C-17A Globemaster III

i went to the Air-Show the other day (WHOO! AIRSHOW! ) and saw many of the planes to be included in the mod (except for the f-35, i'm not saying it wasnt there at all, it's just that the one there was a fake i totally picked out at least 7 reasons it was bogus!)

but one thing that caught my eye was the C-17. now, im not gonna go ahead and sound like a total idiot saying it's big when everyone already knows that. but i gotta tell ya, no matter how big you think it is, if you haven't seen it in real life, let me lay it down for you...
IT'S PHENOMINALY BIG!!! it's absolutely gargantuous!

this poses a potential problem for the mod as you guys said you intend to make everything to scale. now, i'm totally for that (unlike ZH's big planes were as big as 3 tanks which were as big as 3 people! making them as big as about 9 people ) , but, this thing is definatley going to pose a major problem. you will either have to make infantry about 3 pixels tall, or when reinforcements are called in it'll have to save the map, load a new map called C-17, bring in the C-17 and let it unload, and take off again, then reload the original map with the new units added!

i know, that you all know, it's massive. but it really is more than you think!

best of luck fitting this behemoth into the game
-pyro

i'm sorry to say, but the C-17 model isn't looking as great as the other plane models

but ... it's still a quite good model

Well, It's A Matter Of Taste, I Find It Awesome, For A Low Poly Model

James100 wrote:Well, It's A Matter Of Taste, I Find It Awesome, For A Low Poly Model

what is low poly?

Poly Is The Polycount On A 3D Model Or In Other Words Number Of Polygons, Depending On Engines, Low Poly Increases Speed While High Poly (Like The CWC Models) Could Really Lag Up The Game And Not Work For Some Users

That's Why TAoW Will Have All It's Models Low Poly (Except A Few) To Really Speed Up The Game

BTW Logically Low Poly = Less Wow Models
High Poly = WOW Models

Pyrospastiac wrote:this poses a potential problem for the mod as you guys said you intend to make everything to scale. now, i'm totally for that (unlike ZH's big planes were as big as 3 tanks which were as big as 3 people! making them as big as about 9 people ) , but, this thing is definatley going to pose a major problem. you will either have to make infantry about 3 pixels tall, or when reinforcements are called in it'll have to save the map, load a new map called C-17, bring in the C-17 and let it unload, and take off again, then reload the original map with the new units added!

i know, that you all know, it's massive. but it really is more than you think!

best of luck fitting this behemoth into the game
-pyro

That's damn right, that sure is a BIG BIRD , fortunately the current model was correctly scaled, it's quite a sight in game to watch one of these behemoths flying to drop a tank. The main problem with such large models is to keep their detail and look while keeping an acceptable poly count, fortunately it was balanced on the polygon level

F-16FightingFalcon wrote:i'm sorry to say, but the C-17 model isn't looking as great as the other plane models

but ... it's still a quite good model

The model is not looking so sharp as the other models because of it's extremely large size (as Pyrospastiac said, this plane is colossal and we will scale units accordingly for TAOW).

F-16FightingFalcon wrote:

James100 wrote:Well, It's A Matter Of Taste, I Find It Awesome, For A Low Poly Model

what is low poly?

Poly is an abbreviation of "polygon".

Models are built by using polygons which are basically "linked" together in order to form a certain object/model:


The more polygons a model haves, the better the chances it will be looking better and detailed, however a high/large polygon count haves a strong side effect for use in games: the more polygons that are used, the larger the chance that more lag will slow down the game (since more pc processing power is required to get the game to work correctly, that's an important reason that modern games are so demanding and require high powered computers).

Zero Hour haves a certain tolerance level, if we use very detailed 3D models the game will lag exponentially (so we have to balance models to a certain level, usually 1000 polygons to keep things running as smoothly as possible).

I agree that this model is pretty good for one its size.
Now I can wait to see this Behemoth in action.

Pyrospastiac wrote:but one thing that caught my eye was the C-17. now, im not gonna go ahead and sound like a total idiot saying it's big when everyone already knows that. but i gotta tell ya, no matter how big you think it is, if you haven't seen it in real life, let me lay it down for you...
IT'S PHENOMINALY BIG!!! it's absolutely gargantuous!

Dude I Went On A C-17 And I Know How Big It Is, Trust Me A Human Is Microscopic To It,

Just a small note:

If a vehicle which was previously rendered and publicly released/revealed does not meet our high in game expectations (in game things are different since the rendering software is a separate platform than Zero Hour), we will simply upgrade the model.

For example:
Our definitive (current) M1A2 Abrams had about 4 or 5 previous versions before it was considered to be 100% complete, specially since our M1A2 had to pass intensive in game tests (in terms of look, realism and model accuracy), this process will happen which any model which does not achive our high quality standards in game (the C-17 which was previously shown differs from the actual C-17 in game because of software differences).

Snake wrote:Just a small note:

If a vehicle which was previously rendered and publicly released/revealed does not meet our high in game expectations (in game things are different since the rendering software is a separate platform than Zero Hour), we will simply upgrade the model.

For example:
Our definitive (current) M1A2 Abrams had about 4 or 5 previous versions before it was considered to be 100% complete, specially since our M1A2 had to pass intensive in game tests (in terms of look, realism and model accuracy), this process will happen which any model which does not achive our high quality standards in game (the C-17 which was previously shown differs from the actual C-17 in game because of software differences).

oh i see
but...it still looks many better then ZH units

Most of the current planes will have future versions to come, such versions will be updated with new things such as new emblems (which will be randomized from a good selection), and armament.

Since there will be various variants per aircraft (Class Logic), some will carry different armament sets and even different Insignias among a certain class.

Each vehicle page will be updated with new pics as they're ready

Putting embelems on planes would be a great idea to kind of keep track of how close a plane might be to veterency making it easier to rank up one unit while leaving another idle.

i think i may agree on f-16 that the C-17 doesnt look as prime as the other models, but i deffinatley disagree on blaming it on the polycount. the polys are both appropriate for game performance but high enough for detail. i believe the problem is with the skin, it looks like it was accidentally made at a far too low resolution and had to be stretched over the model, giving it a low-res, streched, blured, jagged look .
i think you should post an image of the C-17 naked with only the model but no skin applied, and my money says it'll look just fine.
as for the skin, i'm sure you'll later improve it. i still remember seeing the earlier stryker skins! did someone say pixelated!?
even the lowest poly models can be made to look good with high-res, high quality skins, take for example the ZH comanche, it had one of the lowest polycounts EVER SEEN! (something like 60?) and it still looked great from its superb skin. meaning you could spam a massive army and still keep gameplay running smooth. (luckily, TAOW is better than unit spamming )

hope to see either an upgraded C-17 skin or a naked C-17 model soon,
-pyro

Pyrospastiac wrote:i think i may agree on f-16 that the C-17 doesnt look as prime as the other models, but i deffinatley disagree on blaming it on the polycount. the polys are both appropriate for game performance but high enough for detail. i believe the problem is with the skin, it looks like it was accidentally made at a far too low resolution and had to be stretched over the model, giving it a low-res, streched, blured, jagged look .
i think you should post an image of the C-17 naked with only the model but no skin applied, and my money says it'll look just fine.
as for the skin, i'm sure you'll later improve it. i still remember seeing the earlier stryker skins! did someone say pixelated!?
even the lowest poly models can be made to look good with high-res, high quality skins, take for example the ZH comanche, it had one of the lowest polycounts EVER SEEN! (something like 60?) and it still looked great from its superb skin. meaning you could spam a massive army and still keep gameplay running smooth. (luckily, TAOW is better than unit spamming )

hope to see either an upgraded C-17 skin or a naked C-17 model soon,
-pyro

i don't know a lot about skinning etc. so i don't have an opinion about what the reason is...
but... Your explanation as wel as Snakes... are quite believable, so i hope that maybe we can discuss this with a experienced skinner or so....

but ty for the support pyro
and your right about the Stryker models and commanche in ZH and so

grtz