3D Models required from 3rd-party modellers

[SuperKungFu]

i thought someone was making a mig-21, its still in progress. But i don't remember where i saw it.

[MBot]

I would realy like to take up one of the bigger projects after having built two weapons ( that will hopefully see apearance in Lock On ). Unfortunatly I wont have much time in the next moths.

Chizh, do you think that ED will still need help with modeling in 3 months or will that be already be to late into the development of 1.2 ? Because in 3 months I expect to have again some time left for modeling.

 

Regarding the Aim-9P. Would ED considering implementing this weapon if I would supply a statisfieing model ? It would take some weeks tough, as I will only have limited computer access time per week.

[KuostA]

Mig-21

 

http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=7171

[SuperKungFu]

yea that's where i saw it from, thanks KuostA!

[Mizzy]

I'm not sure if I like the implications of very new weapons like the AIM-9X. I liked the early 90s timeframe alot, if some of the inconsistencies were removed there would be plenty of potential left in it IMHO. Modelling the latest and greatest technology only serves to increase the potential for inconsistent modelling (from a realism/gameplay point of view) due to lack of information on certain systems (but not others), I'd say.

 

Anyway, I hope someone makes atleast the F-14D and the F-15E :) Does the fact that there are relatively few existing models from LOMAC on the list mean that ED is already improving the rest (e.g. the MiG-31)?

 

Trident,

 

you can make LOMAC any timeline you like if you use the correct aircraft and leave out the ones not appropriate in the mission editor.

 

Let me give you an example: Say LOMAC had every aircraft modeled and you wanted to play a 60s senario, all you do is use the correct aircraft, weapons and make a 60s mission...... get it ;)

 

I play racing games and I bought Grand Prix 4, I downloaded a mod where you can play 70s car sets and thus 70s era Grand Prix seasons..... get it!! ;)

 

Mizzy

[Trident]

Get it. But why make the effort to model new weapons systems at all when there is so much room for improvement left in the existing ones? It's not like ED has all the time and resources in the world. And who'll guarantee that the MP server you're playing on 'gets it' about a consistent timeline in his mission? Get it? ;)

 

It's a matter of fact, the early 90's were probably the last years where Russia and the US were on equal terms with respect to their operationally deployed weapons systems. The economic crisis which followed the collapse of the USSR meant that new developments that were competitive with their American counterparts did not enter service on a large scale (or atleast not with Russia, see the Su-30MKI and Talwar-class frigates) from this point on. So either the whole thing becomes unbalanced or you need to model speculative systems which are not operational.

 

That's what makes this setting so exciting IMHO, asymmetric warfare is for pansies :D

[SuperKungFu]

the early 90's were probably the last years where Russia and the US were on equal terms with respect to their operationally deployed weapons systems

 

Heck try the early 80's. The potential "dogfight" age died when American got stealth on their side. And the F-117 first took to the skies around 1977-1982. That gives them heck of an advantage for deploying weapons. Those capitalist pigs and their cheating technology…lol.

[Mizzy]

And who'll guarantee that the MP server you're playing on 'gets it' about a consistent timeline in his mission? Get it? ;)

 

 

 

 

 

Well I have to admit that I don't play online anyway, but if you do, you join an online mission with a timeline that you like, or you make your own missions with the timeline you like and everyone joins you.. Just the same as Grand Prix 4 get it!! :D

 

Trident don't take me too seriously btw :)

 

Mizzy

[walmis]

It also would be great to see some older sam systems such as sa-2, sa-3, sa-5 imho

[JaBoG32_Viper]

I made a A10-Model times ago (not for the Game...too much Polys for that ;) ) and now I work on a Tornado-Model.

There`s a little question 'bout the way to save final models. I heard that files have to be save in 3ds Max 3.1-Files, others say 3.1 and up...so i'm a little confused 'bout that. I work with 3d Max 6, so have i do a backward-converting or is 6 ok?

Btw. i search for other modeler for experience-exchange and maybe work together on new ideas and models.

 

(And if someone is interested for my A10...can be seen here:

http://vipers-lomac.de/other/a10.jpg)

 

Greetz

 

JaBoG32_Viper

[Mig-Mag]

Hi Viper, ich hab mein Modell in Max 7 gemacht und an ED geschickt, scheint kein Problem zu sein.

 

Schönen Gruß!

[JaBoG32_Viper]

Was für ein Modell haste denn gemacht Mig-Mag?

Btw. hast Du iCQ?

[Mechanist]

The M730A1 Chaparral would be nice in the Lock-On. I hate this silent killer and that's why it is fun :). I think it is too few NATO air defence system in Lock-On.

Too bad I'm not a modeller (plus i can't afford the program too).

[SuperKungFu]

Dunno that much about modeling but would this help? http://www.meshfactory.com/cgi-bin/shop/catalog.cgi?page=toc_aircraft_mod_mil.html&cart_id=8901776_14792

[Witchking]

the problem there superkungfu is the models are too expensive. especially for a russian company.

[ACUTech]

Well actually they are under 100US$ each, wich is IMHO quite cheap. How much would you pay a modeler to work on a model for your project, for a few weeks let`s say?

Too bad the preview screens are small, but some models look actually not bad at all.

 

Cheers,

[Dmut]

Dunno that much about modeling but would this help? http://www.meshfactory.com/cgi-bin/shop/catalog.cgi?page=toc_aircraft_mod_mil.html&cart_id=8901776_14792

did you read a their licence agreement? take a look - it very funny. basically, if I understand it right, you may pay 85$ for model, but you can't use it as 3D model :D

also, the number of poligons make those models are unacceptable for using in LO, and ED's designers will have to spend time to descrease number of poligons without affecting quality of model.

[Alfa]

did you read a their licence agreement? take a look - it very funny. basically, if I understand it right, you may pay 85$ for model, but you can't use it as 3D model :D

 

Not quite Dmut :) - here is a snip:

 

4. The use of a model in electronic games and/or other computer software applications is acceptable so long as the model resides in a binary executable and cannot be extracted after the game, or software application source code, is compiled.

 

...which actually means that you may use a 3D model for game purposes as long as the model cannot be extracted from the game. This is not exactly the way EDs models reside, but I believe the purpose of the above disclaimer is to prevent the models from being re-distributed in their "open" format - i.e. so you can edit their geometry. Lock-on´s .cmd and .lom files cannot be edited either, so as far as I can see it amounts to the same :) .

 

also, the number of poligons make those models are unacceptable for using in LO, and ED's designers will have to spend time to descrease number of poligons without affecting quality of model.

 

Yes that would be a bigger problem :icon_frow. They have some awesome ship models, but their polygon count is excessive compared to the limit set by ED. A little sad because I believe this limit is too restrictive for ship modelling, if ships are to reach a detail level even remotely comparable to that of aircraft.

 

I wonder if this limit is an absolute necessity - i.e. whether the sim cannot handle such "large" models, or whether it is more of an overall consideration - i.e. in connection with the number of such models it can handle simultaneously without performance coming to a crawl(Chizh?). If it is the latter, there is the option of simply restricting the number of ships which can be placed in a mission.....that would even improve on the realism as well ;) . E.g. as it is now, you can place an unlimited number of "Moscow"s in a mission although in the entire world only 3 vessels of this class exist.....and only one is called "Moscow" and resides in the Black Sea, so it should actually be restricted to a "singleton" entry just like the "Admiral Kuznetsov" :) .

 

This is in fact the case with just about all major surface combatants - even down to frigate size. Only smaller combatants such as patrol boats would need to be allowed as "multiple" entries, but then their physical size/complexity means that they could reach the same level of detail without exceeding the 50.000 polygon limit :)

 

- JJ.

[ALDEGA]

Hm, those models look quite good. Nice Su-27, only 100.000 triangles! ;)

 

Also, there are no LODs, only a high detail model.

[Dmut]

Not quite Dmut :) - here is a snip:

Thanks Alfa :)

I guess I have to be a lawyer to precisely understand their license rule #1

1. The purchaser may make unlimited use of the models and digital images licensed from Mesh Factory in the form of static or moving images only.

it seems to me, "static or moving images" means pre-rendered screens and movies.

[ALDEGA]

Even if you can use them in a game, what good are they?

- they have too many polygons

- they have no lods

- no animation

- models are not preprared for Lockon (specific division in objects for animation, destruction etc)

 

Might as well start from the ground up.

 

These models are only useful for pre-rendered art.

[SuperKungFu]

Cool....I just heard Fighter Ops is going to use some of these models in their upcoming game. However, they do have to modify it a little to make it better adapt to the game such as animated parts and probably reducing the number of polygons…etc.