Topic: Discussion on Models

[Tus-XC]

sure

scale 1/20th (1 unit = 20 m)

axis rotation: Right hand (counter clockwise)

export settings (using pandasofts directx exporter): (only minor changes done, tabs listed)

3ds Max Objects:
object options-
Mesh definition checked
Materials checked
include animations unchecked

object types-
geometric checked
dummy checked

Texture & .fx files:
texture conversion -
none selected
white diffuse override unchecked

.fx effect files-
include .fx unchecked

Photoshop CS3 - Nvidia plugin

used dxt5 from the dropdown

what else do you need (i'll just edit this post with the additional stuff)

[[UFP]Exeter]

Looks good to me.

Do you think that scale will work for ships?  I have no problems with different scales as long as I know what they are.

[Tus-XC]

depends on what you are trying to do.  1/20 is the default for max.  now how you want to scale planets to ships is up to you.  a planet (6378 km radius for earth) compared to a ship (connie 189 m) is a pretty huge difference.  (o I don't think the version you have has the correct texture files, might want to dled one more time to be sure)

let me do a render of a ship to compare so you have an idea just how big a disparity it is.  from there we can determine proper scales for stellar bodies.

[[UFP]Exeter]

That works. 

[Tus-XC]

Please note that dot (find the pixel in picture 3... that's the ship... for scale, its 150 m in length.  the planet is 6378 km in radius.  The last pic uses a camera to show the ship and the textures (which are pixels at this point) for comparison).  The ship is approx. 180 km above the surface (not seen... that's is the atmosphere I made)

[Tus-XC]

btw... the nerd in me who studies this crap would love a 1 to 1 scale for planets (ie as seen)... the gamer in me tells me that this is probably not a good idea lol

[Tus-XC]

i'll do up more shots in a bit at various scales from that... need food first

[Tus-XC]

here are the various scales downward from 1/10th to 1/1000 (6378km*1/10 to 6378m)

[[UFP]Exeter]

I think to start we need to make planets a long distance away and if they get close, the planet gets larger.  Similar to STO.   But getting so close to the planet it washes everything out is something I would prefer to avoid 

[Starfox1701]

Well there are a number of tactics that involve direct interaction with moons and planets. I'm not sure if 1 to 1 is practical but it would be truly awesome to do. How big a map can we practically do? Is it practical to do a fully open setup like X Wing had with the map file containing the whole star system?

[[UFP]Exeter]

I thought about a continuous map, but I could not figure out how to do it and maintain the full 3D effect of the background stars and the variation due to nebula etc.

[Starfox1701]

OK so would a box the size of a star system be practical or would it be better to do something more like how Bridge Commander did things? Klingon Academy had very large star system maps. It would be nice to figure out how they did it.

[[UFP]Exeter]

My thoughts in a nutshell, very small one.   The galactic map will have a hex layout on it.  Clicking on a hex will cause the ship to go to warp and end up in that "sector"  Once in that sector the ship moves in that sector.  I consider them large, large enough players want to use warp.  I was thinking of minutes (maybe 5) to cross a sector.  A secrtor may have more than 1 system, may have none. 

The 3D map is not a box.  It is actually a sphere with the tactical gameplay inside the sphere.  And you do not run into the sphere.

[TheStressPuppy]

I think BC, KA, and in some respects Eve Online use warp, or jumps as a "loading screen", but the actual combat is in a fixed "sandbox". Be it a Cube, Sphere, or Hex. In KA's case a whole star system can be inside that sandbox. I am not sure how they did it ether, but it worked very well. I would try to use KA's map system as a guide if you could.

There are a lot of things that Klingon Academy has done that have never been seen since. Like Ginsu. The huge system maps, and interactive terrain. Fighting inside rings, Asteroid fields, Gas giant atmospheres, etc. Plus the ability to use that terrain to your advantage, or it be used against you. Like what General Chang said. On a Klingon warship "Everything" can be a weapon.

True Scale, or 1:1 IMO would be a little over the top. Like what was said it would be "nerdgasm", but realistically it would put a huge strain even on the best of hardware. You can make some pretty convincing planets that do not have to be 1:1 scale. Epic Scale is good, but too much epic scale could come back to bite you, and take the fun out of it in the long run. We do want to finish a mission in a "reasonable" amount of time.

1:100 looks pretty good as a starting point. You can always tweak it from there.

[Starfox1701]

I know how the ginsu was done from a model point of view but not a rigging or programing point of view. The models are built up from a core component which has all the battle damage already applied and new parts are layered on until you have a complete ship. It is very time consuming to do as on small misalignment can mess up the whole ship. As much as I would like to see it done I think a modernized version of the Bridge Commander system would be both more practical and just as visually appealing.

[[UFP]Exeter]

The size of a sector is based on how big we want it.  The player never reaches the edge or it.   Movement on the Galactic scale map would be similar to SFC2, as there would be a hex overlay,  However it is not a move hex by hex.  Rather you click on the hex and you warp to that position.  If you cross paths with another vessel, if either decides to engage in combat, then you are pulled out of warp into the tactical screen.  Otherwise when you reach your destination you will leave warp and be in the tactical screen.

I would like to get the galactic map with good backgrounds including nebula, black holes systems etc.  And have the tactical maps match the look in the galactic map.

Oh, and if you are travelling at warp and you path takes you to close to a black hole, well you get yanked out or warp and have to get yourself away from the black hole.

And the gravity well of a black hole does effect weapons fire, even beams.  After all beams are an energy plasma.

[Tus-XC]

I think somewhere between 1/10th to 1/100th scale would be fine for rocky worlds.  (note this is within the 1/20 scale)  We will still need to work out gas giants though -ex.  Radius of earth 6378 km, radius of Jupiter is 69,911 km.  They might need to be reduced in size a bit in order to ensure playability - maybe 1/500.  I don't know about interaction, but it would seem to me you could use particles to create a gas cloud, and projection mapping to give it some variety - how did KA do this as I remember being able to fly into gas worlds?

[TheStressPuppy]

In KA you could fly straight through a gas giant. There was no atmospheric pressure so to speak. It did however mess up your sensors and targetting. Much like the Nutara Nebula did in ST:2. This is what i recall. It has been many years since i played KA.

[[UFP]Exeter]

We could scale planets by class.  Like an M class.

I think we could do a particle effect for a gas Giant.  I wonder if a spherical model, with semi transparency and the textures for a gas effect?  Not really sure how this could be done.

[TheStressPuppy]

You probably could do a "layered" model. 2, or 3 spheres each representing different layers of the gas giant atmosphere. Each getting worse as you progress. A 3rd layer could be made to represent the "point of no return" where you would get crushed if you enter it. Gravity could play a role too. If your engines are damaged too much you wont have the thrust to escape, and would fall into the crushing depths.