PMC Tactical forums

replace ship model with sub..simulating the cold war game..



Russians arrive at Wonson port! the port obj should have more docking spots..

few more..

i checked [Wonson port objective model] with LodEditor, for more docking points.

in FF3 DB, it's CT1606, 79B Port. it has 12 [large docking Pt].
in test sceenshots, i use FF4 DB, the port objective has extended dock (feateaure).
Appearantly this objective has been tweaked/upgraded in FF4 ... the docking points probably fewer than those in FF3.
PS: all my LE versions can not open objective items in FF4..

hmm.. in-game test shows .. the radars should be scaled down.. just too big

I'm not sure, I have to check their size. They are really big.

edit: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-40V6M-Mast-System.html

You can find here their sizes.

Maybe here.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Grumble-Gargoyle.html

thanx. i've scaled them down to 85%.. use tyre diameter as reference.

btw the 40V6M mast is 23.8m, 40V6MD mast is 38.8m.. well.. the "D" mast make big difference. anyway i can tweak all radars use taller D mast anytime..

Yehaw!

It is sad to see that vehilce interference is still exist in some battalions.

http://iaro.3dmax.hu/kep/sa10_1_copy.jpg

http://iaro.3dmax.hu/kep/sa10_2_copy.jpg

(Someting worg with forum, when I posted pictures they weren't show properly, right side of pictures weren't displayed.)

ccc,
I still desperately need a TA-4J and, maybe, an A-4F (not sure if the Super Fox is superficially different from the E model...).

The TA-4J is a big gaping hole in the scenarios I'm writing.

i have a tweaked A-4F.
As for TA-4J, the current A-4 model is totally out of date.. it won't deserve the tweaking work.
say, better wait Sundevil's new A-4

I don't know who Sundevil is.

I don't understand what the problem is with the TA-4J. I mean, you can spend hours and hours making submarines that I simply cannot use in a campaign. However, I can use the TA-4J in at least two theaters I'm working on: Panama and Nevada. I mean, everyone uses the TA-4J as an adversary aircraft.

Why not spend time making a model I can use instead of a submarine or truck?

I mean this with all respect; I understand to tone of this post doesn't come across that way but it's an honest question.

I'm training some 3d modeling, if you can find some nice pictures and/or blueprints for me, I could try (read; try) to model something like the plane mentioned here. No promises though

@SM,
try these links..

http://www.simviation.com/designresources.htm

my favorite..
http://www.airwar.ru/other/drawe.html

that JF-17 model seems to be in a really good quality,isn't it?

also interesting for Taiwan....

a low poly one.

Some test notes..
-landing gear Z value around 8.5
-movable strakes animated as reversed LEF..my best guess is it works as airintake ramps.
-movable nozzles are linked to rudders and elevators, roughly.
-global noraml reducer/calculater angle set to 50 deg, give a more boxy shading.. but the lighting/shading on the model looks more plain [ edited - angle 80 looks worse, stay with 50 deg]
-this ac looks quite big, and flat. cool. i saw SFP1 modelles has one in their virtual sky.

Wow, so beautiful. That is really fast for this model. People just talk about this jet around a week . CCC, you become a supper model

Blackbird wrote:Wow, so beautiful.

AND SOOO USELESS....

Heya ccc-

I can't remember - what formats can you export your models to?

derStef wrote:AND SOOO USELESS....

derStef, you need to learn that in PMC Tactical forums you can't just post these kind of posts. Also in the other topic you were very disrespecting towards ccc. This sort of behavior stops right now.

Snake Man wrote:

derStef wrote:AND SOOO USELESS....

derStef, you need to learn that in PMC Tactical forums you can't just post these kind of posts. Also in the other topic you were very disrespecting towards ccc. This sort of behavior stops right now.

ok, wasn't my intention.


could you please give me a layout how a post should look like here? (which font should i use, which color, underlined or not?)

Very nice and quick work ccc!

T_Rex wrote:Heya ccc-

I can't remember - what formats can you export your models to?

rough basic modelling done in 3ds max, finish and detailing in LE, so available in LOD format.
then converted into DXM for test.

of course, use WaveyDave's tool, lod can be converted into 3ds.

Got it. Does the 3ds conversion lose texmapping? Perhaps not a big deal, but (as you know) doing the texture maps is a pain in the ass.

I've been getting deeper into the ArmA modding stuff, and it seems like many of the models you have are notably absent from other addons. At some point, I may come begging to you.

Edit:
I'm thinking about something like this -


That would have civilian application, as well.

T_Rex wrote:Got it. Does the 3ds conversion lose texmapping? Perhaps not a big deal, but (as you know) doing the texture maps is a pain in the ass.

I've been getting deeper into the ArmA modding stuff, and it seems like many of the models you have are notably absent from other addons. At some point, I may come begging to you.

T, SM has tried this idea a while ago. i've sent him some files for test.
Honestly my models are exclusively built for fast-jet sim, not FPS. im afraid you need higher-poly models, not low-poly ones.

:thumbs:

So... get to work on higher poly ones!

CCC makes great Falcon 4 models, no doubt about it. But T_Rex, if you make ArmA 2 models out of those, the community bitches and moans that there is not enough details, trust me on this.

If you are just looking to fill your own addon library for your own missions, then by all means get some nice models from CCC.

Its to bad a good model converter never came to be for F4, that could take all max data and do straight conversion to lod format (with decent poly , tex mapping saved and animation ) .

Well, I'm always on the lookout for stuff. And I agree, Ed, that some converters - or the ability to handle some stuff natively - could really rejuvenate F4.

I'm particularly interested in civilian stuff. That's an area where most ArmA players won't necessarily want to use the stuff, but it is good for ambiance. I've also thought of getting some of the old F4 buildings. I did a couple proof of concepts, but even those require work to make them enterable. And these days, being able to go into buildings is very important.

Anyway - sorry for the derail. I admire your work ethic, ccc!

T_Rex wrote:Well, I'm always on the lookout for stuff. And I agree, Ed, that some converters - or the ability to handle some stuff natively - could really rejuvenate F4.

I'm particularly interested in civilian stuff. That's an area where most ArmA players won't necessarily want to use the stuff, but it is good for ambiance. I've also thought of getting some of the old F4 buildings. I did a couple proof of concepts, but even those require work to make them enterable. And these days, being able to go into buildings is very important.

Anyway - sorry for the derail. I admire your work ethic, ccc!

right, when you think about how much work has gone into F4 over 10 yr period its a real wonder what the issues were ,. I assume its cause F4 is so proprietary and unique . Probably be easier to use another model format than try make good converter match F4 lod format .

flaming landing..