edge vertices.
[/li][li]Select and smooth the whole thing.[/ul]
[/li]That should give you the desired smoothing.