New Model Format in Development

[FullerGer]

ED PlugIn for Blender?

That sounds kinda cool.

 

If they are doing it, I am looking forward to it. If not, do it, please. =P

[Blaze]

Will the new plugins when they are released come with a new ModelViewer capable of viewing .EDM?

[john_X]

why do we need another file format? isn't good enough what we do have? maybe somebody can make me understand what are the benefits of it

[Boberro]

Look at post 7 :)

[Grimes]

Generally I think they came out with a new file format for a few reasons. Possibly the old format simply couldn't be adapted to the new's features, or maybe it was easier for them to develop a completely new on separate from the old. But in terms of what the old format has vs the new one...

 

Normal Mapping at work

[aaron886]

Not to pick on you r@m, I'm guessing that's a bit of a pipe-dream. None of that stuff really matters in the big scheme of a combat flight simulator. ED has bigger fish to fry than making a soldier dive for cover... you can get that in ARMA or something if you're looking for human animations. The problem is, that kind of stuff is simply out of the scope of a flight simulation. Detail has to be scaled carefully, or ED's sims would fall prey to feature creep... and probably be unusable on anything but the most powerful computers. I'd assume ED has neither the man-power, nor the time to add things like that in the foreseeable future. I imagine they worked their tails off just to get the A-10C's systems modeled correctly so far! There are so many things about the engine and the airplane(s) that ED has yet to explore, and I'm sure they want to do that first. (This is, after all, a flight simulator!)

 

When it comes to features, we need to be thinking about feasibility and its big-picture worth first.

Edited December 19, 2010 by aaron886

[Grimes]

Skeletal can be used for almost anything, but yes primarily its best used for organic characters and animations.

 

Although I do agree with aaron with regard to how infantry currently function in the overall scope of the sim. They are a difficult aspect to implement into the world correctly. As they are now they are literally just super weak vehicles. Put em in a formation and they are the same distance apart as a group of humvee's would be. They have no real reason to take cover as the world is to big around em that cover is not likely near. Their overall importance is minimal at best. Try putting a single humvee M2 against 20 guys with RPGs. Within vehicles themselves I know pilot death is factored in, but I'm not even sure if driver or other operators death is calculated in for any land vehicles.

 

Honestly I'd completely change how infantry are currently implemented.

<pipedream>

-Infantry, as we know it, are completely removed and are replaced with a check box for other assets.

-Infantry become tied to these assets and other assets within a group and only appear under specific conditions. For instance infantry in humvee's on a transport assignment automatically leave their vehicles (except gunner) and take up defensive positions. If gunner is killed, someone takes its spot.

-All infantry actions and movements based off of simple navigation mesh. Of which all land 3d models have pre-defined nodes attached to them which infantry can use navigate to.

 

</pipedream>

 

Suffice to say it would spruce things up abit if some infantry exit vehicles once they become under attack. I think it would be pretty cool to think you took out all major AA threats only for a squad to exit a BMP when you weren't looking and one guy is armed with an IGLA.

[aaron886]

<pipedream>

-Infantry, as we know it, are completely removed and are replaced with a check box for other assets.

-Infantry become tied to these assets and other assets within a group and only appear under specific conditions. For instance infantry in humvee's on a transport assignment automatically leave their vehicles (except gunner) and take up defensive positions. If gunner is killed, someone takes its spot.

-All infantry actions and movements based off of simple navigation mesh. Of which all land 3d models have pre-defined nodes attached to them which infantry can use navigate to.

 

</pipedream>

 

 

I like your pipe dream! There's not much need for infantry to look good, in fact I think they're WAY overdone now (And for some reason, in A-10C, absolutely ruin my framerates. Beta, I know.)

[Grimes]

It exists in DCS:WH. No export tool for whichever version of 3dmax they use yet though.

[pixelpilot]

Skeletal deformation

 

THe benefits of the new File format sound good to me. I've done a few (amatuerish) reskins in a few different games in my time and the more layers (bump, Specular, alpha, etc) the more interesting effects can be acheived. On a side note. I dont think skeletal animation is confined to biped objects at all (just sounds like it should be) and I would imagine could be used not only for gear/canopy animations but also for more dynamic stuff like wing flex.

[213]

for full understanding of normal map possibilities:

http://www.polycount.com/forum/showthread.php?t=77146

 

of course we know ed will continue to use high amount of polygon and model every little bump and groove even with normal map :D

[BS_Fighter]

About Bumpmaping in BS2/A-10C. That does not look like real bumpmaping here more like a fake bumpmaping. This looks in new models with NM more like a kind of mixture of the texture channels but not as usual bumpmaping with clearly visible elevations.

[aaron886]

There is no bump mapping. (Yet.) Just normal mapping. (Note that "bump mapping" is definitely two words. :P)

[213]

About Bumpmaping in BS2/A-10C. That does not look like real bumpmaping here more like a fake bumpmaping. This looks in new models with NM more like a kind of mixture of the texture channels but not as usual bumpmaping with clearly visible elevations.

 

none of the vehicles use bump mapping as far as i can see. the f15e uses environment map and specular map(probably what you refer to as fake bump mapping). however the us pilot model uses normal map. if you get close you can see it on his vest pouches.

 

There is no bump mapping. (Yet.) Just normal mapping. (Note that "bump mapping" is definitely two words. )

 

normal map is the same thing as bump mapping.

[john_X]

of what i know, normal map is the diffuse map(colored, with camo etc) and the bump map is another texture map(usually grayscale) which makes the panel lines, rivets, and any other parts to appear 3d even though they are not modeled. so aaron is right.

Edited November 17, 2011 by john_X

[213]

no offense, but it's not like you don't have google or wikipedia to fact check for something you clearly have no understanding of.

 

[Michelange]

of what i know, normal map is the diffuse map(colored, with camo etc)

 

This is not true, A Normal map is based on the normal vectors of a the surface of a 3D object. It is a better approach of 3D surface than the bump map.

 

A diffuse map is only the flat texture that you'll apply.

 

here an exemple of a render Normal map vs Bump map

 

In 3D there are also displacement maps

Edited November 17, 2011 by Michelange

[aaron886]

I must correct myself (and apologize for starting all this crap!) I meant to say "specular" mapping. Apparently I need to be more careful in the future.

[john_X]

well, i must recognize this is something new for me, i never used it.

[borchi_2b]

hi, where can i download the new edm plugins?

[Silver_Dragon]

see the first post, here you can see the link

[borchi_2b]

so when i understand this right, the new edm files are not published yet?

[213]

through the link on the first page there's a download for 3dsmax plugins, but the documentation is in russian. someone needs to translate it.

 

also, your sig is a myth.

[grandsurf]

...but the documentation is in russian. someone needs to translate it...

 

Why?

 

[_Heater_]

hi, where can i download the new edm plugins?

 

go here -> click me