when your heart is in it and sufficient time is taken.

One of EAW's challenges to me has always been to make objects look as solid, strong and realistic as they are and it's not easy to do within the limitations of the game. Harbours for instance aren't just a few lines on a terrain tile but solid structures with a lot of objects and defenses. Plane shelters aren't waver thin polygons but solid concrete, often up to 1/2 a meter thick. Canons on ships don't sit on the side of a turret but are protruding from the front, pointing at the enemy.

Without control over the dreaded rendering sequence it never looks right, stuff disappears behind the 3D model or displays in front of it when it shouldn't or switches on/off like a nervous object which doesn't know what to do. It limits any creation in that smaller details have to be left out because it makes these problems worse to a point that it really gets annoying.

So I came up with EAW's equivalent of CFS2's 100% 3D models, objects which use every available bit of space in the 3D models and sometimes surpass it's limitations. In the past 10 years I've build a lot of these 100% models which, when properly combined, create pretty realistic environments. The city models were expanded, resulting in more buildings per object and photographic skins to make em look even better. New models were build trying to capture the atmosphere of remote towns and villages in other countries, essential to make an addon campaign like Italy work.

These models are way more complicated then a plane's fuselage or a two engined wing or a tailpeace, even though they also have their own challenges. The time invested in these objects is simply staggering, as at the time my knowledge about solving R/S problems was not very great but vastly improved over time. The problem wasn't really in building the models or creating the skins but in solving every rendering issue as the model progressed and learning why it was such a problem. Creation times went from over 6 months for a single 100% model to less then a week full time today.

Every new object has got these issues when not being a simple cube but something with curves and various angles. One wrong placement of a node or polygon and things no longer work as they should and it's time to call in the 3DZ detective. The problem is different every time and not something you can spot at a glance unless you've come across this problem before. If you haven't it becomes a wild guess, and it gets worse when the model has 5 or 6 such issues. Even today some problems, even though solved, remain obscure as to why they're happening but as opposed to wings and fuselages there is more freedom to move polygons around, I mean if a sunscreen doesn't work over the restaurant then you can always move it elsewhere and with a bit of luck get a proper result.

Still, the issue needs to be examined and solved if you want to stick to your original idea as moving the polygon isn't a solution but a bodged fix which doesn't teach you anything. So here are a few of these solved problems in my collection, which I think add just that touch of realism which has always been missing because Pentium 3's were simply not fast enough to display these models at reasonable framerates. Amogst these objects are also tanks, trucks, ships, weapons and defense structures like Belgian Gates and Czech hedgehogs, pilboxes, barbed wire, trees, bushes and crops, etc. etc.

Von Beerhofen

BTW rather then destroying one of my own bridges a replica of the Antheor Viaduct is close to being completed, the proper way as a 100% 3D model with a fully working R/S, as it's an object which will suit my Italy addon and give it the right atmosphere!

These objects look really good.

Thank you VB for your hard work, after all these years.
It's a pity that we can't seem to be able to fix terrain resolution so that your 3D models end up looking even better in the right environment. But it is still an achievement to reach that sort of improvement and swag more than 21 years later.

Thx for the kind words SkyHigh, glad you like it.

Admiral, what is it that you think needs fixing with the terrain sets? EAWPRO can use 512 x 512 terrain tiles and a set named "Harvest" has been created for it. A selection out of more then 500 tiles I've drawn myself in the old 256 pixel format. They have way more detail on them then any 10 meter satelite picture can show, because they're hand drawn and don't have to be resized, which wouldn't help their detail. 4 tiles were combined into one UHR tile so for the entire set 256 tiles were used. The result is unlike anything i've ever seen in EAW and there's plenty left to create another. It's more of a low down view, looking down on fields from let's say 1000 feet high so you can still see crops, but if people think it's better is probably debatable, I'm just too biassed to give a good opinion on it but like everything EAW if you don't try and risk failure you'll never know.

I think the stock tilesets are fine, their lack of detail has an extra rawness I prefer, also because I get better framerates with them and it doesn't ruin my immersion at all, in fact it feels more realistic to me then the UHR sets I've tried, but who am I? People need to make up their own minds as to what they like or not, it's inherently linked with their freedom of choice. I just try a few things and have some fun with it, I can't solve everyone's problems but my own.

VonBeerhofen

A minor tweak on an older model from 2010 and wehey an Italian bridge and checkpoint. Texture will probably still change as it looks too much like the old version, and perhaps I'll add some tank obstacles too: It does belong in this same category of solid looking objects.

VonBeerhofen

As promised, the Antheor Viaduct, kind of,





It's release date will correspond with the finished Italy addon for EAWPRO, currently not imminent due to being a huge project which may take a very long time to finish (not unusual for historically correct campaigns!).

VonBeerhofen

Can you fly through the spans ?

Good stuff VBH

Cool looking detailed objects

Thx for the heads up guys!

Ogg, it's an illusion for now. The object's hitbubble is set to groundlevel so it's essentially switched off, but there's enough left low down to allow bombs to destroy it. Placement of these are probably going to be very tough as the objects follow the terrain and it needs to sit between two adjacant mountains or in a gorge. Multiples of these are not very likely to connect properly and will look out of whack. I knew that on forehand but it was a challenge to construct this one and see what's possible. There's always the proverbial trick up the sleeve, so I'm already training on zig zagging through the spans end to end,

VonBeerhofen

Easy, peasey.

All you have to do is fire up Jel's excellent target editor.

For example, I used your arched bridge to great effect in ETO2015 to span rivers. It's a two part TMOD model with a ramp up to the main span, then the main span itself and then a reversed ramp on the other side of the river.( I did have to shrink the TMOD's by about 50%, if memory serves, because they were way out of scale but other than that they fit right in to the scenery quite nicely).

It was a piece of cake to line up the ramps with the main span( the Y direction) but you have to guess a bit as to how far away you need to place them( the X direction). That requires going into the game for observation. It takes a few tries to get the spacing correct but once you have experience with the editor you can make some pretty accurate guesses which reduces the number of times you have to go back into the game.

And, of course, you have to write down your spacing data so the next time you place the bridge complex you don't have to repeat the process.

I have lots of placement data for all sorts of TMOD models, including deck cargo, AA guns, vehicles towing ordinance and the aforementioned bridge complex.

Let me know if you want the data.

You mean this bridge?



Can't see anything wrong with it's dimensions, the two ships can barely pass underneath and all other dimensions are from the original Microprose model. I recall Knegel having a different view on the game's scale and shrinking every object to 1/2 it's size, part of his realism plan. I think it wasn't the right move and believe things shouldn't be made smaller but rather increased in size, this in view of much higher resolutions of videocards. It also fills the EAW world a lot better as there is less space between objects and looks way more realistic as more detail can be drawn onto such objects.

It was a very early model though, created without current modelling tools or R/S calculator and pretty important in my learning how the R/S is working, but by modern day standards it's what I'd call a very simple model and fine for it's days more then a decade ago, but I think the above pictures show where things have headed since then. Hope you've learned something about the R/S from it too.

VonBeerhofen

I must begin with a disclaimer. The following is not a personal attack. It is a statement of facts.

That's the model I started with.

The scale is way too large. Those look like default EAW destroyers under the bridge. You say they barely fit but clearly you could fit another ship on top of the one in the water and still not hit the roadway.

Better yet.

Here's my 1/2 scale version -




You can see that the trucks approaching the bridge and the aircraft flying over it are in proportion to the roadway. With your original bridge the vehicles would look like toys. I know, because I started with your model and once I observed it in the game I realized how out of wack it was to all the other TMODs.

Fact is, I used a lot of your models from Talley-ho in the 2015WTO target set and all of them are twice as big as they should be in relation to most other model maker's models, whether target TMODs or scenery TMODs.

Since I scrounged models from all over the EAW world it didn't make sense to change all the other TMOD to match yours.
Fortunately, I'm pretty handy with 3dz modeling myself so I was able to make acceptable versions for the game.

The model was build for very wide rivers, and replace the multi model hanging bridges you see near London and Paris, amongst a few places. Your river is one you could probably jump with a pole, hence it's not the right size and your addapted model could never span the width of the river in my picture. The ship has masts sticking out over the ship, which may not be particularly clear from my picture but there's definately no room between the mast and the top, I should know because I created it.

If I'd use it your way, for which I have no need, I'd probably resize it too but I have far better models to span a ditch, like the Italian one I showed earlier. I'd redesign that ramp, can't imagine that the texture distortion caused by changing the design will look very attractive and undoubtedly is all warped, after all it was designed with a different purpose in mind. Deleting a node and turning a square into a triangle never does much good to a drawing's design for a square. It's up to you though.

At least it's given me an idea to properly recreate your idea and add it to my watermill, it's cheap for a 3D model and doesn't need the original texture I created for it, after all yours is just a small bridge and only needs a small drawing to look great.

BTW, if you look at the tanks on either side of my bridge, now what am I saying, they're both my bridges lol, you will see it's proportionally correct, because it's a stock model in the scale of stock EAW. It stands to reason that if Knegel resized every object to 1/2 scale, things will ofcourse look out of proportion.

VonBeerhofen

That's the Seine River in Paris so, no, eminently (interesting word choice there. Are you going back to another thread and using this as a jab ? http://SimHQ.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/4485353/2 ) not a ditch.



Well, my tanks are standard EAW models too and they fit with my 1/2 scale bridge so someone is trying to blow smoke (that is exactly the belligerent attitude that gets the ball rolling. You are very talented and productive member of EAW and it’s modifications, but that doesn’t get you a free pass. I will not accept continued problems. I hope I am clear.).........and it ain't me.

No further proof is needed than to look at the vehicles I used in the ETO2015 target set. They came from multiple sources available at Talley-ho. Some are simply reskinned standard EAW models and some are new but NONE of them needed to be resized to fit with each other nor with the scenery TMOD's such as houses, farms and churches. OTOH, all of your models needed my magic touch to fit in with rest of the inventory.

You're also suggesting that Ralf resized about 350 TMOD's for ETO2015 to fit his 1/2 scale set up. Now THAT'S funny because Ralf was a first rate programmer and flight dynamics specialist but I did all his 3dz work for him and I know I didn't shrink any TMOD's.

I guess that implies it must be me then, OK, let's get to the bottom of this then, should be fun. I wasn't aware you created a tank, or is it someone else's reskinned model?

I didn't say Ralph modified the models himself but that I read that such a decision was taken, I'm sorry if you think I'm trying to say he did the work himself.

You used models from various modders at Sandbagger's, I've only used stock EAW models and wrote down their exact dimensions to get a grip on the scale of things. Most models at Tally Ho were not created by EAW people but merely imported from other Microprose games, which weren't using the same scale as EAW. Hence most of them had to be shrunk and it's not unthinkable that modders used different scales not knowing what EAW scale actually is. As I said, I'm using stock EAW scale so what size was my original bridge from end to end in 3DZ points when you downloaded it?

You're talking about multiple of my models you had to shrink, which are the others?

BTW, the Seine inside towns is just a ditch, outside of town the river turns it's true scale which is where the bridge belongs. Can't you see the difference in both screenshots? My screenshot uses 2 tiles for the river and occupies 1/2 a drawing on each, that makes the river nearly one tile wide. Your river only uses one tile and it's drawing occupies only 1/4 of that drawing, which makes your river 4 times less wide.

VonBeerhofen

Rotton 50, look above.