VonBeerhofen
-
Posts
512 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Everything posted by VonBeerhofen
-
The Suez theatre, dragged from a dusty corner of my harddrive, where it sat unfinished since 2004 due to Moggy's work on a simmilar theatre. I don't think he ever finished it so I pulled it out again to see what else I could do with it. The map isn't the same scale anyway and lends itself more for the battle of El Alamein which is just on the map. It covers a pretty large area and I created a new desert terrain set for it already. New though is a true elevationmap, which it never had because I had no idea how to convert such maps into EAW, but I've learned since then. With it the Suez region becomes a fully flyable theatre and is a step closer to turning it into an interesting new addon. Work continues! VonBeerhofen
-
Mark, the thinned out bit at the end is actually what remains of the contrail. There are a few options to truely thin out the end but I haven't decided yet on which one is best. One option is to remove smoke from the last frames in the drawing animation and another is to extend the inner smoke trail so it trails the main smoke. That animation is already more open due to it's dual purpose to function as a trail or a smoke. Perhaps there's another possibillity to draw less smoke frames at the end which should also help and change transparency depth, a combination of all is probably best and I'll see what I can do to thin it out when I've got some spare time. Getting it right is very timeconsuming though, I mean you can only see the effects of what you've done in battle but I'll keep trying! VBH
-
My bad Russ, I shouldn't put two different topics into one thread. Yep, I have some cool ideas for the comms, hope I can make them work more then what I have at the mo. VBH
-
Wasn't very happy with the dual purpose dual smoketrail I created long ago so I created a more substantial one with 3D effect which works better in all situations when active. OK, that's perhaps a little biassed observation but I hope you guys agree with me after seeing these pictures. Hope you guys can see which one and that the effects detail setting is working again in high mode, :) BTW , have you noticed the EAWPRO club recently expanded by 25%! Not bad in such a short time for EAW standards eh? VonBeerhofen And here's the Super Smoke Trail
-
Hey Russ, It's fully working as intended. The line abreast formation regularly appears in 1940 but not so often in 1943. Pretty chuffed to have seen it in action, :) VBH
-
Since this formation was created app. a year ago. This misssion was set in 1943 which was giiven a very small chance of this formation appearing as opposed to 1940. One encounter a year sounds about right eh? And I fly the game multiple times dayly, just because I need to check my latest creations. BTW, talking about latest creations, a new routine was implemented so AI can communicate amongst eachother like human players can. 24 such commands have been implemented but communications are still rudimentary. However there's plenty room for expansion and eventually this could evolve to a whole subset of specific AI commands, so more cooperative attack and defense become possible. VonBeerhofen
-
Thx to Erik and Stratos a special EAWPRO club was erected where further devellopment of my work can take place without unnecessary interruptions. Anyone is welcome to read it's contents which remains uncensored, but discussions are limited to members only and admittance to the club is exclusively under my control. Ofcourse crticism about EAWPRO can still be posted in the General EAW forum and when possible will be taken to heart. I'm sorry that there is no other way to present my work but it will not hamper further devellopment in any way. You can find the club through the forum's main page or by selecting CLUBS in the top from any page in the CA forum or by clicking the picture below:
-
And here's the 12 sided version as it is for now. The model's shape was further refined and a new texture was created. I'll try to inflate the stabiliser wings too but those can be pita, so I don't know when that'll be ready. We'll see, :) VonBeerhofen
-
for Flyright's V1 conversion. As you can see in this picture the model was constructed the oldfashioned way from the V1 , which shape is still visible because back then it was the only way to create something new. All the old polygons and nodes had to be left as is to keep the rendering sequence intact. Essentially it's still a V1 with all it's parts still present but set to invisible except for the parts which were needed for the blimp. The result is that in the editor and in the game the model uses space for 145 polygons and 147 nodes and it's filesize is not much smaller then the actual V1, 4.73 Kilobytes. Due to the changes to the V1 model and not being able to recalculate a new Rendering Sequence this model never worked very well in the game, as sides and tailsurfaces disappeared depending on the viewing angle, a valliant effort for those days nonetheless This next picture shows the fixed model with a newly calculated rendering sequence, all unwanted nodes and polygons were removed, an anchor line attached, the stabiliser wings were straightened, the messy tail was remodeled to give it a more accurate shape and the model was prepared for further improvements, i.e. a 12 sided version with appropiate 3D stabiliser wings instead of just flat polygons. As shown it consists of just 73 polygons and 71 nodes resulting in a filesize of only 2.96 kilobytes. This new model is stable as a rock, takes up less memory and renders almost twice as fast, where ofcourse framerate is always an important asset in any flightsimulator as AI intelligence and reaction times are directly linked with it. The next two pictures show the model in action. Notice that the difference with the old version isn't very big, the difference mainly lies in the stability of rendering the model and viewing it from all angles and ofcourse 2 kilobytes removed from one model will hardly impact framerates. It does however become more significant when dozens are visible in the same frame and taking into account that in a single screenshot a few hundred 3D models will be visible, some very complex, the overal cleanup will have a dramatic influence on framerates, loading times, CPU and GPU use and frees up memory for more complicated models, like the upcoming 12 sided version currently being develloped, a shape which can NEVER be derived from ANY model created for EAW in the past! VonBeerhofen
-
Added 10 more screenshots to aforementioned folder at my FTP. The higher numbers starting from 20 show the fully activated tileset and the beaches are now at sea level to prevent what I'd call the waterfall effect on missaligned coastal tiles, its where water could be seen going up a slope. Fine if we'd have waves hitting land but we don't. VBH
-
Good to see you in Russ, small bunch of nice people is all we need to keep going. VBH
-
Welcome RiBob, you're member No.2, wehey we're growing! VBH
-
Yesterday I started on a new theatre to be incorporated into PTIV as an addon. Rather then posting a lot of pictures I've set up a folder on my FTP with the test flight screenshots I made to check the new tilemap and pilotmap of the Philippines theatre. Still have to figure out how to use this new club so my excuses for not following normal procedure. Hope I'm not breaking any rules. It won't be the usual way I'll post screenshots. This map picture shows the app. route I flew and the tile and pilotmap I cobbled together to not get lost. Obviously this addon is about ships and carriers but also about driving the Japs out of the Philippines. The white targetdots are from PTIV, no targets have thusfar been assigned to the new map, I just had a look to see if there were any tile errors and wether the pilotmap was accurate. You can have a look here: https://rabartel.home.xs4all.nl/Philippines/ VonBeerhofen
-
Yes, I've become VERY carefull in picking my friends and handing out my creations, I think the reasons for that are pretty obvious. Hope you don't mind me keeping control over my own work, it's all too easy for others to pretend that they were it's creators. Think this thread will be locked soon too, hope the moderators understand that I'm just defending my work. I'm done with this guy anyway. VonBeerhofen
-
Brag? I think you mistake the word with dedication and strive for improvement. And where did you get the notice from that my group of followers is shrinking? EAW's following is definately shrinking but my group is fine, taken into account I have little aspirations. I wouldn't worry much about my perfect models, I know who my followers are and they will get them. VonBeerhofen
-
I forgot this, I hope you don't mind when I keep pointing out R/S issues on 3D models, I mean it's not like pointing out "buggy" 3D shadows in EAWPRO for not liking them but a real bug. It's not an attack on anyone in particular either but merely intended to maintain a high standard, and I for one do care about it. I don't feel it's particularly attractive to new players to see such porblems in screenshots. Any progress with the cunningtower? VonBeerhofen
-
Well in that case there's no reason not to fix your other planes which have R/S issues. I think players do care, after all modding has always been about trying to improve EAW, especially it's plane models. It's why Col. Gibbon's planes caught everyone's attention in the first place, perhaps it's just you who doesn't care anymore. VonBeerhofen
-
You can not break down an entire plane to only a nose and concatenate it with an existing model within the time I need to add 8 or 10 polygons on an existing model with a proper working R/S. Fact is that 99% of the models out there have issues. just inspect the tail on your Ohka. Importing parts from it merely increases the risk of importing R/S issues as well and setting yourself up with having to fix none matching parts which are an additional risk for more R/S issues. If you start out with models which already have such issues and try to stretch and twirl them to get a viable shape then things will only get worse. Further more, adding your shape to mine isn't necessarily going to work for that same reason. You should know, you and Col, Gibbon have tried that for an eternity. VonBeerhofen
-
Forgot to mention that that blimp was one of the first 100% models ever created back in 2010 and turned into one of the most memorable moments in my life :) All in all it turned out very well for me in the end, no hard feelings to the people involved, they never had any idea what it was all about, still don't. It's all sorted RiBob, don't worry. Thx for the input! VBH
-
Doesn't sound as if it needs adapting. Roundest nosecone I've build is my 16 sided white blimp, which was called a fake. I'm sure you rember that one, :( Anyway there's no need to use the described method with the 100% models even though the method is available. You can do anything with them, provided you have knowledge about how the rendering sequence works. As I said previously they can be turned into multipart models without the need to copy it's R/S and unused nodes and polygons into every part and tweak your heart out. The result are fast rendering clean objects which can use the F.3DZ as intended and every node and polygon each 3DZ can provide. VonBeerhofen
-
Told ya it can be any shape. This is what the 100% 3D models are all about. Call it a super tweak, but one that's really working. It's about fixing other 3D models which have R/S issues, which is about 99% of what's out there. You have to take my word for it that it's 100 working and when finished I'll proof it too. But I guess those who're working with 3D models don't really need that proof, right? VonBeerhofen
-
Lol. torpedos aren't very round in EAW RiBob and shapes can not easily be copied and pasted into a model. However there's no problem with shortening the nose and adapting the curve . I agree that it's a little sharp and needs to be more like the previous version I posted (picture was already deleted). I will match it to the exact shape of the picture I have later. Having more fun with the escort carrier at the moment. VonBeerhofen
-
I'm just displaying a better way of creating 3D models for EAW, the right way, the 100% way. There is no mention of any particular object or model prior to Mr. Jelly's disturbance or after and his reaction is therefore uncalled for. Fact is that nearly 99.9% of everything created has rendering issues except my objects. Ofcourse this causes unintentional pain with those who's models are flawed but such is the price of progress and not a reason to start a flame war.
In the old days people constantly compared old to new if there was an improvement and yes it has caused many casualties. My 3D models are a huge improvement over the old, they're stable, more precise, smaller in filesize and faster rendering and have none of the anomalies which most other 3D models have. I'm not sorry my models are better as I know they can do the same with their models if they're willing to spend the same time on learning what I have learned about EAW's 3D models since january 2000.
The right to criticise is another freedom we've always had in the EAW forum since the beginning of time and has always been seen as a necessity to get the game to a higher level. There is a difference between criticism and attack, the first uses founded comment, the 2nd doesn't. Rotton's remark is unfounded and a clear attack on my skills, if it was founded he's had ample time to tell the public why he thinks the carrier does not resemble a WWII carrier.
Ofcourse Mr. Jelly's initial comment is not some loose observation but meant to hurt and demoralise, the same goes for Rotton's remark which is merely meant to rub it in. I'm sorry you're having a hard time Stratos but I already warned you that this behaviour is not going to stop, I'm a threat to their creations and this is how they deal with threats. To keep in step with Rotton's remark, I haven't said that other models are crap or do not resemble a WWII carrier and as such no attack has been made on anyone. I hope it's clear that I do NOT invade THEIR threads with loose comments or any comment for that matter. I can only advise you to tell these two to take up ANY issues with you so you can deal with them as you see fit, so my threads remain clean and on track. I will ofcourse do the same.
I will keep comparing my models to others as proof that they're better, unless forum rules forbids such, just as others have been doing for over a decade comparing their work with mine and others, claiming superiority, and that goes especially for Rotton and Mr. Jelly who mainly use my work for comparison. That right is not only reserved to a few people but to all. I'm NOT asking people to pick a side or to like my creations, I just do what I think I'm good at and have as much right as anyone to keep doing it in peace and under the same rules as have been accepted since 1998. Anyone is welcome to criticise my work, when unfounded then the joke is on them, not me.
VonBeerhofen
-
That trick was used on me before in SimHQ and it's intentions seems clear enough to me. In Rotton's own words "some constructive criticismcan should be tolerated", so let's just carrier on. Debating which carrier looks like a WWII carrier or not is futile, especially within EAW's limitations. If someone thinks there's something wrong then I'm willing to change it, that is when I agree ofcourse. As I said it can be turned into ANY shape. Added some more detail, :) VonBeerhofen
