I found this amongst the rubble of my messy hard drive, it's from June 2012 and I nearly forgot about it. Notice the 3D loudspeakers in the top of the control tower, isn't that cool?
Ofcourse it has stairs to the first floor on the backside.



VonBeerhofen

More dogs balls on a canary, and that upside down shadow is a creative gem

Well in that case, here's another one from the same era. This was one of the first breathrough's in understanding the R/S. The added pipes between the columns and the added platform to the central distillery were merely a test to see if the theory would work. The added chimney and the raised central annex were then added later, followed by making the pipeline coming from the processing plant 3D too, to test some more ideas I had. I think the photographic texture made it look even more realistic. There's still some room in the model left for more The plane in the picture is Col. Gibbon's model which was also modified to have an added radioset in the back of the pit. The skin was by JG51_Rauch.





There is a significant time difference in building these models back then and the one's I build now. Back then it took me months to figure things out, now only weeks, and that is on an 8 hour per day work schedule. Each model is like a new Rubic's Cube, but with 256 sides, and each new model has it's new challenges and peculiarities. Some of these older models had to be shelved for a long period of time when I couldn't solve the next issue untill another idea provided the solution to the problem. That's what 3DZ modelling is all about.

VonBeerhofen

Just stating my own preferences, which are likely to be quite different from those of other people.
In the original picture there are some vertical structures rising out of the terrain tile pixels, and I think that they look much cleaner than vertical structures rising from a horizontal "tiled" layer of the 3dz.
Unfortunately we cannot do anything about the 16x16 metre size of a terrain tile pixel, which to me is the cause of some visual issues with TMods viewed at low altitude.

BTW that aircraft shadow problem is still in EAWPro

It's totally unrelated to the topic Mr. Jelly, but. I significantly reduced the visibillity distance and kept the big shadow for a short moment for those with poor eyesight, like me. I know how to switch that behaviour off but I won't. Possibly I can create a .LDR with that change but when the EXE changes the .LDR also needs to change and I think that's not worth the effort.

The short moment of the big shadow helps people find a direction to the action when they're far away in a no icon game, instead of aimlessly flying around for 1/2 an hour trying to find a single pixel in the distance, which hopefully isn't just a speck of dust on their HDMI monitors. It only stays on for a second now when it's within distance, and I find it a very usefull feature. When it's considered to be annoying you can switch off the shadows in the EAW.INI. Maybe I can create another setting for it so both options are available, then a .LDR won't be necessary. I've added the idea to my list of to do's.

BTW, your problem with vertical structures rising from a horizontal "tiled" layer of the 3dz sounds very much like you have some serious rendering sequence issues with the groundobject's which are the result of flawed 3DZ's as I described earlier in another thread.

VonBeerhofen

If a player needs to find the action can't he just ask for directions from ground control?

Or is ground control also disabled in a no icon game?

Compare these

EAWPro P47-D


Default P47-D


In both cases the position of the shadow means that sun is effectively directly above.
In which case there would be no shadow of the tail fin in what is more or less a mirror image in the first pic.

Aaaaah, I see what you mean, and how does it compare when the sun is more on the horizon? Does that improve the 3D shadow vs yours, because I'm pretty sure your shadow is incapable of showing any tail fin, as it's just a 2D surface right? Would you like me to incorporate real shadows then, the ones that perspectively change their 3d shape, would you think that such is at all possible in EAW?

VonBeerhofen.

Rotton, groundcontrol will give directions to the enemy leader, which may not be the nearest enemy. In some cases groundcontrol has no radar coverage in your area and then you get zilch. it can get even worse in EAWPRO as there is no telling what role the AI have in their missions and that sometimes leads to two entirely seperate battle areas which can be 100KM's apart. The game is incapable of pointing out both groups but if you'd see something on the horizon then at least you can go and investigate what it is. You won't know if it's friend or foe untill you get there. Ofcourse the use of radio is the primary source for finding the enmy but groundcontrol will also not tell you that a human plane is closing in on your six in online games, they will only tell you where the leader is and after a respawn that human is no longer the leader, so he could be flying 1 KM behind without you knowing. Howver his shadow may give away his position, that is if you happen to see it in the short time that it's displayed.

You need not ask me that question Rotton, it's all in the manual and in the stuff at Mark EAW's helpsite if you want to learn how to fly and how to use the groundcontroller. His documents are covering most angles.

VonBeerhofen

It is not my creation, but the default 1.2 one for the P47-D

Oh, and what does your creation look like then?

VonBeerhofen

Default ground control keys Tab / 7 / 1 = "Target nearest enemy"
Tab / 7/ 2 = "Vector Friendly Bombers"
Tab / 7/ 3 = "Vector Ground Target"
Tab / 7/ 4 = "Vector Home base"
Tab / 7/ 5 = "Request assistance"

Have you added more commands? Target Enemy Leader isn't in this group.

I'm talking 1.6 here. I don't know what happens in EAWPRO but generally speaking if you lose contact on the way to the target you can ask ground control to vector that. If you then push your plane you usually catch up or at least get close enough for ground control to vector you to an EA.

If you lose contact after mission completion, again you can ask ground control for a vector home and SOMETIMES you can catch up to the fight or intercept EA heading home.

You also have watch out while heading home if you fly too close to some airfields because EA will take off to intercept you.

I did not make one, but I did find that the shadow moves with the plane as though the sun is directly above, even if it is not.

@ Rotton,

I may have changed some of it, I can't really remember, EAWPRO has been 13 years in the making. Why? Is there something not working right?

@ Mr. Jelly,

are you sure? I've never really paid much attention to that, I usually try to stay away from having the sun in my sight and in my cockpit I normally can't see my shadow, unless I dive down to attack ground objects. In that situation it seems to move and grow larger the closer I get to it.

VonBeerhofen

No, nothings wrong but it would be interesting to know what other command the game could handle so we could add them to 1.6.

I can't really think of anything there that's missing, you may try adding that directions to leader thing but I think it's not very realistic that radar can spot an enemy leader. It can spot the secondary groups though and there's no command for that, as I wrote earlier. When they're kept on the ground untill mission end and take off to intercept on the way home, groundcontrol could send out a warning when they reach radar height

VonBeerhofen

Ok, just asking.

How about directions to nearest friendly base for refuel/rearm and incase of emergency and make the AI go there?

VonBeerhofen

Good suggestions.

Great to see this cooperation

I just set up a dusk mission in EAWPro to check the shadow
AFAIK we get the equivalent in 1.2 and 160, so it is not a problem with EAWPro



Based on the angle of the sun the shadow is in the wrong position.
For it to be where it is the sun would need to be directly overhead.
I note also that the buildings have no shadow either, again this is true for 1.2 and 160.
There is shadow code, but it seems to be limited when the a/c is on the ground

A test with 160 at a low sun angle


They should have been long evening shadows:



Taken in F9 just after take off and flying over the base we have he plane shadow is directly below it:


Once again there were no building shadows.

It's not, trees and some other objects have also shadows, in fact each TMOD slot can have a shadow and at some point I created one for all stockmodels. The problem is that if you move the shadow too far away from the object it no longer has any relation with the model. Treeclumps have 6 or 7 shadow circles and only look reasonable when they remain close to the object. I assume that in gunship the shadows which are directly incorporated into the ground models, the sun's movement is only applied to a particular polygon or just the nodes of that polygon. Such polygons can also be added to EAW's groundobjects but rewriting the code to do this calculation with only that polygon is probably not going to be easy. That polygon may sit anywhere in the R/S and/or element section. I've only seen a few objects from Gunship with the shadow in and it appears to always reside at the end of the element section. I don't think the chopper shadows were changed though, I don't have the game so I can't be certain about that.

VonBeerhofen

What do you mean? That I have to give my ideas to you guys or you won't leave me in peace?

VonBeerhofen

Maybe I should have written "civility"

Excuse me? Oh I see, I should behave more like you two. Well, I've tried in that last locked thread and came down to your level. Obey or else, is it?

VonBeerhofen

Well there have been lots of questions and straight answers without anyone getting their knickers in a knot

I don't have questions, I don't play your game. You think I'll gladly provide answers knowing that it will only result in a locked thread with me being portrayed as an inferior *sshole evey time?

VonBeerhofen

Looks like a question to me

There is no game, or ulterior motive, and I found the sharing of information in this thread helpful

It wasn't, I was merely trying to figure out what the blazes you were on about and I still don't know. So I must provide answers to your questions then. Aren't you capable enough to find your own answers to your own questions? Are you building up to some sort of question in your initial appearance in this thread? It looks more like the start of a provocation to me, as it's totally off topic, as is the rest.. If Rotton would have had a real interest in the workings of EAWPRO then he would have flown it and know which radio commands are there and there wouldn't have been any reason for the questions he asked. So you have a problem with the sun's position and the shadow that it casts, and you want me to solve that for you, is that it?

VonBeerhofen

In more detail it would seem that your question is about the shadow being underneath the plane even when the sun is at a low angle



I responded with a screenie showing exactly what I has seen

Does it look as if I have a problem with it's shadow? Do you think I would put it in if I DID have a problem with it, or that I deliberately put it in to annoy you? What is it to you what problems I may have? If any, then I'm well capable of solving them. It is you who starts with something about the shadow and says that the problem is still there, what problem. I don't have a problem with the shadows, they've always been the way they are but in this thread you seem to turn it into some sort of a problem. What the problem is you have remains vague up till today and ends with something about cooperation, after I supply a few answers to unrelated questions. Is this behaviour going to continue with every post I make?

Can't you seee there can not be cooperation when either party has no knowledge or understanding on what the other has done, and that there can only be a mutual standoff by letting eachother work in peace? I.e. you take what you can from EAWPRO and I don't take anything form v1.60 besides a few ideas.

VonBeerhofen

If you don't have a problem with that shadow then all well and good.

However, in my view, the position of the shadow suggests that the sun is directly overhead.
Part of it is on what appears to be a raised horizontal surface, with the rest of it hanging in mid-air
A shadow with an "upside-down" tail-fin would be impossible, and to me that is the worst aspect.
As I noted, the upside down tail-fin is still occurring in EAWPro.

Your post got me looking at aircraft shadows in different incarnations of EAW.
The all handle aircraft shadows badly, as the direction of the sun does not come into play, but the upside-down tailfin shadow issue only happens with the FXExe and EAWPro.

Don't you know that a shadow becomes larger, the further it is from the ground and the closer it gets to the lightsource? Have you never noticed that when you place a shape directly in front of a lightsource the shadow it casts is upside down? Ofcourse it all depends on the position of the light and the attitude of the object relating to it. Bsides that anyone can replace the shadows with those available from Sandbagger's, so what the big deal?

Are you looking for a comparison between your shot and mine, and if so why? It's like comparing your pilotmap icons, which are mine, with my pilotmap icons which are also mine and it's silly. If you don't have a problem with the same sized flat shadows which produce no tail fin whatsoever or any perspective and you're happy with that when who am I to suggest that it needs to change?. Are we now getting into a debate where I should listen to what you want or is what I like more imprtant then what you want in my version of the game? If you want to wreck it then that's fine with me, I'll stick to what I have, my players like it and so do I. Why do you keep trying to get me to do things I don't want to do? Do you want me to adapt to the personal preferences you're discribing? Sorry but that is never going to happen. Will you be comparing reticules next, airfields or the sun? I'll gladly compare 3DZ models, but we've already been through that.

I've refrained from adding my hideous objects, just so it won't give people a reason to make such silly comparisons, it's probably fastest in it's raw form anyway and I realise that there are some who don't like what I've created, but does that mean I should stop giving meaning to my life and stop what I'm doing altogether just because of that?

VonBeerhofen

1. The distance between the earth and the sun is so large that the altitude of the plane makes no discernible difference to the size of the shadows.
2. If the plane is level and the sun is directly above, then the tailfin shadow would be a thin line like the ones in 1.2.
You would not see a shadow showing the vertical plane of the tailfin.
3. It is impossible for a shadow of a vertical object to be created that is upside down.
That is why I think that the default shadow files are more realistic.

Stick with your files by all means, but if I were in your shoes I would replace the shadow 3DZs with the default ones.

Place your fingertip on the surface of a table and observe that the shadow starts at the fingertip and the hand is upside down relating to that finger, it's a mirror image. I will stick to what I have because it's dead easy to replace most of it when people want to. I'm finished with this rediculous subject and I hope you are too and will refrain from further comparisons or comments which relate to your own personal views, which I'm glad to say do not reflect my views.

VonBeerhofen

Other than to challenge your first statement by asking
1. What do you see if the light is directly above your finger (as it is in EAW and would have to be to create the shadow of the wings, fuselage and tail-plane)?
2. What do you see if you hold your hand vertically with the fingers up to get a shadow on the wall? It is not a mirror image.

No further comment

In the world there's only one location where the sun can be directly overhead and it's not in Europe but on the Equator.

VonBeerhofen

To clarify -

Between the two tropics zones, Cancer and Capricorn, the sun is directly overhead twice per year. Outside the tropic zones, whether to the south or north, the Sun is never directly overhead.

Maybe you should load SPAW or DAW, both of which fall within the 23.5 degree zones.

Wouldn't you know it, right on cue. The discussion is over Rotton or hadn't you noticed?

VonBeerhofen

No offense intended.

Just trying to lighten the mood.

Sadly, it didn't work.

This thread has, in the main, shown co-operation between those with an understanding of the workings of EAW.
But it seems things can get personal very quickly, through a misunderstanding or personality clashes.
Remember guys, text messages, emails or forum threads need to be clear and concise, otherwise people get the wrong impression and away we go again.
This thread is informative even though most, like me, don't really understand it's meanings.

Lets keep these threads civil and to the point, otherwise we get into the suspension of members, which is not what anyone really wants.
I strongly suggest if anyone thinks a flamer is on its way, then back away and don't respond.

That is the hard part.
The modder has too decide when there work speaks for there individual dream. The modder has to learn that not everyone shares there dream.



There is nothing wrong with defending you position, but your position is not always the best position for some end user. Logic is the best defense. Ego is the greatest weakness

now that is a boom and zoom.

In the flinty light, it's midnight
And stars collide.
Shadows run, in full flight
To run, seek and hide.
I'm still not sure what part I play
In this shadow play, this shadow play.

"It's a game"
and it's only a hobby.
that is what is so easily forgot.