Looks great . I dont know, eech is 20 years old game ( )and it makes no sense to compare to new games.engine on my eye is choked with every new addition.in dead combat helo full cockpit gunner and pilot apache has 45k polys. and the creator complained that a lot of it, that little power was left for the game Soczkien new farp and lights eat ~5 fps or more. New 3d cities also .it's confirmed by people with strong computers. I remember that many years ago someone was doing a mig29 cockpit with over 115k polys. for bms. it was repeatedly exceeding the maximum number of polygons for cockpits.no one liked it, but he insisted on doing it with poor results.let the programmer say what he thinks about it.I do not know . from what I tested, with some high polygon regardless of the power of the computer, the fps dropped very much. Or you can do two versions low detailed mfd and hi detailed. Maybe this is good idea
It really looks a bit ugly compared to the previous version, BUT it has only 454 Polygons. I hope the textures will help to make it a bit more nice looking
BTW I read a post about War Thunder that they use 45K-70K of triangles for a single seat cockpit and 60K-85K for a two seater. Is EECH really that limited?
Yes, I also thought about this. It's not finished yet, I just did a new one to see how much polys I could reduce.
When I'm finished with that MFD, I will sent it to all you guys working at EECH also. What I've seen on the photos at the web, it's the new standard MFD used in nearly all new russian attack helicopters. Maybe it could be useful for anyone who's also working at a modern russian attack helo.
What about the gauges?
I think in case of low polys we should stay with plane textures like in my KA-50.
Frames arround the gauges with low poly look really ugly. It's more like flying a Lego-helo then.
I know you could use smoothing for that, but as far as I remember it doesn't really look good at all. It makes the gauges looking very chunky.
I also experimented with that two years ago for the KA-50, and I mean that was the reason I did not use frames. A "virtual" 3D like texture is better I think.
How much polys did they have? I will try to do this also, but I have the fear that if they should look nice, I will end up with a lot polys for the whole pit again.
For the gauge frame I used 12 sides and for the screws and the knops only 8 sides.
The whole object has now 85 polygons (backside removed and all nonvisible faces also)
I'm not really satisfied with the result! I think the gauge frame looks really ugly, also I tried smoothing. The rest is relatively ok.
But if I use more faces for the frame itself the number of polygons will increase very fast. It persists out of the outer ring, the inner ring and the top face of the ring, so if you increase the number of faces used for one part, this will always increase it three times more for all parts the ring is made of.
Here are some screen shots I made. The first is without smoothing, the last with smoothing applied. The knobs are ok after smoothing, but no real difference for the gauge frame here. It still looks chunky and ugly! The third shows the wire a bit better.
You can see some of them in this shot, they aren't very detailed.
Hmm, that really looks very nice! I think I have to install EECH now, to have a better comparision what it looks like in the game itself.
Hope I could find the whole setup somewhere at my bunch of HD's. The f.... laptop is able to run it, but not very well. The machine it self is ok, but the Intel graphics card is a real pain.
I will also check to increase the faces slightly after testing the object in EECH.
I really hope that I now have the time to clean up my hobby room and also assemble the new hardware I bought. That would make things so much easier.
Yes, and if you have really good textures I tend to prefer this sometimes over shapes. More FPS friendly and especially in games with an not so powerful engine, I think textures are sometimes nicer than the possible real 3D.
But the cockpit of Messyheads Blackhawk looks really nice!!! I will take a look what I'm able to do with the reduced 3D shapes. I hope I could also make it nice looking.
Now tried it again with 16 faces for the gauge frame. Polys are now 97 over all.
Should I go a little higher? Maybe 20-24?
BTW I still use TinkerCad for this and especially for making low poly objects, it's really practical. You can change things within a few seconds, ok maybe 3-5 minutes. Then export it and import to the 3D software. It so easy! For more complex things, it is for sure better to use the 3D software, but for something like this I think it's really faster and easier. You could also see any change you make a lot better than fiddeling arround with the mesh.
I also search for something similar you could use offline, cause I don't like to be online for such things. I had a problem for a complex shape I made for my 3D printer, where TK wasn't able to rebuilt the part I made. I had a backup of it, but as said before in another post, you couldn't go back the steps you made it if you reimport it. That's why I wanted something similar to use but with the option to work offline.
Would it be better to make complete seperate cockpits for the pilot and the gunner, or should it be one part, as it is in real life. I mean should I seperate the pilot pit from the gunner pit and make respectively seperate 3D objects out of it or should I leave them together as a single object?
How is this made for the Apache, the Comanche or the Hind? I'm still not having the models available at the moment to look how this was implemented. I ask, cause I have no clue what's better for coding or any animations.
I will do the decision, as far as I'm ready with the rest. I always will post the results I made, so if anyone notice something I made a mistake, please do a criticism so I can fix it.