Modding the FXEXE isn't any different then modding the 1.2 version. You convert 8 bit .TPC's or .TER's to a .PCX change the drawing, convert it back and replace the old drawing with a new one. No changes were made to the 3DZ format except for the Airfld**.3DZ's which were changed to use the same polygon types as the normal .3DZ files and now include luminous and semi-transparent but are still under revision.
All other files are still fully 1.2 compattible.

No changes have yet been made to the Campaign format other then activating 3 carreer years for US planes. The lack of this campaign year limit's many addons which rely on the US presence in a certain timeperiod, even when the US slot is occupied by Russian, Fin, Japanese or other planes.

The use of file managers like OAW or Skins 'n More, ECA panel etc. are still supported but without appropiate knowledge it's not advised to mix old and new version files, only what's been created thusfar for the 1.2 version is fully supported. Care should be taken with Airfld.3DZ's because of their changed formats, adding the FXEXE set last will cure any issues by overwriting the old versions. Use of my empty Airfield.3DZ is allowed without restrictions. Inspite of this the FXEXE was hardcoded to give priority to the .FXE files, which are just renamed .CDF's with a reorganised structure which I felt might make things a bit easier when swapping campaigns or addons.

Since I'm no longer a big supporter of such managers anymore, because of their complexity, you'll have to figure out how to make best use of them yourtself. I've spend way too much of my time already trying to teach players and didn't find it to be a pleasurable experience. However once you've learned, it can be a usefull tool that can be quite enjoyable.

Tutorials for modding EAW can be retrieved from Sandbagger's or Mark EAW's files depositry:

https://eaw.neocities.org/fxexe-patches.html

VBH

Skinning FXEXE planes in UHR can be a piece of cake, as the below picture shows. You just take an existing skin and resize it's textures to 512 * 512. This obviously won't give the best result but it's a good start.
After some additional work the result will app. be equivalent to Rotton's no F models but depends on people's modding skills.

UHR skins can have 4 times more information in them and therefore take up app. 4 times more memory but since it's just a TEX and a TRA I think it's less memory then Rotton's or Col. Gibbon's methods. Less means higher FPS, less loading time, etc. etc.

Another advantage is that the total filesize of the (default) 3DZ models remains the same, unless a free 3DZ is used to add some more detail as opposed to 'unclean' planes which copy the 3DZ several times over and keep useless information in the model which again slows down FPS.

The FXEXE allows the use of all 3DZ's as used in the B17 model. Noseart and turret slots can be conveniently used on all aircraft if one desires. I won't enter into detail about the added action codes for movable surfaces and improvements for illuminated surfaces untill it can be properly tested in what would be the a prototype of such a plane.

As a 3D modeller I believe this to be the easiest and cheapest method to improve plane graphics, it's also universally applicable, both for multiskin versions or just singleskin as with the FXEXE and it takes skinning back to it's origin. A no nonsense approach, clean and simple (for those who know how to do it).

Whatever method is used, they can be used side by side in the same game. Wether people will pick up on it I can't say but it's a valid alternative for sure. Here's the picture which only took app. 10 minutes to create and is therefore not very representative for how a truely reworked/rempapped skin will look, but I think you'll get the idea.



If people have any questions about this or the FXEXE they can pose em inhere, as not to contaminate the FXEXE release thread.

VonBeerhofen

Hi VBH.

We have hundreds of Multi Model 24bit BMP plane sets, which can't be used in your current FXEXE.

This is a shame for players of the FXEXE, as they can't enjoy the improved graphics.

Just one skin from IM's collection.



Any plans to do a similar upgrade?

Is that the original lo-res P-51?

If so, that skin looks darn good which makes this a nice modification. Of course, it would even better if a 3dz expert were to round off those jagged edges.

You might want to look at a few of my "enhanced' lo-res models. In most cases those original models didn't come close to using all of the 255 available nodes. I suppose we can chalk that up to the original producers being under pressure to release the game but really, it wouldn't have take much longer to refine those models a bit more.

All I did was add enough nodes to the wing tips, rudder, elevator and tires to make them look smoother. If you added that to your texture modification I think you'd have some outstanding lo-res models.

There are a bunch of enhanced lo-res models on my page at talley-ho that you could use for this.




As for possible memory problems with my empty f models, the 1.4 exec series has 6 new add-on 3dz files. We have a few planes in the air the use all six and we're not experiencing any memory problems.

The real test will be the Condor monster. If John's model, which takes 3dz modeling close to it's maximum potential, doesn't cause any problems I'd say we've licked the memory problem.

I can't even begin to think what Col.G's Condor will do to my framerates or memory but if Iron Mike's plane contains 4 * 256 .PCX files it can easily be put into a single 512 .PCX. With the custom palette option available for the FXEXE I've already shown in the past that there won't be a great difference in the result. My goal is to maintain the highest possible framerates for online play and have the AI start using human flightmodels at 60 FPS, as coded in the EXE.

Jagged edges are the result of resizing the .PCX and can easily be edited out, as Rotton mentions. I don't think the condor will be the limit of EAW's graphical capabillaties, after all imagaine what you can do with a full set of 512 drawings, one for each 3DZ in the model each, or even a 1024 drawing, but then again it might also bring the best super computer to it's knees.

It's been discussed before but it's up to you how you use things, I just prefer fast, clean and simple. It's viable method with several advantages, that's all I'm saying.

VonBeerhofen

The jagged edges I'm talking about are 3dz related, not pcx related.

Personally, I'm a big fan of enhanced lo-res models, which should be no surprise since I made them.

We used to have a bunch of very talented skinners who made some very good lo-res skins. When you match their abilities with the enhanced lo-res models you could have a nice inventory of planes that would satisfy a lot of players.

Fortunately, the one remaining skinner, Iron Mike has carried on with that. Here's one IM and I worked on -



And here's one from the old master Skylark -


The skin on this one was so good I didn't have to do anything but add the nodes:


The screenshots showcase the maximum potential of lo-res models. They are not meant to get into an argument over lo-res vs hi-res.

My Condor is something the range of 2500 elements spread over 13 3dz's and 512x512 textures, and causes my clapped out Dell 5000 P4 machine no problems at all.

Just adding gear and props, and then join it all together properly, and then I'll be doing the C4 version, which will add another 500+ elements.

All new RS and Normals ensure smooth running, as I ditched the piggyback method of modding, and built clean since 2008.

My point was are you going to add support for the MS HR models in the FXEXE?

Rotton, those jagged edges are videocard related not linked to how 3DZ models are constructed. They don't show up on my Vista machine which have ATI cards in SLI, because those cards use techniques like Anti Aliasing, Anisotropic Filtering, smoothing and what else your card may have.

Col. I can't predict how far I can take the FXEXE, I do things when I see an oppertunity and recognise potential. I could ask you the question, will you add support for my new illuminated airfields and I'm sure the answer will be that you will give it a darn good try. Time will tell.

VBH

No sorry to disagree, those jagged edges on the plane ARE 3dz related, no way related to the video card.

It's hard to tell from the angle what the rest of the model looks like but for sure those wheels are original wheels. If the rest of the model is original then the wing tips, rudder, elevators and canopy are all rather basic.

No video card settings are going to fix 'em either.

This is NOT a criticism, I'm merely pointing out that with a little work the combination of the 512 textures and some editing to produce enhanced lo-res models you would have outstanding, easy to run additions to the EAW world.

Nothing wrong with that.

Hi VB.

I know nothing about airfields models anymore.

Although I did some mods, and even built a few, many years ago, I've forgotten everything. I now just build 3dz models, and not much else.

jagged lines are what you can get rid of with video card settings. Setting Anti Aliasing to x2 is usually all EAW needs.

the squareness of the original models: Your are suppose to be-able to smooth out them too with video card settings but those type's of advanced settings don't work with EAW. Not sure if they ever did.

No guys, those rough edges HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH VIDEO CARD SETTINGS. I have no idea where you heard or read otherwise.

They are inherent in the 3dz models.

If you use eight nodes to represent one side of a tire you are going to see the angles between each node. It displays as an octagon, not exactly what you want in a tire.

If you double the nodes to 16 you can smooth out that octagon quite a bit. Same goes for the wing tips and other bits.

It also depends on the resolution setting but I see what Rotton means now. His models have rounder wingtips and a few extra nodes in the models which removes the crudeness of the original build which are kind of squary.

The shown plane at the start also has a few of those. Since I was experimenting with navigation lights on the wingtips I changed their curvatures too. Planesets will never become part of my version though, but I do feel that I must allow people a fair choice. Rotton's lores models work in the FXEXE and can be added if people so desire as can 1000ds of others, sill available from Sandbagger's. For PTIII it's different, I've already done a lot of work on it's planes and I'm tempted to give to described method a go, if only to see how it'll look, but you can only fit one pair of shoes into a shoebox and PTIII is already pretty darn full.

A future FXEXE may even support 24 bit textures, the code is already there for both Glide and D3D but since I'm only trying to have fun with programming other things may be more important to me then skins. I do as I please to learn more, not because people want support for their methods. Fullfilling wishes just isn't part of my goal, except fullfilling my own.

I'll try to keep people informed about any progress or planes I may build, fair enough?

VBH

Oh for God's sake! It doesn't depend on the resolution, nor the video card, nor any other black magic.

It's math. You can't make an octagon look look a circle.

What the heck is so hard about just saying "Heck Ray, you were right"?

Sorry to correct you VBH, but 1.2 is Glide 2, which only supports 256x256 8Bit graphics.

In D3D, you can run 24 BMP, if you substantially change the EAW code. I know, as I worked on it, with Allen.

I found a coder last year, who converted the entire code from Glide 2 to Glide 3, which supports BMP 24bit, and is a lot better and faster than Glide 2.

Hi Ray.

Try setting your graphics to 800x600 or less, and everything looks way worse. The high the screen res the better, but this only shows up the worst 3dz models even more.

And of course graphic card settings have a role to play too.

You mean the overlapping circle drawing with the tirethread surface hidden. Yeah that was a smart find by whoever it was.
I've not used it myself as I couldn't afford the extra 16 nodes on the searchlight trolly, but I did consider it, it needs a pretty large circle not to be jagged though.

Anyway, if you want to turn this further into a modding thread and share some of your secrets with people, be my guest, but my time is up. Thx for the entertainment.

VBH

Eh, this is you thread. The title is "Modding the FXEXE".

So we're talking modding.

Now you want to leave?






John,

I've can have screen resolutions up to 1128 x 896 so I've seen these models up close and personal.

Doesn't matter. An octagon still has 8 sides and doesn't look any better at higher res. Changing a video card setting isn't going to make it any better.

Maybe the skin looks better but the underlying 3dz is still the same and that's been my point all along.

With a bit of effort lo-res models have a place in the EAW world.

Hi Ray.

Your now mixing issues, the quality of the actual 3dz. and your HR screen res. You will see sawtooth edges if you drop to very low res, and if you really want to see bad graphics, try Software mode.

I use 12 sides as a standard, and 24 if I have spare nodes. It all depends on diameter. Anything smaller than 18" you simply can't use 12 nodes, then you have to drop to 8.

Anyway, this was VBH's thread, so I'm not going to post anymore here.

Sorry Col. but I do have a life and work to do. If you have problems modding the old fashioned way let me know but as I recall both you and Rotton were pretty good at it. I like your new planes too but they're not for me and my decrepid WinME machine.
The original planes were always good enough for me and I just wouldn't know how to select from 1000 P51D's or as many spitfires or what else you may have on offer, one is enough for me. I was hoping to interest some of the old masters to perhaps use the described method to pick skinning up again because I like their planes too.

I understand the weight you guys put on these planes, I hope you create many more inspite of this. Keep up the good work.
I really have to get back to work now but I'll be back when I've got new things to share and I'm certain you'll give me a warm welcome again,

Have fun modding!

VonBeerhofen
EAW Launchpad Janitor

Well, since VBH is leaving we can continue.

We're talking past each other.

I full understand the jagged edges issues and how that might be ameliorated by screen resolution but for some reason I can't get across my point about the 3dz's.

If you look at the wing of say the original P-47 or Spitfire you can easily understand what I'm talking about.

You can't use six nodes to properly represent the rounded edges of those wings. Doesn't matter what magic you think you can conjure up with video card settings. Those wings are still going to only be somewhat representative of the real thing.

If you double the number of nodes you make each angle between the nodes about half of what it was before. This provides a much better representation of a rounded edge.

I don't have anything else to add to this conversation.

Irrespective of VB's comments re filemanagers I have it set up in OAW

The folder:


The OAW128 folder:


Running OAW:


Everything is loaded............


...or unloaded after a "Reset-all"


I can assure readers that the files loaded are all VBH's originals, except that I have replaced "tarnames.str" with one that still retains VBH's numbers but has more target names in it.

This set-up would allow modders to make their own OAW "G-" folders to load their stuff and test it.
With nothing loaded other than the exe you can test the exe itself.

Jel

Don't want to cause a ruckus but I just have to ask.

Why bother?

No matter what attempts we make at inclusion we end up in a sh*tstorm of false accusations.

I do not care what he thinks, as this is his thread about modding the FXEXE and I am demonstrating a way in which their mods can be tested by other users.

DAW terrain loaded with OAW, but I suspect that trees on the water which are wavecrests with his files in EAW_TTD.DAT.

No water defining tiles?

Won't end well.

What I have done is based on this to show that OAW can be used if people want to try modding the FXEXE

Oh, I get it.

It's admirable that you are putting in the effort.

I just hate to think about the response.

I know squat about modding But know bout about enjoying EAW and Tony and VBH have increased my enjoyment of this sim so pleaes stop the nitpicking and enjoy our girl,Getting in the bunker for the flack


























i

The sprite list was moved around, so without conversion I believe some things will be out of place, it was necessary to squeeze in the new effects.

He can explain why trees pop up in the water without the converted sprites better than I could, since I just read about it briefly.

He also has made the water splashes hi res and water property's on other 'water' tiles. Its cool when you fly through the splashes!

Using the default EAW_TTD.DAT fixed the trees

There's no nitpicking going on. Nitpicking is critical of the work.

Yes, there have been questions about some claims that haven't been addressed by the author but no one has denigrated the work.

In fact, Mr. Jelly is doing a great service to the community by trying to include FXEXE. He wouldn't be doing that if he didn't see some value to the work.

The problem is the behavior of the author. Those of us who have been around since the beginning are dubious that the bad behavior is going to stay in abeyance.

Newer members might wonder at that wariness. So be it. Time will tell.

What IS the point of all this, Tony?

As I posted before it is showing a variety of things that OAW can do for a player who wants to mod the FXExe. This is for the player, not me, not VBH

Ah, OK Tony.

I think Mr. Jelly has perfectly demonstrated why you just can't use OAW if you want to keep the FXEXE's full functionallity. Ofcourse he can further try and solve these issues but I don't really think it's worth the effort. These will probably also not work with OAW.

I have uploaded a set of 10 random UHR skysets from my collection for the FXEXE, just incase you don't like the one I've incorporated. The files are available here:

http://rabartel.home.xs4all.nl/SkySetFX001.zip

All other sets (a few hundred) will be handed over to Mark EAW to build a depositry after conversion. I'll maintain the number system I've started in this .ZIP and I don't think I'll add pictures for each one. You'll just have to rely on the natural unpredictabillaty of weather forecasts and try em out.

I realise they're not all as good, as some people relentlessly mentioned before, but they're for free and incorporate a lot of work.

This pack doesn't have tranparency layers in them but I've develloped a system for the layers so they can be swapped freely to influence the ingame graphics by renaming the files to another layer slot so they will display in a different order.

In the FXEXE all layers are semi_transparent and are named:

BNCLOUD0 with its corresponding BNCLTRA0 transparency
BNCLOUD1 with its corresponding BNCLTRA1 ''
BNCLOUD2 with its corresponding BNCLTRA2 ''

The ones from Mark EAW's site will all have a full set to go with each sky, each one different from the other.



VonBeerhofen

Rotton, once again you're trying to put hatred in the minds of the readers just like before. Jel. changing files will not give you the same thing as the FXEXE, it's all in the programming. You'll have to learn assembly language to do the same thing or find out how to do it in C++. I think you're better off doing that.
If there are aspects to my claims which you find not to be true let me know and I'll proof you wrong (again).

VBH

Re- OAW you are incorrect

In many of the screenies I had loaded non-FXExe material, and expected a few glitches.
I really do not like the wavecrests because they run in random directions due to the tile orientation, so I borrowed a different EAW_TTD.DAT for the DAW terrain.

However, if I use the OAW set up I can simply load the "W-FXEXE" folder which has all those files you have in the root folder in it, and it is running with full functionality because it is identical to your download.
My folder is very tidy and far more manageable.



The whole point is that if a player has something, or a modder makes something that they want to try in the FXExe they can load and unload it with OAW, keeping everything tidy.

If all those files in the root folder are meant to be default then maybe you should have packed them into CDFs to make a cleaner release

You can essentially remove everything Mr.Jelly and end up with a clean v1.2. Everything in that folder is done for a reason, one is to allow easy changes for our online dynamic campaigns, another is to get easy access to certain files if I need to change them, like the wonderfull cockpits I've created for The Final Cut addon.

It's useles and a waste of time to have that stuff in .CDF's but occasionally I try to clean things up just for the benefit of my online group. It sometimes makes debugging a bit easier. We both know how to extract CDF's but finding the stuff you think you need can be very timeconsuming. So there, this should make it a bit easier for you.

VBH

I am absolutely not trying to "put hatred" for your work in anyone's mind.

My comments do not relate in any way to the quality or functionality of your FXEXE's.

With VB,s work on terrain plus the newer hirez BMP skins it will put EAW up there close to IL2.

The FXExe has a slightly modified version of one of Shaun's earlier terrains with the maximum of 64 tiles.
The terrain possibilities are immense in 1.29 and 1.40 with the possibility of having 10000s of tiles rather than 64. The tiles can be 512x512 24 bit BMP files too, which can be used by Glide or d3d.
Shaun made some extended tile sets, and I think that Moggy is using an extended set in his re-making of Dunkirk.

The possibilities are there, but it would need terrain makers to make more extended sets, and theatre makers to build tilemaps that use them.
It will never happen but in theory there could be a 640x320 tile map with a different tile in avery square on the grid.

I told you long ago that noone in is right mind would build such a map with the incapable editors at our disposal. Instead I develloped a system for creating such maps, and maps for the FXEXE which still uses the stock .TM but takes advantage of this devellopment. That's why other tilesets won't work with mine, unless converted.

It was a method to create a pilotmap in a single pass, and since this version is using 24 bit information I'll donate it to you. Even with this map in hand noone will assign the thousands of tiles it can handle, one by one, or create each tile, one by one.

I tried to sell the idea to Shockwave, instead I was offered a job. I declined because my job is being a musician and I didn't have time for another, I could have used the money for a better computer. I created Italy, Japan and Suez with this method, each took a week to finish, much to the amusement of certain sceptics who didn't believe me.
The shown map was just a simple one as proof of concept, potentially it can handle just as many tiles as there are colors in 24 bit. It was used to build the pilotmaps in the FXEXE which were modified to be precise within a single tile. If the map shows you're over a railroad you will see that railroad, unlike the original pilotmap.

The FXEXE isn't just a modified .EXE but more a result of trying to come up with viable and usefull answers to the known problems we faced in 2005 and even today. Even if you can find an idiot who will start assigning tiles to these colors and create apropiate tiles, I estimate the work will take app. 5 years fulltime before it's finished, possibly even longer. Even with the Stock .TM using only 64 tiles in 4 rotational states it took a week minus 10 minutes to assign the tiles to the colors, that was after the tiles had already been created. Creating the map only takes 10 minutes. Perhaps the sceptics will believe me this time. Have fun with that map, Mr. Jelly I'm not going to use it as I already have the 8 bit version limited to 64 tiles, and it's working great.

This map has left and right riverbanks, inland and seaborders, I left out the cities as I knew the amount of colors would drastically increase if I used a Google map. Instead I used the simplest map I could find, after editing out the text on it and manually filling in the resulting missing details. A process which also took app. a week. Remnants of the text may stil be partially visible and will use their own tiles, after all it was just proof of concept.

I hope you don't mind me putting my decal on,

[img]http://rabartel.home.xs4all.nl/TMItalyHD.pcx[/img]

If you still don't believe it's a .TM point your magic wand in photoshop to ANY color and observe how all the same colors on that map show an exact identical position relating to it's surrounding colors. I didn't even randomise the different field tiles, they all have the same orientations.

Before all of this I had already develloped a method to easily convert true elevation maps into EAW.HM's like the one's I found at NASA, from several planets in our solar system (available from Sandbagger's), which gave me the idea to easily create a .TM.

The sad truth is you need very simple maps with this method or find a way to limmit the number of colors in use so you won't go over 64 but you'd have a map that will work straight off and which only would need marginal editing in one of our editors. For this reason I'd only convert rivers or borders seperately so I can fix the colors where necessary. I'd end up with 4 or 5 maps which then can be super imposed on top of eachother, each holding what I call an EAW 'nature'. A sea 'nature', a river 'nature', a city 'nature' etc.. The more colors/detail in the original map, the more complex the result in the .TM. Ofcourse resizing maps will result in more contamination which has to be cleaned up again, but I found ways how to easily do that too.

Perhaps you now understand why I found it a foolish and futile effort to incorporate such an equivalent. I already knew why it wasn't going to work because I already had this map. It was honoust criticism based on the knowledge I had acquired, NOT an attack on some verion of EAW. Perhaps you can do something with this knowledge now and devellop something that is usefull, if you haven't already.

VonBeerhofen

Interesting and excellent VBH

In 1.29 and 1.40 we have a flexible tilemap. The beta Western Front theatre is 256x160.

This advance createded a need for something other than "Europe1.pic", and I was able to generate a pilot/selection map off the eaw.tm file.
So the exes come in two versions. One which uses the "Europe1.pic" and can only be used with a 640x320 tilemap, and the other that uses the new map which can be used with any size "eaw.tm" file.
The ones generated are crude but extremely useable. Put into the hands of an arist they can be turned into something wonderful. Julio did these for Moggy's Iraq:

The new map


Europe1.pic:

I've always liked Moggy's work and these maps look great too. I'd like to point out though that rotated maps aren't very accurate in displaying your actual position in the EAW world, which is why I stepped away from that.
Also frontlines as drawn on this map have a tendency to keep the enemy stuck in one of those corners since EAW is programmed to have the enemy patrol and stay behind the line in certain mission types.

It's not really a big problem but it can be if you have to fly another 500 miles to get to where they are, after you've destroyed a convoy or target without encountering the enemy. That's what I've learned from such frontlines in Pacific Tide III in online and offline tests. I think it's best to stick to simple frontlines for a higher success rate to encounters. Just think of it this way, the enemy tries to fly a staight line from their base to the encounter, if they get trapped by the frontline they're incapable of flying the opposite direction and get out of that trap, so they start patrolling.

Even the FXEXE sometimes have them stuck inspite of realistic frontlines along the Rhine and the other rivers, just because there's a bit of a curve in them. Fortunately they're often not far away from where I am but if you're not there in time they'll head back to base, which usually doesn't allow them to respond anymore if engaged. That scenario is far from realistic even though it can be great fun to slaughter them when they're trying to land.

Planes should defend themselves at all times and get into the fight at all times too, unless it's a decoy or a trap.
Don't take it as criticism, it's just my experience after 15 years of flying and perhaps you already fixed that but I know that writing routines which will allow AI to properly assess such a situation and make em get out of it are not easy and can have quite an impact on framerates, because the situation needs to be assessed by each plane in every loop.

VBH

I prefer not to use the rotated map. With the new map system the targets, airfields, icons and frontlines are drawn straight from the (x,y) coordinates in the files without the need for maptrans

The maptrans has one advantage and that is that it can mimic inaccuracy related to WWII technology, which is why I still use the maptrans file, so the option for this is still there if I so choose. However online it's proven to be cumbersome so I won't use it there. Rotating maps in photoshop is a piece of cake, no matter what size they are.

I can understand people who for the sake of reality prefer the rotated map, if so I can give it to em, it's just a bit of extra work. I just hope that people realise that this option was just a personal one related to online flying and if they like I can go back to how v1.2 is doing it by releasing a stock maptrans and pilotmap.

I guess no matter what system we use, it just will have the anomalies of trying to convert data from one system to another. Fact is that EAW doesn't use polar coordinates where most maps do. I just hate to do away with something the Microprose programmers had a hard time of incorporating, even though it's not my own personal preference, so it stays, if only to pay hommage to it's creators. It has no impact on framerates during the game so which ever is used is fine. Keeping it's functionality however guarantees backward compattabillaty with earlier addons and they're pretty important in my game.

VonBeerhofen

I haven't had time to really test this but I just did and the good news is that the FXEXE can run all 8 bit HiRes planes without limitations, as can be seen here with Rotton's HR_Meteor. The only future limitation would perhaps be new transparency files but I don't see any reason why there should be more then we already have, especially since 512 * 512 textures are allowed in all new versions of the EXE.





Some time ago a simmilar test was done with a hires 109G after a full 256 custom color modification to the FXEXE. This forces the FXEXE to read fully custom 8 bit palettes and effectively emulates a kind of Glide Mode with D3D videocards. The switch allows the use of both Glide and D3D skins, but even goes beyond that, as it allows individual palettes for each plane independent of the P****VIEW.CPT palettes, i.e. any colorscheme is allowed.

Previously it required the whole EAW world to have such a custom palette in all it's .TPC files and would mean an extra 768 bytes per file. Since the Final Cut addon uses roughly 150 TPC's for ground objects only, these palettes would munch app. 112.5Kb and about at least double that for aircraft so for most objects the palettes weren't attached. The addon simply doesn't have enough room for it, on my computer that is.

So this modification is on the backburner for now but if I can I'll allow users to switch it in through some EAW.INI entry. What is more important is that the 1.28/9? plane .3DZ file structure also works in the FXEXE, thus allowing a huge range of planes/skins to be used. Sorry, no 24 bit multiskins for obvious reasons. So there's your answer Col. G.

VonBeerhofen

FXEXE damage mod:

Since the Final Cut addon for the FXEXE already uses two ground objects per slot it seemed only fitting to have two destroyed object slots as well.

The way this is working is that the 2nd 3DZ model, being the last one rendered, will always appear on top of the first, i.e. the first one will always be behind/under the 2nd one, irrespective of viewing angle. This is also true for the shadow replacements I used. Modellers are obviously free to decide which one goes on top, but it's also possible to space these objects more, so that only a really low view angle could reveal the object hierarchy, whereas from the air both objects will not look out of place.

Certain objects, like debris, 2D bodyparts, ship wakes, hole in the ground, tools on the floor and anything which is essentially a flat surface on the ground will always look fine and sometimes covering a destroyed object with debris parts or soil, blood, oil, rubble etc. will be a nice enhancement adding to the overal destruction of the objects.

At present, even simple animations can be added, like fires or water flowing, for which an additional drawing is always a nice thing to have. Ofcourse it will need 73 more 3DZ's and drawings to take full advantage of this addition but with a few debris drawings, which can be used in various layouts for each 3D model, quick damage enhancements are possible and cheap in terms of labour and CPU/memory use.

Hangars can for instance show a full plane 3DZ (none multipart ofcourse) inside when it's destroyed, beds in the barracks or even walls, toolboxes or cupboards and other small objects you won't normally see, are now possible. I think this will add a lot to the immersion of ground attacks.

VonBeerhofen

Hi VBH.

Are you using single 32x32 or 64x64 textures? If my memory serves me, you dropped one 256x256, or was it 128x128 single texture, with 8 drawings, for larger ones.

I was wondering if you had looked at these free sprites?

http://hasgraphics.com/tag/explosion/

The program is free too.

http://www.saschawillems.de/?page_id=253

Hi Col.,

all sprites are 16 frames * 64 pixels, except for the superblast which uses an entire 256 drawing and the watersplashes and interior smoketrail/stacks which are 4 times 128, These are however 3DZ's but can use the same layout when required. Animations don't have to be 16 frames long and can be in any size. I think people should realise that with a really smart layout a single drawing can be used in various ways by selecting small groups of objects and arranging them in the 3DZ model. After all most debris will contain simmilar things, a planck or board, some stones or cementblocks, steel pipes a T.bar and what else have you. Like the squares and streets in the FXEXEm you can come a long way with just a single drawing but if you can combine two in two seperated models it becomes far more interesting.

VBH