I'm back, so Bengal first, spirit?

Discuss the Wing Commander Series and find the latest information on the Wing Commander Universe privateer mod as well as the standalone mod Wasteland Incident project.
Post Reply
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Post by klauss »

(oldish post, I've been trying to post this since Dual's first post, but still valid)

Chuck... do listen to what Dual says.

Though lasers may have no recoil (and then again they may - light does push, so maybe emitting light pushes back just as well - to make you think a bit), mass drivers are just a name for railguns, only with unspecified acceleration methods (but same bullet principle) and particle cannons expell accelerated particles. They all have kinetic energy, and huge amounts of it. That's the point. Without kinetic energy you can't do damage. Penetration, maybe. But not real damage. Like... you don't want to irradiate the other ship to death, you want to blow it to bits. At least that's in canon. "Pum! Paw! Kaboom!" No... "wa... I'm sick".

Another important point of his is the looks - if you notice a pattern in WC, it's that it mimics traditional military appearance. So... I'd imagine canon turrets being similar to naval turrets.

Personally, I think your turret is grreat. But I bet you'll get something better if you follow Dual's advice - he knows what he's talking about.

One thing, Dual, that may change a spaceship's turret's aspect with respect to a naval version is that naval turrets tend to minimize the profile, to make them harder targets, but a spaceship's most common approach angle is perpendicular to the ship's surface, and so such minimization is either impossible and/or pointless.

Also, notice that naval turrets need a far lesser degree of freedom, another thing that may change its design.

Still, WC would retain a similar look IMO.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by chuck_starchaser »

Well, not so presto. Adding a radar is no problem; I'll do that. As for elliminating windows, too bad: WC has radar, true, but you're still aiming at the target by eye, not by radar. Doesn't make any sense to me, and that's why I'm working on my own mod, Tadpole.
http://deeplayer.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=19
I'm sick and tired of games that don't make any sense; but I can't single-handedly change the nature of WC. Try adding a turret to a ship that wasn't there in the original game and all the canon police morons from the CIC are all over you --never mind changing the nature of the guns, how they work, etc.
And as for guns that swivel at the front of the turret, I'll do that for Tadpole, again. Not for WC, because what is the sense of the turret being spherical, then?

I think you weren't listening to my arguments, by the way:

I said there's NO recoil, to justify front-swiveling. Also, there are NO shells.
The purpose of the dome is to stop particle showers. It's a radiation-hard shield, not a shock-armor.

What I agree makes no sense is the opening at the front, but the fact that the domes are spherical is a given, and the fact that the gunner has to be able to see the target is another given. WC-only givens, and none makes any sense; I totally agree; but given those givens I have no better idea what else to do.

And at the end of the day, I think it may be just fine like it is: I can reduce the window size in the gunner's cabin, and make it look stronger. Then, the purpose of the dome remains to protect all the other equipment inside, not just from the front but from the top, sides or back.
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Post by klauss »

chuck_starchaser wrote:I think you weren't listening to my arguments, by the way:

I said there's NO recoil, to justify front-swiveling. Also, there are NO shells.
Sorry, chuck, but I see no arguments. Only a statement.
My statement is the opposite. WC guns work by introducing massive amounts of energy into the target, not tiny surgical amounts of it.
Therefore, recoil or heat - pick one.
BTW: Heat might be a neat option - imagine, a laser firing, and then you see some venting of coolant into space. Cool stuff, somewhat resembling recoil (you see an after-effect of the gun firing).
chuck_starchaser wrote:And at the end of the day, I think it may be just fine like it is: I can reduce the window size in the gunner's cabin, and make it look stronger. Then, the purpose of the dome remains to protect all the other equipment inside, not just from the front but from the top, sides or back.
I kind-of think the same.
The spherical shape I'd justify by it's maneuverability requirements - the spherical shape is best when you have to get a 180º firing arc. One suggestion: cover the opening with a superimposed armor panel attached to the cannon itslef - like this one.
Aiming can be carried out though optical devices - no need to actually have a cockpit, I'd say. Not even in WC. That may be necessary for small turrets, though, people would expect cockpits in small turrets (but, them being small, you can armor them less as hitting them is hard already).

In any case, I think it's good as it is - if you can and want to improve it, great. If not, great too.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
DualJoe
ISO Party Member
ISO Party Member
Posts: 387
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:37 pm
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Post by DualJoe »

I understand your objections Chuck, but I don't agree with your conclusions.
For anti-aircraft-guns having windows and being manned is something I can live with.
It's been a while since I've played through the WC-Saga, but I'm pretty sure I've never manned a turret of a capship or anything bigger than a bomber. Also I don't recall ever reading something about the turrets on big ships in WC being manned. I must admit that I'm not an expert on WC-doctrine.

What I do know is that the WC-artists goal was to get close to the look and feel of WWI&II machines. Even the whole setting is similar. I don't think it will lead to CIC-bashing if you adhere to WWII designs.

Another argument for having recoil-weapons is that it would add a psychological element (I'm just not that scared of lights) not to mention the fantastic eye candy. Just imagine lots of big guns firing at you that are visibly having trouble coping with the blast. It could drive home the fact that attacking a capship is brown-trouser-time and not a walk in the park.

EDIT
Like Klauss said, I really would like to see and feel the power of the gun.

EDIT2
I just remembered I may have some concept-art-pictures of WC-turrets, hang on ...

EDIT3
Here they are plus some screens I found in a zipfile on CIC.
WC:
Image Image Image
WC2:
Image Image
Last edited by DualJoe on Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by chuck_starchaser »

Klauss, sorry, I had missed your earlier post. I can definitely add a plate to the guns.
Allright, tell you what: I'll put a radar dish at the top, and two cameras, one on each side.
I can't add plating on the bottom, but I can make the bottom of the gun have plate cover, as well as the floor inside the gap.

Dual, okay, I'll wait.

Klauss again: Can we have recoil animation?
DualJoe
ISO Party Member
ISO Party Member
Posts: 387
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:37 pm
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Post by DualJoe »

In case we go for one uniform style.
Look at the guns in WC3:
Image
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by chuck_starchaser »

DualJoe wrote:I understand your objections Chuck, but I don't agree with your conclusions.
For anti-aircraft-guns having windows and being manned is something I can live with.
Technically, everything is anti-"aircraft", here; there's no ground artillery in space :D
Not sure I understand why a smaller gun should be less safe for the gunner than a bigger one. The issue of recoil I (begrudgingly) understand.
What I do know is that the WC-artists goal was to get close to the look and feel of WWI&II machines. Even the whole setting is similar. I don't think it will lead to CIC-bashing if you adhere to WWII designs.
Okay, do you have a WW2 reference with a spherical dome?
Another argument for having recoil-weapons is that it would add a psychological element (I'm just not that scared of lights) not to mention the fantastic eye candy. Just imagine lots of big guns firing at you that are visibly having trouble coping with the blast. It could drive home the fact that attacking a capship is brown-trouser-time and not a walk in the park.

EDIT
Like Klauss said, I really would like to see and feel the power of the gun.
The sphere doesn't prevent recoil; does it? I mean, I made a pretty solid piece the guns attach to. Just a matter of adding the recoil effect. I'm not sure what the problem is. The sphere is there to deflect particles, not to absorb recoil or to stop shells. It doesn't prevent a recoil absorbing mechanism in the piece where the guns mount. It doesn't prevent there being a solid piece the gun mount piece attaches to, in place of the gunner cabin, if we're going to put cameras. The sphere is in addition to the stuff you want, and prevents none of it.
EDIT3
Here they are plus some screens I found in a zipfile on CIC.
WC:
Image Image Image
WC2:
Image Image
Those are cartoons; I don't see "concepts" there. By the way, in that ceremony in open vacuum, notice the people are wearing space suits. :)
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by chuck_starchaser »

DualJoe wrote:In case we go for one uniform style.
Look at the guns in WC3:
Image
Pretty impressive, but I have no idea what the mounting is. And however they are mounted, I'm sure it doesn't preclude adding a reflective sphere around it.
DualJoe
ISO Party Member
ISO Party Member
Posts: 387
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:37 pm
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Pimp my Bengal

Post by DualJoe »

Something tells me you're pretty keen on reflective spheres, just a hunch :wink: .

Those "cartoons" really are origin-sketches. I scanned them from a booklet that came with my Kilrathi-Saga-box. If you take a close look at the screenshots you can see some turrets.

On the topic of windows: I can't help it, guns with cockpits just feel like machine-gun turrets to me, like the ones on WWII bombers or STAR-WARS! (haha that's gotta hurt)

Dome-shaped turrets: my guess is, that they are the invention of lazy origin artists. The closest thing I could find to dome shaped is this (Well not the gun, but the guy on the far left certainly is)

I did find a nice reference of a naval gun outside of its mounting here

EDIT
Look a ways down on this page
Klauss could we have particles like the ones on the bottom of this link?
AzureSky
Merchant
Merchant
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:41 pm
Contact:

Post by AzureSky »

You could make your existing turret model more in line with WC canon (at least more like the Privateer turrets) by moving the lasers to be mounted outside of the hole in the bubble, and replacing the open hole with glass.

http://www.classicgaming.cc/pc/privatee ... turret.gif
http://www.classicgaming.cc/pc/privatee ... rettop.gif
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: Pimp my Bengal

Post by klauss »

DualJoe wrote:Dome-shaped turrets: my guess is, that they are the invention of lazy origin artists.
Surely. It doesn't mean they don't make sense.
They make perfect sense to me, for reasons I already mentioned. Besides, a dome can be one of the strongest structures.

DualJoe wrote:Klauss could we have particles like the ones on the bottom of this link?
That's the idea.
If you want it with the current engine (that is, prior to ogre master of all eye candy), I still can manage to get something working, probably.

And the thing with small turrets is that they are inherently safer just by their smaller size (and thus harder to hit). Also, they're (supposedly) smaller so they can maneuver better to target fighters - another reason to keep the armor light. Also, you won't have that much space for armor (you still need the gunner - at least in WC-ish stuff). Also, you know Privateer's and every other WC's small turret: a flimsy dome with the gunner inside and a window in front, like Azure linked. Also, you do have decent protection thanks to the ship's shields (even if flimsy, it won't blow in the first minute, first they'd have to take out the ship's shields). Also... ( ;) ) all the more reason for the gunner to keep firing - and accurately. Want to live, right?

Oh - Azure: the problem here is not with small turrets - that I'd bet Chuck will model like the turrets we all know, mostly knowing his attention to detail. The thing is with the bigger turrets. Putting huge windows on them makes little sense, and there aren't any clear references besides what Dual linked (which I think is for small turrets too).

Oh - Chuck, about recoil animation: new engine, sure. Old... I don't think so. It all depends, too, which kind of animation you're talking about. But yes, I'll surely make recoil animations possible in the new engine. They're mount "activation" animations, and can entail anything from skeletal to particle systems. So...
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
micheal_andreas_stahl
Elite Hunter
Elite Hunter
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 10:02 am
Location: Gemini, Troy, Helen

Post by micheal_andreas_stahl »

i don't see why you can't have manned turrets. I would prefer manned turrets if i we the captian.
"The bullets come out of the slim end, mate!"

Sniper after dominating another Sniper
Team Fortress 2
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by chuck_starchaser »

Frankly, I don't see why the location of a window should matter that much; and while all these armored vehicles have no windows at all, period, WC ships all are full of windows. Like, okay, navy ships have windows, though...
So, alright, I'm captain of a battleship, I encounter an enemy battleship. Do I aim at its guns? Why? No, me, I would aim for the bridge. My problem is not with the guns, per se, but the way they are being used; --i.e.: with "the management". So I doubt the reason there's no windows on naval turrets has anything to do with their being particularly unsafe, and everything to do with their being utterly unnecesssary, since targetting is electronic. In WC, targetting for guns is NOT electronic. For missiles it is, but not for guns. QED.

I think Dual's concerns would apply if in WC there were guns that can shoot beyond visual range, as is the case with real big guns; but in WC, all these beams evaporate magically at the max range, which is well within visual range.

So, anyways, I'm working on a turret for big guns. The biggest guns on the Bengal are the one in the middle, above the door of the landing bay, which is a triple gun. And the second-biggest guns are the ones at the end of the little wings, hanging down. The rest of them are "anti-aircraft", as Dual would call them, and I think those could use the current design, albeit with the addition of a radar dish and a couple of cameras.

Meantime I'm working on a triple gun turret for big guns:

Image

The gun in the middle will be bigger than the ones on the sides, looks like, unless I start again and squeeze them closer...
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Post by klauss »

Theorem 1.

Wing Commander canon is uncountable.

Proof.

Take:
chuck_starchaser wrote:but in WC, all these beams evaporate magically at the max range, which is well within visual range.
Therefore, Wing Commander canon are the irrationals.
QED.

Theorem 2.

Fun is transcendental.

Proof. as an excercise to the reader.

Hint: Consider the polynomial over the rationals with a root, and relate that to Wing Commander canon. Observe that, besides irrational, it is also fun. Conclude then that Fun is transcendental.

Theorem 3.
I should sleep

Proof.
Theorem 1 & 2.
QED.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
mkruer
Site Administrator
Site Administrator
Posts: 1089
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 10:07 am
Contact:

Post by mkruer »

rfolamo. :twisted: :lol:

Wing Commander is never going to be real because to be real it looses its appeal.

Why, because I say so.
Why is it so, because I know so.
How do I know so, Because I say so.

QED

:lol: :twisted:

Man QED, had a flash back to Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The arguement goes something like this:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic.
--THGTG
I know you believe you understand what you think I said.
But I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Wing Commander Universe Forum | Wiki
Wing Commander: The Wasteland Incident
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by chuck_starchaser »

Alright, here's a new model for the triple-turret above the bay entrance:

Image

Never mind the vertical inner back wall; the axis of rotation for the guns will be centered, and the back wall cut to measure.

Frontal shot:

Image

And I put a bit of counterweight at the back. Not much, admittedly...

Image

BTW, good stuff, mkruer.

And, klauss, dual, thankyous for your intputs; I think that much better looking turrets are going to result from all this. Don't be phazed by my arguing. I just love arguing. That's why I didn't do well in the military: your superiors are always wrong.
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by chuck_starchaser »

Image

Wouldn't it be nice?

But...

Image

(hint: just over 25000 tris...)

And here's the "damage mesh":

Image

Yes, finally found a use for the Poly Reducer script in Blender :D
Take any mesh, turn on subsurf, apply, then poly reduce.
Damage mesh in 1 minute.
Last edited by chuck_starchaser on Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DualJoe
ISO Party Member
ISO Party Member
Posts: 387
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:37 pm
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Post by DualJoe »

chuck_starchaser wrote: Wouldn't it be nice?

But...

(hint: just over 25000 tris...)
Well you could have a go at generating a normal-map from the high-res-version (damaged-version) for the low-res one.
There are some good working high->low-res normalmap plugins for blender now.
For linux I recommend denormgen and for windows the ati-normalmapper plugin on the ogre-forum.
Xnormal also looks nice, but I found it very cumbersome to use (its very picky about model-formats and resolutions and has a horible interface)
Watch out for sharp angles though, those are tricky with normalmaps.

Btw
I just unwrapped the guns for the hornet and the new angle-based unwrap of Blender is fantastic. Our pinning technique has almost become obsolete.
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by chuck_starchaser »

I downloaded the nightly snapshot for Blender, a few days ago, but haven't done anything with it yet.

I'll check into that differential normal mapping stuff. What bothers me more is the polygons visible in outline, tho. Round things should look round.
But yeah, we could try that for damage mesh, too; we'd have to interpolate normal maps as the ship gets damaged, which adds yet another texture to the long lineup; but I guess klauss has the final say how big a price we'd have to pay in performance.

Sounds like your eyes are getting better.
micheal_andreas_stahl
Elite Hunter
Elite Hunter
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 10:02 am
Location: Gemini, Troy, Helen

Post by micheal_andreas_stahl »

NiceImageImageImageImageImage
"The bullets come out of the slim end, mate!"

Sniper after dominating another Sniper
Team Fortress 2
DualJoe
ISO Party Member
ISO Party Member
Posts: 387
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:37 pm
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Post by DualJoe »

Haha that's more like it. Nice thouch with the indentations.
chuck_starchaser wrote:What bothers me more is the polygons visible in outline, tho. Round things should look round.

[...]

Sounds like your eyes are getting better.
The problem with the outline cannot be solved with normalmapping afaik. I have read some references on the topic. One solution was that they saved the highres outline somehow and then put that on the normalmapped low-res model. I can't find the link however.

I can see with my right eye only. I'm at home currently under heavy medication and have to go to the hospital twice every week. Things are looking up though. The eye is healing, but very slowly.
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Post by klauss »

DualJoe wrote:The problem with the outline cannot be solved with normalmapping afaik.
Yes, it can. But it's a nasty technique.
I don't think it has reached production readiness, because of its complexity, and because of its glitches.

But, from the geometry side, you have N-Patches. They're great, in theory, and can be dynamically adjusted. It's like an automatic, view-dependant subsurf, all done on the hardware.
DualJoe wrote:I have read some references on the topic. One solution was that they saved the highres outline somehow and then put that on the normalmapped low-res model. I can't find the link however.
Oh - if it's not too much to ask of your poor eye, please do. I'm interested.
DualJoe wrote:I can see with my right eye only. I'm at home currently under heavy medication and have to go to the hospital twice every week. Things are looking up though. The eye is healing, but very slowly.
Good to hear it's improving.
Best of lucks, we all feel your pain.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
DualJoe
ISO Party Member
ISO Party Member
Posts: 387
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:37 pm
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Post by DualJoe »

Thanks for the support Klauss.

Btw would you like my new dds-textures for your rendermonkey-project?
Maybe this could be of use to you, apparently it also runs on linux.

Hmm seems to be quite a hot topic, lot of articles online.
Do a search in google/yahoo with the string "normal map silhouette" and you'll see them pop up.
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Post by klauss »

Cool. Still, too complex (too many passes, too many stencil ops - stencil ops are evil, too much CPU involvement - that's prohibitive).

Anyway, the technique I talked about is purely GPU-based, and it handles things like parallax, only in such a way that rays can go back into the open and thus be rendered transparent - hence, silhouettes.

I'll post links, if I find them.

There's another option, too. Learn from TRON, and use analytical surfaces. There's some work on pixel-shader-based raytracers. The turret, being spherical, is an ideal case.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by chuck_starchaser »

This paper,
http://research.microsoft.com/users/lyw ... /paper.pdf
is very interesting, klauss; I wonder if we couldn't simplify it to a single parameter per texel representing the size of the cone. We got the angle; it's the angle between the interpolated normal and the eye vector, so we just compare that to the cone's angular radius and bingo. No fancy shapes. Should be a lot better than nothing.
I downloaded NFZ's normal mapper; comes with sources; shouldn't take too long to have it add cone size to the alpha channel or something.
Last edited by chuck_starchaser on Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply