Topic: Discussion on Models

[Starfox1701]

Should the ship list define the ships, the ships define the list or something in between?

[TheStressPuppy]

The ships should be "unique" for each class, and even more unique for each sub class, but obviously have similar racial characteristics. Nothing says that all Romulan ships should look like a bird. That is automatically assumed when you think of a Romulan ship. I don't believe they all should be the same design scaled up, or down, or even be "bird like". On the other hand we don't want them to be flying tin cans with a bird emblem like the SFB designs. FASA had an interesting take on the Romulans. Each class should be "unique", but they should have characteristics that make them distinctly Romulan. Even if they did use Klingon Technology. Atolm has some very interesting Romulan designs.

We have a good idea on how the Feds should be since there is a lot of canon material to go by. Even the Klingons have a lot of canon stuff. It is the rest of the factions that we have to find ways to flesh out.

[[UFP]Exeter]

DXT5 also works well.  I used GIMP 2.8.2 with the above mentioned add.

I also used Blender 2.6.7a


FYI  Irrlicht has a limit of 9 texture files per model.

I agree ships should be unique, but still be able to notice similarities (in general). We do have evidence of Romulans obtaining Klingon battlecruisers.  But enough changes to tell the difference.  I had planned on 6 classes per race but that is easily changed, the limitation is models.  If we get enough models.  We can also have empty "slots" for players to add their own models.  I have a list of 15 classes of combat type vessels to use in game.  With 6 playable races, that is 90 different ships and each can be configured. 

[Starfox1701]

The limit on textures might be problematic; can that be changed? And does that include all of the various supplemental effects textures like normal maps and such?

[TheStressPuppy]

9 textures IMO would be overkill, and a waste. Especially if you UV map a ship to a single 2048, or 4096 sheet. If you UV map the ship to multiple sheets like old SFC. That could become problematic as well. The best thing to do is UV map the entire mesh to a single texture, and use the additional textures for effects.  It would be assumed that some of these textures are for the ships effects (Illumination, Normal, Bloom, Specular, etc.). Speaking of which. Will animated textures, and mesh animations be supported?

[Captain Adam]

.

[TheStressPuppy]

I hope you are not taking what i am posting the wrong way. I am not trying to tell you what to do with your project. I am only offering advise, and suggestions. How you ultimately decide to do this is totally up to you.

[[UFP]Exeter]

Animations can be done.

As for opinions, I am not a modeller.  My preference is whatever is suggested is something that can be done in irrlicht without changing it.

But remember, we can also do our own shaders.

May I suggest taking a look at irrlicht.  Modelers do not need to know how to do things in code, that is my job.  But would help to know what it can do.

[TheStressPuppy]

Already checked it out. Seems that its only 32 bit, and only supports windows XP. That kind of worry's me. However you are a code monkey, and are talking 64 bit. So i will let you do that thing you do. You make it work. We will worry about meshes.

All i need to know is what the poly budgets are. What the Optimal texture resolutions are. What kind of shaders the engine supports, and how they are implemented. How hardpoints are done (ether by scripting, or actual points on the mesh file). Perhaps a guide on how the particle effects are done (would help for TNG style phaser charge up effects). Plus any Animated texture effects (Bussard collectors, and various other ambient effects you see on Trek ships). Plus little odds, and ends like Nav Lights (would be done using the hard points obviously).

Is there a plan on restricting firing arcs? So a ships weapons don't fire through their own hulls. That annoyed the hell out of me in SFC. Plus if you intend on 3d combat firing arcs will be very important.

[Starfox1701]

Well right now I think a max budget of 25K polies for a starship is not outlandish. 2048X2048 DXT5 .DDS files is the standard for textures. Not sure how the I know we want normal maps, an FX map, and an illumination map and spec map but I'm not sure what the particulars for things like naming are yet. Plan for hardpointing is to use an as yet un built model property editor functionally simmallar to the NanoFX viewer.

 

Perhaps a guide on how the particle effects are done (would help for TNG style phaser charge up effects). Plus any Animated texture effects (Bussard collectors, and various other ambient effects you see on Trek ships). Plus little odds, and ends like Nav Lights (would be done using the hard points obviously).

Most of this is still being hashed out so if you have ideas or suggestions feel free to offer them up.

Is there a plan on restricting firing arcs? So a ships weapons don't fire through their own hulls. That annoyed the hell out of me in SFC. Plus if you intend on 3d combat firing arcs will be very important.

I think the best method is to set the weapons Hps so the won't ever fire through the mesh. Then it is just a mater of placing them properly. The best thing about this is that you will get true arcs as the weapons will only shoot what they can see.

[[UFP]Exeter]

Already checked it out. Seems that its only 32 bit, and only supports windows XP. That kind of worry's me

Currently it is DX9C, but DX11 drivers under development.  I have downloaded the latest that is under development and currently the only issue is with the shader pipeline.  And irrlicht provides 32 bit libraries, I have already made 64 bit, and they work.  Issues is with DDS, but will deal with that when we get to it.  I have a base structure loading models and textures, and I am on Windows 7 64 bit, so irrlicht works fine.   The backup plan, is to rip Irrlicht out and do the DirectX 11 ourselves.

Firing arcs will be determined in code.  To clarify each weapon type will have a firing arc.  The game physics will then determine if the weapon can fire or not.  With the vector to the target, and the base direction vector of the weapon, a quick dot product gives us the angle between. 

There is actually a particle effects tool that works with irrlicht.  CopperCube 3D.  But, we can also just use raytrace and generate a "beam" and used different shaders.

Which is something to look at.  Seems to be we are putting alot in model code and or textures that can be handled by shaders.   We will have the ability to use Shader 4, so thee is alot we can do that older games never could.  Shaders are developed in code, and using parameters we can alter the characteristic.  For example one shader can handle beam weapons and by altering parameters we alter how the beam looks.

[Starfox1701]

Firing arcs will be determined in code.  To clarify each weapon type will have a firing arc.  The game physics will then determine if the weapon can fire or not.  With the vector to the target, and the base direction vector of the weapon, a quick dot product gives us the angle between. 

Will that be memory intensive in large battles?

There is actually a particle effects tool that works with irrlicht.  CopperCube 3D.  But, we can also just use raytrace and generate a "beam" and used different shaders.

Which is something to look at.  Seems to be we are putting alot in model code and or textures that can be handled by shaders.   We will have the ability to use Shader 4, so thee is alot we can do that older games never could.  Shaders are developed in code, and using parameters we can alter the characteristic.  For example one shader can handle beam weapons and by altering parameters we alter how the beam looks.

My concern is over use of shaders. I remember them as being very memory intensive; at least they where in Legacy. Is that still the case?

[[UFP]Exeter]

Firing arcs in code will not be memory intensive, as the data is stored in the heap with pointers.  The is compiled inline so it will be fast.

Shaders are much better now, in fact they were completely redone in DX11, which is why anything is DX9 needs a rewrite to work in 11.

[Starfox1701]

So would we have to script specific arcs in the ship files or would the weapons Hp calculate true arc not firing through the ship ever? Also how exactly would shader driven weapons effects work?

[[UFP]Exeter]

I think the best solution is a combination.  The game will know the maximum arc for the weapon, but the code will be unaware of any constraints imposed by the model.

So I think the weapon standards are part of the game, and scripts can override.  Such as reduce not increase.


For weapon effects, in the creation of the object in the engine, a shader effect an be provided.  Shaders can take parameters so it is possible to use the same shader but alter how it looks.  For example I have a torpedo model, by using a shader it could be a photon torpedo or a quantum torpedo. 

[Captain Adam]

.

[[UFP]Exeter]

Seems to me, based on the actual movies and series, photons and quants are slower than beams and faster that plasma.

[Starfox1701]

Photons and quantums are actually very vast and can function at both warp and sublight speeds. On the note of phasers from the fluff they are supposed to move at light speed but I found that in modding Armada 2 a beam speed of between 1500 and 2000 m per sec produced effects that very closely match what we actually see on screen. The beams themselves where also quite often a looped animation ant runs down the length of the beam. This provided a further since of movement. Plasma torps are only ever seen for sure in TOS and where suppose to move at very high warp speed. I can't ever recall a romulan torpedo fired in TNG or DS9 though the Cardassian weapons platforms where also suppose to have plasma torpedoes and as I recall the where just yellow photon type animations.

[Captain Adam]

.

[Captain Adam]

.