Project Reality Forums

who ever said it was hard coded?

There are many reasons why we have not bothered to even try doing this for PR, the mean reasons being that PR has no maps that is fit for jets being launched from carriers (ie, not 4km +) and the USS Essex (the carrier in vbf2) is not a CATOBAR carrier, it is a STOVL carrier which means it only should have Harriers and possible F-35bs on it that are STOVL aircraft and not F-18s.

If we where to have a Nimitz or anouther type of CATOBAR carrier then ye, might be an idea but until then, its very unrealistic.

I would also not have the catapult done via someone on the deck, it would be far better to do it via some kinda one shot weapon inside the jet if only to trigger the catapult so that you do not need to use 1 of your 32 players up launching jets all day.


PS. Stop trying to add me to xfire I'm not going to teach someone who has no knowledge of modelling, texturing and exporting how to make statics from scratch.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:who ever said it was hard coded?


There are many reasons why we have not bothered to even try doing this for PR, the mean reasons being that PR has no maps that is fit for jets being launched from carriers (ie, not 4km +) and the USS Essex (the carrier in vbf2) is not a CATOBAR carrier, it is a STOVL carrier which means it only should have Harriers and possible F-35bs on it that are STOVL aircraft and not F-18s.

If we where to have a Nimitz or anouther type of CATOBAR carrier then ye, might be an idea but until then, its very unrealistic.

I would also not have the catapult done via someone on the deck, it would be far better to do it via some kinda one shot weapon inside the jet if only to trigger the catapult so that you do not need to use 1 of your 32 players up launching jets all day.


PS. Stop trying to add me to xfire I'm not going to teach someone who has no knowledge of modelling, texturing and exporting how to make statics from scratch.

There are actually a number of 4km maps in development that I think might be able to use this and fyi you may actually see a Nimitz sooner than you think. By the way the reason I wanted to add you as a friend to ask you about the networkable limit on Muttrah and even if so does it hurt to be friendly? I mean maybe it would be a good idea to help and encourage up and coming mappers / coders rather than shun them. Don't say I havn't looked at tuts and such b/c yes I have.

ps.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:someone who has no knowledge of modelling, texturing and exporting

also I wouldn't be so quick to say that...

The Nimitz class and catapult launching have been suggested numerous times before.

Locked for resuggestion.

there are a number of 4km maps in development yes but none that require anything more than the USS Essex.

as for questions, like I have said to everyone in the past, ask in the community modding forums like everyone else dose, then you can have multiple people help you with your problem and once your problem is solved other users can read it when they find it in a search or just stumble on it etc. If you search the BFeditor forums on the problem you will find some answers on the ladders thou probably not enough to solve your problems.

As for your Nimitz, I take it USI let you use there's then as I posted here 2 or so months ago?
combinedarms.myfreeforum.org :: CVN-71 Nimitz Class Super Carrier - USS Roosevelt


That deck looks very unoptimized, polys etc all over the place, edges cutting though each other and soo much unneeded stuff that will never get ingame in that state...

And ye, I wouldn't even have any one skin that without at least completing one full, complicated static first.

Thread moved and unlocked.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:If we where to have a Nimitz or anouther type of CATOBAR carrier then ye, might be an idea but until then, its very unrealistic.

There are plenty of other placeholders in game so how come that's an issue?

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:
That deck looks very unoptimized, polys etc all over the place, edges cutting though each other and soo much unneeded stuff that will never get ingame in that state...

And ye, I wouldn't even have any one skin that without at least completing one full, complicated static first.

I'm working together with Gudoe from USI on this and your right it is not in a finished state atm but it is getting very near so which of course will eventually bring the question of placing conventional aircraft onto partial sea maps with a Nimitz Class based CATOBAR system. It would also not be that unreasonable to place a Wasp AND a Nimitz class carrier on the same map as it would not be unheard of for two of those ships to be operating together in the same battlegroup.

As for my lack of experience; you did post that thread on our forums but also notice that you said in that post that the work required could be easily learned if someone just put the time into it. I looked up to you for admitting that a job on an object as complicated as that would simply take someone who would spend the time learning how to do it. So I did take the time and I looked through the almost nil threads about UV mapping especially on such a complicated object, and after a few days the carrier was UV mapped (yes fyi the picture i posted was of the carrier before I UV mapped it). Now after having said that you come back here and hammer on me for stepping up to do the job you said someone should do? I still don't think any less of you but I do wonder why that had to be the case.

As a final thought I don't think that a person should be limited in what they are allowed to do or make simply because they don't have enough experience. What do you think would have happened if nobody listened to Einstein just because he was a unproven patent clerk, and under that logic it would be impossible for Isaac Newton to have laid down the fundamentals of Calculus and Gravity at age 22. I'm not trying to say I'm an Einstien or Newton here; what I am trying to say is don't ignore or be quick to judge someone just because they lack experience.

PR certainly could use a Nimitz class carrier if it had a map fit for it, thou a Nimitz is really the last thing PR needs right now since the US have already got a carrier that works perfectly fine (providing you use the correct STOVL jets on it) and there are many other things PR could use.

When you say UV mapping, do you mean normal UV mapping or are you in fact UVing to texture pallets, as there is a huge difference.

As for experience, a carrier is simply the most complicated and hardest static to make. Its very high poly, it requires many different modelling, UV and skinning techniques to be implied and it requires lots of small detail over a huge area. Any bits that are not optimized or modelled correctly are going to have a large impact on performance, how well the model works ingame and looks. It's not impossible for someone with no experience to learn how to model, UV, texture and export all in one go but you are far more likely to succeed if you start with something simple, and work your way up instead of jumping in at the deep end and you will most likely drown.

Talk to any static modeller on the PR team and they will agree with me.

So until the time I see real progress and stuff being done in the right way etc, I'm not going to put any of my time into something that statistically speaking, has around a 98% chance of failing as I have god knows how many other people asking me for help many of which have a much larger understanding and experience.

I had to draw up custom pallets in photo shop using the standard wasp ones as a starting point to include the colors I needed. As for the whole skinning process I used the layout of the wasp pallet to figure how the folks who originally made the wasp did it and simply modeled my work after that. It did make it easier that the outer color of the boat is fairly uniform. Here is what it currently looks like in max.

well good luck then, but its its only 11k polys and looking at the model itself, its going to need a loads more detail and going by the wireframe above too, lots of fixing too before it can be considered for PR but I guess it will be fine for CA.

hey man, if you're willing to put in the hours and do the work, the more power to ya. I'd love to take off correctly from a USS Nimitz and perhaps someone will make a correct F/A-18E Super Hornet.

Quite an ambitious project, good luck.

I wonder how long it took DICE to make the Essex or Trauma (now Kaos) to make their DC Nimitz.

After that we just need a Chinese/Russian carrier. It's not realistic IMO having 2 opposing aircraft carriers within 8x8km and close to shore, but same can be said about the Essex and aircraft on existing maps.

I doubt many would actually mind if it was done well, it would at least be a lot more plausible than catapults/arresting cables and inappropriate aircraft on the Essex.

Nice Work. Love that carrier.

best of luck with the carrier, would be nice to see it in a map that it is suited for in the future if it gets that far.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:well good luck then, but its its only 11k polys and looking at the model itself, its going to need a loads more detail and going by the wireframe above too, lots of fixing too before it can be considered for PR but I guess it will be fine for CA.

Why is CA substandard or something?

J.Burton, I edited your post to help the thread stay on-topic and to avoid it turning into a flame-fest. Everyone please try to stay polite.

Jesus, it's almost like living in China.

Indeed, this forum has no free speech. Basically, I just want to keep this thread on topic, alright?

I think his point is really that in Combined arms it doesn't matter as much if things such as carriers don't look that pretty because it's mostly about air combat so you don't really see stuff like that up close anyway. Plus CA doesn't seem to mind testing alot of potentially iffy new features out for vehicles and aircraft it would seem too.