Topic: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0 (Read 97932 times)

dderidex · « **Reply #360 on:** August 03, 2003, 09:09:44 pm »

Few more ships, no download yet, but soon.

Fed FF and FFB. I liked the Taldren layout of the FF, but wanted to use the Grissom as the POL, and the Bakers (as above) as the DW/HDW. Needed a transition craft, so, made one:

Would fit in this mod pretty good, IMHO. Of course, anyone else is welcome to any of the kitbashes/retextures/ships I do - I really am not very anal about permissions and such. Just credit my work and the original author's in the readme, and I don't care what you do with it.

FireSoul · « **Reply #361 on:** August 03, 2003, 09:33:23 pm »

Quote:

Edit: Pitfalls to avoid in model selection. Since your going throught the process of selecting the best models you can get for the class I wanted to share something I learned to do. Take a look at the size of the folder that contains the new dreadnought by P81. It's 10.4 Meg of goodness. The problem that presents is you try to load too many such models it will bog the game down. Slow refresh rate and short hangs when sound events play. You can salvage some models by grey scaling and even reducing the size of the illumination maps. Even some of the seldom seen texture maps like the undersides of the model can be reduced to 256 x 256. I was able to reduce that one to 8.9 without touching the main textures. Still too big. Most computers can't deal with many of that size model. Even if you do have a smoking video card. I usualy won't use a model over 4 Meg for this reason. And 20-35 Meg is getting pretty common. Looks great in a model viewer but you better have massive video bandwidth to play it. Just something to consider when looking at stuff.

When you're reducing the sizes of the BMPs, are they being stretched to match the model?

Rogue · « **Reply #362 on:** August 03, 2003, 10:19:24 pm »

Stretched to match the model? To clarify, say your looking over a set of 512 x 512 bmp's. They can easily be resized to 256 x 256 and will map properly. Or even 128 x 128 or 64 x 64. I think the way the things lay are by relative coordinates on the bitmap. I'm pretty sure any binary multiple will work (eg 32,64,128,256...etc.) Another trick is reducing the color depth. Many illumination maps were never reduced to a gray scale to reduce the data. Not hard to knock a 796k texture down to 66k sometimes. Times 4 textures and you can reduce a 5.5 Meg model down to a more managable 2.8 Meg. And in many instances can't detect it unless you look at it at just the right angle with the model viewer. And in game fat chance if your selective with the textures you play with. This makes a huge difference playing some of Nuclearwessel's fleet actions. You start adding up some of the models plus the game engine and it dawns on you why the game stutters or pauses to load a sound event. There is a reason why the Taldren models are 2 Meg or less.

You can even do this with some main textures with no or little loss of detail. I got into the habit of doing this when installing new models recently. Once your used to it it can be done in few minutes time and I believe it is worth the investment to keep everything running smoothly. The first thing I look at is the illumination maps and usualy use MS paint to stretch/skew by a new ratio And PSpro to reduce color depth or convert to grey scale. They always seem to map correctly if I keep the same proportions (ie reducing by 25%, 33%, 50%, 66%.... whatever, so long as I do so in the vetical and the horizontal) but I think any video set up will handle it so long as it's a standard size (ie 32x32,64x64,128x128... etc.) I just want to hedge here in case someone finds their video driver won't map a 96x96 map. Mine has no problem mapping a 512x512 main texture with a 64x64 illumination map. Hope that helps.

FireSoul · « **Reply #363 on:** August 03, 2003, 10:25:29 pm »

If a model is mapped to use "file1.bmp" .. and there's also:
file1_2.bmp (1/2 size)
file1_3.bmp (1/4 size)

.. will the game use these other sizes for when the ship is at a distance?
.. Or were these merely provided so that players can swap in their own choices?

dderidex · « **Reply #364 on:** August 03, 2003, 10:36:01 pm »

Those are for when the ship is at a distance, yes. SFC2/OP can support up to 3 different LOD models for various ranges - the model's mesh, though, must include essentially 3 different copies of the same ship. Since the game can use these models at extreme ranges, the designers took advantage of this fact and did 3 different models at descending polygon counts and smaller and smaller textures.

Honestly, though, this isn't a big enough savings to be worth it, IMHO. Trippling the amount of work a modeller has to do to support older video cards is well and good for Taldren to do, but I never bother. Indeed, on most the kitbhashes I do, if there is multiple LOD models in the mesh, I just delete them and use the highest quality one. The poly count really isn't that different - it will never make a difference (at least, not anymore).

Rogue · « **Reply #365 on:** August 03, 2003, 10:41:11 pm »

The LOD's are selected strictly at given distances. Meaning it uses say CA_1_1, CA_1_1i, CA_1_2, CA_1_2i...etc. from distance 0 to x. Switches to set CA_2_1, CA_2_1i, CA_2_2, CA_2_2i... etc. from distance x to point y. Perhaps a third set if provided. I've only noticed models with up to 3 levels of detail. I don't know if the model itself determines this or works together with the engine to save video processing. Not my field of understanding. I really wonder if LOD's consume more video RAM but have to assume that is the reason they exist.

Edit: I read DDeridex's post and havt to say I'm using a lower performance video card. I have a 64Meg ATI and experience some stutters when a fairly large number of high res models are loaded. One on one scirmish no. NW's base defense... get's pretty jittery. Should I upgrade to a smoking new video card? Sure, I will sometime or another. Till then...

FireSoul · « **Reply #366 on:** August 03, 2003, 11:57:06 pm »

I am aiming towards "medium" quality models..
.. because the large large sized models affect both the game, and the size of the package.

Edit:
Guh. The Romulan StarHawk PF model from FeralYards was taking 2.3 mb by itself. I reduced the size of the .BMPs. That should help loadtimes a bit when launching PFs. I'll also check the other PFs I downloaded from there.

FireSoul · « **Reply #367 on:** August 04, 2003, 04:23:28 am »

Ok.. .. now to the next part of the changes: Klingon ships.

I've been thinking about splitting up the KDNs into separate models. There's 2 ways I can do that:
- include models for some or all of the KDNs, but each DN class gets its own model.
- copy the somewhat acceptable model from the Taldren directories, one model per DN class all identical.

This would allow those of you who like to mod everything to be able to do so. The different classes would be:

(Klingon Fanatic's 3-warp DN would fit in really well. KF, would you send it to me?)

(only the warps could be in TOS style. The rest has to be like the others since a C6 upgrades to a C9, later. If there was a way to put TOS-style engines on a model like the one KF uses, I'd be very happy.)

(thinking of using the stock Taldren model for this one. Not SFB accurate but would look nice here.)

I already have a model for the B11K. (KSBB). The B10's own model is acceptable. I am also planning to change the B10V's UI and Model to use same as the normal B10's.

jimmi7769 · « **Reply #368 on:** August 04, 2003, 10:16:20 am »

It'd be a good idea to seperate out the C5 from the rest.

Rogue · « **Reply #369 on:** August 04, 2003, 10:54:38 am »

Interestingly enough I read a small bit of trivia that the C5 is a C9 that didn't get all of it's systems and looks about the same. Does that stop me from using Atra's C5? Not for a minute. I was also surprised to find out that the C8 is an upgrade from a C9. All this time and I never noticed it till recently. I bet FireSoul knew this.

Rogue · « **Reply #370 on:** August 04, 2003, 10:57:52 am »

Interestingly enough I read a small bit of trivia that the C5 is a C9 that didn't get all of it's systems and looks about the same. Does that stop me from using Atra's C5? Not for a minute. I was also surprised to find out that the C8 is an upgrade from a C9. All this time and I never noticed it till recentlycause I just figured it went C7 - C8 - C9 in combat effectiveness. It also said the C7 is classified as a dreadnought. I bet FireSoul knew this.

Rogue · « **Reply #375 on:** August 04, 2003, 02:34:53 pm »

FireSoul, I'll go ahead and send it. About 820k zipped. Should be in the pipeline.

Rogue · « **Reply #379 on:** August 04, 2003, 07:53:20 pm »

Oh, Now you tell me. Where were ya when the Kzinti were disrespecting my D5W? Besides, disruptors just don't leave that crisp smell of hot ozone I crave so much. Not like an enveloping torp when your opponent's shield facings are just about all gone. You can turn but you can't hide.

We now return you to our regularly schedualed topic

News:

Topic: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0 (Read 97932 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

dderidex

FireSoul

Rogue

FireSoul

dderidex

Rogue

FireSoul

FireSoul

jimmi7769

Rogue

Rogue

FireSoul

jimmi7769

FireSoul

jimmi7769

Rogue

Dogmatix!

dderidex

Dogmatix!

Rogue

Topic: OP+ Corrections Thread: as of version 3.0 (Read 97932 times)