Introducing the C3 Aircraft
by Scott McGlasson · in General Discussion · 01/24/2003 (4:53 pm) · 9 replies
http://c3command.com/main/game/features/aircraft/index.php#start
That will take you directly to the Aircraft section of the C3 website. There you will find links to both static images and Shockwave model viewers of our three current aircraft, the Mantis Carryall, the Nospheratu Attack Heli, and the Pegasus interceptor. To be added is the Prometheus attack bomber.
C3 will feature two versions of each vehicle type (for 36 total), one type per faction, but this is mainly for telling friend from foe as there are not "hats" in C3 except on teammates.
Please feel free to provide feedback on our forums. I've already promised that the most recurrent forum posters are first on the list for beta testing.
Enjoy!
That will take you directly to the Aircraft section of the C3 website. There you will find links to both static images and Shockwave model viewers of our three current aircraft, the Mantis Carryall, the Nospheratu Attack Heli, and the Pegasus interceptor. To be added is the Prometheus attack bomber.
C3 will feature two versions of each vehicle type (for 36 total), one type per faction, but this is mainly for telling friend from foe as there are not "hats" in C3 except on teammates.
Please feel free to provide feedback on our forums. I've already promised that the most recurrent forum posters are first on the list for beta testing.
Enjoy!
#2
Second, for each environment type (winter is our demo map) there are two different camo schemes which, while similar in that they are designed for the same type of environs, will be easily differentiated when seen even from a distance.
Further...we are working on a fractal system that will give your avatar a completely different camo design (same scheme, tho) every time you spawn. Same with the vehicles.
01/25/2003 (7:35 pm)
The mechanism for telling friend from foe is already built in. First and foremost, your teammates will all have tags. The opposition, however, will not. This will allow for more stealthy movements by enemy units...so keep your eyes open.Second, for each environment type (winter is our demo map) there are two different camo schemes which, while similar in that they are designed for the same type of environs, will be easily differentiated when seen even from a distance.
Further...we are working on a fractal system that will give your avatar a completely different camo design (same scheme, tho) every time you spawn. Same with the vehicles.
#3
01/27/2003 (6:39 pm)
To add to this, the models will also be denoted by the symbols representing each "side". The Pegasus is currently dark because of the Cammoflage type. The current maps are not the final ones, but general representations on the current direction we are heading to develope the maps. 
#4
... but on a lighter not, camoflage is something that is gagging to be done with a pixel shader and that doesn't eat all your texture memory.
The other things to take into account are the current evolutions in camoflage technology. If you look at the newer US patterns they're much more about distruption than actually hiding. Something that might be more appropriate for future games. And another thing I found in my game was that it made units hard to see (err... doh), which is probably a feature for an FPS or something but a real pta for a RTS type game :)
The extreme form of this would be a space-sim... come on, who wouldn't paint a starfighter black if they had a choice ;)
01/28/2003 (4:13 am)
Very impressive site / game. And I do really like the idea of the fractal camo patterns etc. It's something I prototyped on my own, but I found it just ate far too much texture memory too quickly. Which meant reducing the texture sizes. And personally I prefer a very well 512x512 textured model than 4 muddy different 256x256 ones.... but on a lighter not, camoflage is something that is gagging to be done with a pixel shader and that doesn't eat all your texture memory.
The other things to take into account are the current evolutions in camoflage technology. If you look at the newer US patterns they're much more about distruption than actually hiding. Something that might be more appropriate for future games. And another thing I found in my game was that it made units hard to see (err... doh), which is probably a feature for an FPS or something but a real pta for a RTS type game :)
The extreme form of this would be a space-sim... come on, who wouldn't paint a starfighter black if they had a choice ;)
#5
http://www.racingsnail.net/unposted/vigilance.jpg
[This will eventually be all dark colors after it is UV'd]
As for mapping, as said before the maps are not much more than nicely colored place holders at this time, and could very quickly get changed. I fact I expect Scott to do just that, he never fails.
So to that end, thanks for giving us opinions, constructive critisism, and ideas on stuff... it can only make the end product better.
01/28/2003 (12:18 pm)
I've heard that before, the proverbial,"Why did you make that warship dark gray and black, I can't see it." Well DUH! that is the point. I can relate to that since my private hobby aside from working on C3 is designing starship models. http://www.racingsnail.net/unposted/vigilance.jpg
[This will eventually be all dark colors after it is UV'd]
As for mapping, as said before the maps are not much more than nicely colored place holders at this time, and could very quickly get changed. I fact I expect Scott to do just that, he never fails.
So to that end, thanks for giving us opinions, constructive critisism, and ideas on stuff... it can only make the end product better.
#6
Obviously setup for arctic operation ;) I've finished all the basic fighters for my own game (very low poly... there's gonna be a lot of them), and have just started moving onto the bigger ships... hope I can manage something half as good as that ;)
What kinda of poly count is it pushing? Well worthy of a IoTD.
01/29/2003 (3:44 am)
Now THAT's what you call a capital ship! Awesome. Obviously setup for arctic operation ;) I've finished all the basic fighters for my own game (very low poly... there's gonna be a lot of them), and have just started moving onto the bigger ships... hope I can manage something half as good as that ;)
What kinda of poly count is it pushing? Well worthy of a IoTD.
#7
Anyhow, I wish it were game worthy, but chances are, it won't be for a few years yet. The thing that is strange is that if I did not make physical grooves in the armor hull plating, I could probably do it in under 2500, using bump maps... But I can't do that for animations, bump maps are nice, but they lie when it comes to true shadows.
I'm done rambling now.
01/30/2003 (12:22 pm)
On polygon count, right now it is out of the game range because tripled, it is 57,000+ polygons. It was originally designed for animation only. Here is the thing though, normally it is not tripled [as LightWave likes to refer to Triangles], because LightWave does not require that. So for rendering in animations, the actual polygon count is closer to 25,000. Anyhow, I wish it were game worthy, but chances are, it won't be for a few years yet. The thing that is strange is that if I did not make physical grooves in the armor hull plating, I could probably do it in under 2500, using bump maps... But I can't do that for animations, bump maps are nice, but they lie when it comes to true shadows.
I'm done rambling now.
#8
Plus for a fly-by or ingame cutscene... that's plenty doable now. If you've got beffy hardware tidy it up a bit and even Torque could manage it :)
01/30/2003 (3:08 pm)
There's a couple of free tools (Normal Mapper from ATI) or ORB that take a low poly model and 'project' to a higher poly model to build a bump map. Would be perfect for reducing the poly count down. Orb even automatically builds a low poly mesh if you don't have one!Plus for a fly-by or ingame cutscene... that's plenty doable now. If you've got beffy hardware tidy it up a bit and even Torque could manage it :)
#9
01/30/2003 (6:37 pm)
Actually LightWave has all of those functions built in, wouldn't take much to do that with the model I have now. I may look into the other stuff too, see what is out there. Thanks 
Andrew Stewart