PDA

View Full Version : BOB and Model Building.



skyiced
10-09-2005, 02:07 AM
What tools should we use when making models for BOB.

1. Maya
2. 3DSMAX
3. GMAX
4. Lightwave

Or will any of the programs be allowed to import. Thank you.

Chuck_Older
10-09-2005, 06:38 AM
You'd need to contact the developer personally for this one. I'm not too sure that non-employees would have their models accepted for a sim that isn't even due to be released for a year or so http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif the standards of quality for a model to be accepted even for this sim are very high; look at the J8A cockpit for an example

skyiced
10-09-2005, 07:16 AM
yeah, i have done a little more research on the subject and found that they are pretty much using 3dsmax. so will stick to that. work out high detail models of planes and worry about the rest later.
since it ability to add planes will be available, it will be a major asset to the game. since most other games these days live on through their mods.

csThor
10-09-2005, 07:27 AM
I would not do any modelling stuff before the exact terms and requirements for such a model are known. Secondly I think the ability to add planes will be limited and perhaps even only to commercial 3rd Party Projects. Oleg's comments on that one were not too precise but for some reason I am still not convinced that "anyone" can add stuff (within the limits Oleg set).

skyiced
10-09-2005, 05:39 PM
With a project that takes such a long time and so many resources to complete their is often alot of fear about releasing editing ability to the public.
There is alot of fear and speculation. His fear is that he wont be able to market his product to 3rd party developers or come out with addons over the next several years.
I can see independent developers instantly releasing mods of other theaters. This may in mind null any planned expansions.
Its not good job security to allow the public that much control. even if it does prolong the life of your product.
I am almost positive that Oleg has this on his mind.
The amount of detail given to each and every aircraft and the ammount of programming that go into each will in my honest opinion give the designers the wish to make them accurate.
Some of us may have played Quake, or Half Life, or similar games of the more open source genre. These games still thrive because of their editing ability.
1 Year or so away from BoB i think it would be wise to release the ability to add planes and maps to IL2, do to programming structure this may not be possible from the begining. Often the game engine is static and the planes graphics maps and other programming should be seperate.
Too late for IL2 but will the same mistakes be made with BoB???
Release BoB with the ability to add planes and small maps (thats my understanding) and Large mapping will be open to 3rd party developers.
I have no solutions just thoughts. I have been working on mod and developement teams since Duke Nukem 3D. Games open to editing thrive in this days community, and is expected as well. confine the fans loose the fans.

No brown nosing flamers please.

ElAurens
10-09-2005, 09:33 PM
To my mind mods are only useful for games that have serious problems, like BF2 for example.


I think your request for "open sourcing" of this sim will fall on deaf ears. Please don't take this wrong. If you are a skilled modeler and can contribute quality models, so much the better, but I don't want anyone but Oleg's team tinkering with the base coding of the sim.

If what you produce is checked and approved by the developer then fine. But the ability to just add to the sim willy-nilly is not a good thing.



Games open to editing thrive in this days community, and is expected as well. confine the fans loose the fans.

This statement just doesn't hold up I'm afraid. The IL2 series, with it's totally closed architecture, has totally buried the open source CFS series.

Good luck to you.

Gibbage1
10-10-2005, 01:20 AM
Very very little information is known about Oleg's BoB models. Nothing is firm yet since they are still in development! The one thing that IS known is that it will most likley only support 3D Studio's Max 5 or earlier. Possibly 6. The latest version of 3DS Max is 8 that is being released this month. The problem is, 3DS releases a new version EVERY YEAR! Oleg cant upgrade every year since it cost's THOUSANDS of dollers. So they use older version of 3DS. Last I checked, they were on Max 5. They may have upgraded, but I doubt that.

No support for any other programs unless you can first import them into max yourself, fix whatever the import broke, and save it out into Max 5.0. Importing models from other programs ALWAYS brakes things.

skyiced
10-10-2005, 04:43 PM
first of CFS was poor to begin with so cant even begin to use that to compair. There are many benifits to public ability to add to the game. for example the adding planes that are illegal due to a companies greed.

pacific theator and having no flyable torpedo planes. the list of planes that people want is endless.
anyway fighting against the idea of being able to mod a game is totally foolish.
Quake1 released many years ago still has servers full of players. the well known Team Fortress started as a quake mod. and is still played by many today on the original quake.

upgrading 3dsmax would cost to much? heh your kidding right? The makers of IL2 are not hurting. no game company that small making worldwide sales hurts. a minor 4k a year is nothing specially when the upgrade is far less then that.

its funny how closed minded a closed source community is. wake up and smell the flowers.

Comments about the best:
Carmack is a well-known advocate of open source software, and has repeatedly voiced his opposition to software patents, which he likens to "mugging someone".

Carmack released the source code for Wolfenstein 3D in 1995 and the Doom source code in 1997. When the source code to Quake was leaked and circulated among the Quake community underground in 1996, a programmer unaffiliated with id Software used it to port Quake to Linux, and subsequently sent the patches to Carmack. Instead of pursuing legal action, id Software, at Carmack's behest, used the patches as the foundation for a company-sanctioned Linux port. id Software has since publicly released the source code to Quake as well as that to Quake 2 and most recently Quake 3, all under the GNU General Public License (GPL). The Doom source code was also re-released under the GPL in 1999.

Carmack is also noted for his generous contributions to charities and gaming communities. Some of the recipients of Carmack's charitable contributions include his former high school, promoters of open source software, opponents of software patents, and game enthusiasts. In 1997 he gave away one of his Ferraris (a 308 model) as a prize to the winner of the Quake "Red Annihilation" tournament, Dennis Fong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Carmack

no flaming or stupid comments please.

skyiced
10-10-2005, 05:12 PM
Its too bad that IL2 is not open source. you will never get your B-35...

An order for 13 YB-35 service test aircraft was placed in September 1942 and another order for 200 production B-35Bs was placed in June 1943.

Vo101_Isegrim AkA Kurfurst__
"No full scale XB-35 was ever built"
Where do you get your facts from?
"The XB-35€s first flight, on June 25, 1946, was a success and Max Stanley later said that he would never have known that he was piloting a flying wing if he hadn€t looked behind him.

But that was about the only trouble-free flight the bomber was ever to have. Numerous equipment failures had already delayed the plane€s development by more than a year, and a host of gearbox and drive train problems plagued the flight test program. Only three B-35s were completed (two X-model and one Y-), and they accumulated only a modest number of hours in the air. In order to save the program, the government ordered the remainder of the initial service test models to be converted to jet power."
http://www.edwards.af.mil/history/docs_html/aircraft/xb-35.html

The XB-35 and following XB-45 made several more flights then the Go-229 ever dreamed of. including this well known flight.
http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/Northrop/yb-49/yb-49_capitol.jpg
YB-49 over the Capitol Building.

Both certainly did fly. Orders for both at one time where most certainly made. and if it was not for the B-36 this country "USA" would have made much greater steps in aviation.
people just love to take baby steps backwards instead of huge steps forward. all your fears...
http://zenisle.com/keep/il2/jack-northrop.jpg
Jack Northrop in front of his YB-49

VT-51_Razor
10-10-2005, 05:29 PM
Given the time it took to get a model ready for Oleg to put into the IL-2:FB game, wouldn't it make sense for anyone who is considering building something for BoB, to gat started on it right away?

DarkStar68
10-10-2005, 06:04 PM
Why can't you take BF2 and mod more detailed flight characteristics - more like a sim?

ElAurens
10-10-2005, 06:24 PM
What BF2 needs most is correct weapons damage modeling, but that is outside the scope of this thread.


Skyiced, who would be doing the flight models for the aircraft that you would build if it were possible? This is the crux of the matter.

skyiced
10-10-2005, 06:41 PM
Thats a great point. A complete new plane would require three things in the least.

1. The actual model built (Both External and Cockpit with any other views also gunnery, bomber...)
2. A texture artist for all textures required.
3. A Programmer, even if its just editing values of a flight model and inputing weapon loadout.

For programming a sheet representing a flight envelope would be great. along with added options for uniqe flight qualities of given aircraft.

That way a flight model could be figured from filling out a list of attributes. of course the best thing would be to have real world dynamics and the model interact with them. but of course we are many many years away from having household computers that can handel those calculations in real time while in play. even if the calculation would only ever have to be done for the users plane. calculating battle damage and other failures would be there too. someday though.. untill we need programmers to be part of the mod team. always have.

ElAurens
10-10-2005, 06:57 PM
Methinks you don't quite have a grasp on how FMs are made for this sim, and how complex they actually are.

Just an observation.

You must remember that only Maddox Games can build FMs for this series. Also, Oleg probably has one of the largest collections of WW2 aircraft data in private hands in the world, absolutely necessary for building proper physics models.

skyiced
10-10-2005, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Methinks you don't quite have a grasp on how FMs are made for this sim, and how complex they actually are.

Just an observation.

You must remember that only Maddox Games can build FMs for this series. Also, Oleg probably has one of the largest collections of WW2 aircraft data in private hands in the world, absolutely necessary for building proper physics models.

I agree, but also understand that to best handel this info the software must handel all aircraft flight models the same. pitch roll yaw stall lift drag all all numbers. indeed taken from flight test data to be as accurate as possible. the ability to edit or create a flight model will run into more problems when it comes to agreeing then it ever will be on creating. Inputing Flight model data is simple. I trust their programming to be at least that expert.

So the way to add in the information is absolutely irrelevent compared to how accurate that data is. and it does suffer from a certain level of bias. dare i even say that. its always true.

skyiced
10-10-2005, 07:39 PM
I do recognize the concern that joe cartoon can make himself a super plane that performs far beyond its design. But thats about quality control. I have downloaded several planes for MSFS back in the day. and most models where pretty ok. some where just way out there.

And then their where the limits of the flight sim itself to handel certain aircraft. usually the high speed ones.

I believe a dedicated team would have access enough to data and designs to do an equally well creation.

Oleg is just a person. Each aircraft in the game has been and continues to be a trial and error process. all these years and people still complain that things are wrong.

Although in my honest opinion 90% of the whining complaints are due to pilot error. Oleg still must put up with it all with a smile on his face. its not a position to envy trying to please a world of angry 11-66 year olds who know everything.

DarkStar68
10-10-2005, 08:35 PM
What can 1c do that other developers can't?

Gibbage1
10-10-2005, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by DarkStar68:
What can 1c do that other developers can't?

Use cheap Russian labor http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Be sure!

VVaFFenPanZZeR
10-10-2005, 10:54 PM
I got maya 6.0 unlimited, it is bad ***, i just made a body of water............

LEXX_Luthor
10-11-2005, 12:54 AM
Great Points http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Skyiced::
I do recognize the concern that joe cartoon can make himself a super plane that performs far beyond its design. But thats about quality control. I have downloaded several planes for MSFS back in the day. and most models where pretty ok. some where just way out there.

And then their where the limits of the flight sim itself to handel certain aircraft. usually the high speed ones.

I believe a dedicated team would have access enough to data and designs to do an equally well creation.

Oleg is just a person. Each aircraft in the game has been and continues to be a trial and error process. all these years and people still complain that things are wrong.

Although in my honest opinion 90% of the whining complaints are due to pilot error. Oleg still must put up with it all with a smile on his face. its not a position to envy trying to please a world of angry 11-<span class="ev_code_yellow">66</span> year olds who know everything.
The best method of 3rd Party modding is to go through the Developer to ensure consistent quality. However, Oleg needs to make sure that the addition of aircraft to BoB And Beyond is far easiear compared to adding aircraft to the current simulation. Also, Oleg must ease off the disasterous and sim crippling requirements of ALL aircrew positions being modded in multi crew aircraft such as twin engine bombers. This total aircrew requirement is not consistent with the desire to make a successful computer air combat simulation, although may be consistent with a desire to seek a (false) "professional" reputation in the real aviation community.

DarkStar68
10-11-2005, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Great Points http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

The best method of 3rd Party modding is to go through the Developer to ensure consistent quality. However, Oleg needs to make sure that the addition of aircraft to BoB And Beyond is far easiear compared to adding aircraft to the current simulation. Also, Oleg must ease off the disasterous and sim crippling requirements of ALL aircrew positions being modded in multi crew aircraft such as twin engine bombers. This total aircrew requirement is not consistent with the desire to make a successful computer air combat simulation, although may be consistent with a desire to seek a (false) "professional" reputation in the real aviation community.

He who wins here will be the developer who sets the quality/standard or "platform" that all others (mods) are made from. Then - It's just a matter of licensing.

Worked well for Microsoft...

LEXX_Luthor
10-11-2005, 03:57 AM
86::
Worked well for Microsoft...
Why did Microsoft's sim fail and get abandoned by Microsoft?

The "follow microsoft" path ignores that Oleg needs to make sure that the addition of aircraft to BoB And Beyond is far easiear compared to adding aircraft to the current simulation. Also, Oleg must ease off the disasterous and sim crippling requirements of ALL aircrew positions being modded in multi crew aircraft such as twin engine bombers.

This is how we encourage great 3rd Party modding, not following...
Microsoft Corporation

skyiced
10-11-2005, 06:19 PM
Your not attempting to claim that the open source ability added to the games death. clearly its the fact that you can that keeps it alive in the little corners it lives in. now here is the bad part. i checked out many sites and people want money for each plane they make. $20-$30-$40 per plane. thats a knife in the back.



Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
86:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Worked well for Microsoft...
Why did Microsoft's sim fail and get abandoned by Microsoft?

The "follow microsoft" path ignores that Oleg needs to make sure that the addition of aircraft to BoB And Beyond is far easiear compared to adding aircraft to the current simulation. Also, Oleg must ease off the disasterous and sim crippling requirements of ALL aircrew positions being modded in multi crew aircraft such as twin engine bombers.

This is how we encourage great 3rd Party modding, not following...
Microsoft Corporation </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

FritzGryphon
10-11-2005, 07:30 PM
I remember hearing something about a third option. Probably just conjecture.

Something about having two versions; a 'pure' version and a 'mod' version (much like you have pure servers for Quake, and modded ones). Normally you'd play 'pure' BoB, and would have to if you were playing online.

But tools would exist for 3rd part devs to add and test their own content offline. They could model their own planes, make DMs and FMs, and test.

When the content is completed, and if it meets the quality standards, MG would include it in patches like they do now.

So you can make your own planes, try them out, and saves MG some time. But you wouldn't have multiplay ruined by UFOs and hacking, or a glut of overpriced, poorly done 1 plane addons.

LEXX_Luthor
10-11-2005, 07:47 PM
skyiced::
Your not attempting to claim that the open source ability added to the games death.
You claim Microsoft makes open source software?

lol http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

DarkStar68
10-11-2005, 07:48 PM
I'm not talking about MS flight sims - I was thinking a bit bigger more liken to Windows - an OS...

If you own the "standard" platform that all flight sims are created on - couldn't you just sell this "stardard" to anyone who wants to build thier own Avenger for example.

The community or fans of the flight sims would decide on what that standard is - all based on quality and ease of use.

LEXX_Luthor
10-11-2005, 08:11 PM
68::
more liken to Windows - an OS...
New flight sim advances will be killed by the monopoly Standard. You are right, it would be liken to Microsoft.

3rd Parties going through the Developer would ensure Quality and Ease Of Use that you ask for. Look at how difficult it is for people to download and add mods to their sims in "open" sims today. This works for only a tiny percentage of "hardcore" paying customers, although I am now one of them and using independent 3rd Party StrikeFighters mods, we are NOT representatvie of the common paying customer.

I too have had the idea of a "standard" flight sim engine shared among developers. But I would suggest the different developers confine themselves to areas where they don't compete. Also, somebody may come up with a better flight sim engine, and use it more productively. If its better, but the "standard" stays the same, we would indeed have the Microsoft Corporation method of killing software development.

The only workable idea is for Oleg to ensure that adding aircraft and maps to the sim is easier in his future sims -- both for the modders and his programmers.

LEXX_Luthor
10-11-2005, 08:22 PM
Fritz::
Something about having two versions; a 'pure' version and a 'mod' version (much like you have pure servers for Quake, and modded ones). Normally you'd play 'pure' BoB, and would have to if you were playing online.
That would not help the Online simmers, and the Offline simmers would have to filter out the fakes by themselves. If Oleg were simply to refuse to create certain types of aircraft, then yes I can see the Need for "open" independent modders. However, Oleg has always shown interest in letting anything into his sim. Oleg's problem is his difficult modding requirements prevent even good modders from working on multi crew bombers (a few exceptions, but too few). That's where our problem lies.

Ask yourself this Question::

Of all the gamers in this thread demanding Oleg make his sim "open source," how many are offering to create 3rd Party mods for Oleg's sim?

How many? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LEXX_Luthor
10-11-2005, 08:44 PM
I know I'm being harsh, and I am a FanBoy of independent 3rd Party modders http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif from the "Olde Sims," but I am more a Fan of the consistent Quality and Ease Of Use that we have in Oleg's products. The only problem is Oleg must make adding aircraft and MAPS to his next sim a far easier process than it has been with FB/PF, and Oleg must back off the artificial sim crippling requirement that ALL crew stations in multi-crew bombers be modded, or we will get another Dogfight game. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Nothing is better than 3rd Party modders working with Oleg's Team.

skyiced
10-11-2005, 10:16 PM
I like the idea of having all crew placements. or at least the major ones.

LEXX_Luthor
10-11-2005, 11:06 PM
I like the idea of having all crew placements. or at least the major ones.
hehe so which is it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Don't feel intimidated. Ask yourself what bomber crew placements you play, and the crew placements you don't play.

skyiced
10-12-2005, 03:26 AM
Pilot, Bomber dude, tail gunner, top or belly if it was there.

Coop games make it fun too. Don't bag on a game play type just because its not your cup of tea.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MEGILE
10-12-2005, 03:40 AM
Lexx, after 9,399 posts on this forum, you should know by now people whine about everything

Online bomber ace - "Oleg, why didn't you include the belly/turret/rear/ventral/left/right gunner on my bomber.

this is bias/why should I have to rely on Ai gunners for certain positions/oleg nerfed bombers/bombers are defencless/his bomber has 3 gunner positions, mine only has 2 etc.etc."

i can see it now.
Look how people react to Oleg not including a rear gunner on the Beaufighter.

I agree with you in principle, however. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

skyiced
10-12-2005, 05:28 AM
Young old, 4209 posts or 9,399. people will always have something they feel is just not right. the mass posters just have more practice saying it. heh.

JG301_nils
10-12-2005, 06:34 AM
i can see it now.
Look how people react to Oleg not including a rear gunner on the Beaufighter.

I agree with you in principle, however. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Yes, me too. It'll all come down to what you do not have you simply do not have. If anybody had bothered to make a rear cockpit for the Beau, how many would have bothered to use it I wonder, just sitting back there looking backwards?? Besides Oleg/Team has imo full right to decide what should be and what shouldn't, and leave the whiners whining. After all this fun haven't costed me much compared to all I got for free from IL2team.
I'm one satisfied customer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

skyiced
10-12-2005, 06:49 AM
Its not one or ever is one. I noticed no back gunner and when i had an ki-43 on my tail i noticed it even more. though your right. this is the war according to oleg isnt it. some of you just dont mind him rewriting history.


Originally posted by JG301_nils:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">i can see it now.
Look how people react to Oleg not including a rear gunner on the Beaufighter.

I agree with you in principle, however. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Yes, me too. It'll all come down to what you do not have you simply do not have. If anybody had bothered to make a rear cockpit for the Beau, how many would have bothered to use it I wonder, just sitting back there looking backwards?? Besides Oleg/Team has imo full right to decide what should be and what shouldn't, and leave the whiners whining. After all this fun haven't costed me much compared to all I got for free from IL2team.
I'm one satisfied customer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Popey109
10-12-2005, 07:53 AM
Why set low expectations? I want more! Give me bombardier, give me Nav station with working maps and map tools, how about working radio where you can tune in the best of the Andrew Sisters, and talk to specific flights why not a copilot who could take over€¦if the worst should happen. How about recon photos of your target you can take with you€¦we keep telling ourselves €œit€s a niche market€ and we keep getting Cr@p like CFS3€¦and no, I can€t model a box! But I aint going to tell someone else they can€t either. We should encourage anyone interested in modeling so long as they know Oleg has the final word€¦I hope Oleg releases an sdk for BoB http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

LEXX_Luthor
10-12-2005, 08:24 AM
Megile::
this is bias/why should I have to rely on Ai gunners for certain positions/oleg nerfed bombers/bombers are defencless/his bomber has 3 gunner positions, mine only has 2 etc.etc."
Not so sure. I don't think a bomber community would be quite as diaper rashed as our fighter community. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Provided bombers have a real place in the sim to be used with great effect.

MEGILE
10-12-2005, 10:06 AM
I think you underestimate how infectious diaper rash is Lexx... it is easily spreadable from contact on the internet.

Just think in BoB... if the Me-110 gets a human controlled rear gunner, then why shouldn't the Blenheim be made to those standards also?

LEXX_Luthor
10-12-2005, 01:06 PM
Then there will be No Blenheim or any bomber available for player to fly. No bombers for BoB And Beyond.

We were talking about Oleg cutting out side gunners and belly gunners. Top gunners are "okay" as they are very popular.

skyiced
10-12-2005, 01:50 PM
Give it to us or don't, i am glad its you talking about doing a half as s job and not oleg. We all know Oleg listens to his fans. an SDK would be great. should embrace the community who will do things with his game that he has not even dreamed of or had time to do himself.

Alexandrian
07-21-2006, 10:09 AM
I just think that the way to go with this games is for Maddox to offer a development SDK, so that ordinary people can contribute as many add ons as possible, and off course with the supervision of Maddox again to ensure consistent quality and accuracy

So I keep asking, is there a way to develop aircraft for IL2 or BOB using say 3d studio max or Gmax?

FritzGryphon
07-21-2006, 07:41 PM
So I keep asking, is there a way to develop aircraft for IL2 or BOB using say 3d studio max or Gmax?


Not by yourself.

If you want to make things for BoB I would suggest you do this.

Mail MG and ask about example files and specifications, and what models they need for the game. Probably they will ask you to make some insignificant thing.

If you are pro and you find you can do it, hooray, you get paid. Once you get used to making models for the game (it is ridiculously complex setup compared to other games), then maybe you can do more complex things.

I've found MG will take anything that is modeled properly and applies to the game. In particular, Oleg has asked for building models for BoB, because there are so many buildings that need to be done.

Keep in mind if you want to model planes for BoB addons, you would have to be pretty pro. You've seen the kind of things they are doing, with the plane models and the internal structure. They're very stringent on accuracy, as well.

After PF, they are not going to be so lenient with fixing bad meshes or textures. I am partly to blame for that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif