Dear returning Carmageddon fans
These last years, the CWA Board assimilated what was archived from many old Carmageddon forums, including the whole of the Official Carmageddon.com Forums.
If you wish to merge any previous account you might have had with your new or existing CWA account, don't hesitate to reach out to us !
These last years, the CWA Board assimilated what was archived from many old Carmageddon forums, including the whole of the Official Carmageddon.com Forums.
If you wish to merge any previous account you might have had with your new or existing CWA account, don't hesitate to reach out to us !
LoDs Dodge (truck) :D
LoDs Dodge (truck) :D
not a super sweet ride like AdRs Duster (Demon?) but none the less i'd like a few comments on it.
(i'd post on the TDR side but no one is there )
(i'd post on the TDR side but no one is there )
Re: LoDs Dodge (truck) :D
its not a ford you 2 timing bastard
Re: LoDs Dodge (truck) :D
LOLBuzz:
its not a ford you 2 timing bastard
ok its not a Ford, but what can i do ? The boss man said to make this Dodge and i dont want me ass kicked by the Lord of Destruction
Re: LoDs Dodge (truck) :D
Yeah! DOnt mess with me
Re: LoDs Dodge (truck) :D
Thats excellent work, very clean model! I like the engine and the underworks, good detailing.
dont really like those sporty pickup trucks.. or trucks in general, but it looks really cool. I'd download.
how long did it take you anyway?
im making a car right now and its driving me insane cause im trying to at least do a descent job for a change. all those triangles... sick!
dont really like those sporty pickup trucks.. or trucks in general, but it looks really cool. I'd download.
how long did it take you anyway?
im making a car right now and its driving me insane cause im trying to at least do a descent job for a change. all those triangles... sick!
Re: LoDs Dodge (truck) :D
Everything's cool, 'cept it has goddam 5000 polys there. I know you've spent hours making THAT detailed model and appreciate this, but that is NOT acceptable for games like Carma 2/TDR. Think, for example this Dodge and some model by ADR meet in the game - it just becomes a slide show. To make a model interesting to waste it doesn't need so much polys. What ADR builds for example is nice for high quality renderings in 3dsmax for example.
Models have to be 3000 polys maximum in my opinion!
...it just irritates me, people spend so much time and overdo with modeling, make shitty skins (cause they think an OK skin is fine with so much polys already) and at the end don't spend shit for physics tweaking.
I never tried any of your models CADSter, but ADRs' examples are enough for me. I don't want you to follow his way in doing models for games. But you decide for yourself, it's just my opinion.
Models have to be 3000 polys maximum in my opinion!
...it just irritates me, people spend so much time and overdo with modeling, make shitty skins (cause they think an OK skin is fine with so much polys already) and at the end don't spend shit for physics tweaking.
I never tried any of your models CADSter, but ADRs' examples are enough for me. I don't want you to follow his way in doing models for games. But you decide for yourself, it's just my opinion.
Re: LoDs Dodge (truck) :D
thanks for the reply guys. man if id known you like my stuff this much, id post more often (i just love the abuse )
@autopilot, i got a total of about 8 hours in it. a little here a little there and its done. most of my time is spend on skinning.
@booze, what system do you run ? if its that bad, i say we at CWA chip in and help boose with his lack of horsepower. maybe we could chip in and get you a geforce3 or 4mx
... after all, Christmas is coming
TDR really runs pretty good with 4K to 5k face cars. Ive argued with Beroc over Level of Detail and he has prooved that using it makes really no difference in TDR, so the faces that would be in detail level 1 and detail level 2 are now incorporated into the main model and it does fine.
load the dart (Da Dart) and tell me your frame rates. you should not take a bad hit. the car is 4300+/- (i forget actual polycount) and it does really well on my daughters P2 400. Fueler was made along the lines of the OEM cars (2200 faces i think), but its no where near as fun to race as say .... blood. AdR has 'real' expensive stuff (some well over 6 thousand polygons) but his models are detailed to the max, and this detail cost. Ive spoke with AdR on the reason, and we both agree that if the game engine can handle it... poly it to the max.
i cant speak for him, but if i was limited to making a 1500 face cars, i would not as interested in making them. But LoD is here to make cool stuff for all, so if an upgrade on your box is out, we will see about keeping the polycount within reason (3k is too low, how about 4k ??? )
@autopilot, i got a total of about 8 hours in it. a little here a little there and its done. most of my time is spend on skinning.
@booze, what system do you run ? if its that bad, i say we at CWA chip in and help boose with his lack of horsepower. maybe we could chip in and get you a geforce3 or 4mx
... after all, Christmas is coming
TDR really runs pretty good with 4K to 5k face cars. Ive argued with Beroc over Level of Detail and he has prooved that using it makes really no difference in TDR, so the faces that would be in detail level 1 and detail level 2 are now incorporated into the main model and it does fine.
load the dart (Da Dart) and tell me your frame rates. you should not take a bad hit. the car is 4300+/- (i forget actual polycount) and it does really well on my daughters P2 400. Fueler was made along the lines of the OEM cars (2200 faces i think), but its no where near as fun to race as say .... blood. AdR has 'real' expensive stuff (some well over 6 thousand polygons) but his models are detailed to the max, and this detail cost. Ive spoke with AdR on the reason, and we both agree that if the game engine can handle it... poly it to the max.
i cant speak for him, but if i was limited to making a 1500 face cars, i would not as interested in making them. But LoD is here to make cool stuff for all, so if an upgrade on your box is out, we will see about keeping the polycount within reason (3k is too low, how about 4k ??? )
Re: LoDs Dodge (truck) :D
oh yes, the old "too high poly" whining... It's been a while since I last heard of it. Like CADster said, if we had a limit of 1500 (for example), we won't be interested at all. I have what could be considered a low-end system (PII 350, 128mb, Voodoo3 PCI), as I mentioned so many times, even so, my polycount "standard" is around 5k or 6k. So is not like I don't care about limits, is just that I do this as a hobby, not thinking of gameplay, just of having a car I like the way I like it on a game, that's all. If you like it, download it, if you don't, keep using the original cars :P
One thing I always have in mind is not to have any useless polygons on the car, that means, distributing them wisely, I think that's the base of any good model.
One thing I always have in mind is not to have any useless polygons on the car, that means, distributing them wisely, I think that's the base of any good model.
Re: LoDs Dodge (truck) :D
I used to think the same about high polycounts, but when I was making that Riced Crown it got it bit high, and it did slow the game down a bit, but I just reduced the size of some of the textures and smooth as silk! 5-6k cars are fine aslong as you keep the texture size down, 128x128 maximum you do not need textures bigger than this, especial since C2 runs at fairly low res.
Re: LoDs Dodge (truck) :D
there ya go, less than 4200, smooth, round car:Boose:
Real art of game modeling is building a conservatively low polygon model but make it look real smooth!
[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Boose ]
http://tb.polygonized.com/Speedworks/im ... Combat.jpg
For that kind of game is worth to keep a low polycount in mind when modeling a car for it, 'cause is not worth to put a lot of detail on the car interior, chassis or engine. That's not the case of carma, I like to see everything like it should look like, 'cause you can get close and personal with the car unlike other games.
Why I don't care about gameplay? 'cause I often play with one or two car, 4 opponents as much. Btw, try it with a 3dfx card, there's a huge difference with D3D on C2.
Re: LoDs Dodge (truck) :D
boose you and freddy are correct. this is the biggest difference between game making and game editing. the makers have to target the largest number of systems ... the editor only targets his/her box and others can (AND DO) suffer because of this.
I have not been on TDR that long and im still wanting to see its limits (much to the anger of Beroc ). Steamed did not need to be 4200 faces, nor did it need 10 wheels that turn with some complex linkage, or a detailed interior. it was done because it would be fun to play (IMO) and i wanted to see the limits of what TDR could handle (size wise, Steamed is close). Big-Dog did not need to have 22 wheels turning, nor did it need all the turret detail.. its just something i wanted to see work.
i use to be hot and heavy into revolt. most OEM cars are 400 faces, ive only made two cars that are close to that number (Go-Va at 620 is one of them). but i grew tired of capping cars at 800 faces and having only one 256 map to work with.
here is a typical example -
complete car is under 600 faces (wheels are 106 each) and it all sits on one 256 map.... ugggg.
revolt came out in 99 and at that time moving 8 3000 face cars would of been a slide show. todays computer will eat that up.
At my work i have to make stuff low poly and i have to use little texture space.... its really work to me because i would want to add a 100 faces here or there, or give it another 256 map to make it look ten times better, but i cant. i have a cap and i must make the object within that cap.
But with these add-on cars i can do whatever i want, i only revise it if the game will not load. Take Da-Dart .. it runs 11 256 maps, all of that could of gone on one 512, but i wanted to see how many maps the engine would take. was it nessary, no way, was it wanted, yes... if only by me.
ill take your request to heart, and see what can be done to find a happy medium ... after all, will you really see the headers on the ram4x4 during game play ???
[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: CADster ]
I have not been on TDR that long and im still wanting to see its limits (much to the anger of Beroc ). Steamed did not need to be 4200 faces, nor did it need 10 wheels that turn with some complex linkage, or a detailed interior. it was done because it would be fun to play (IMO) and i wanted to see the limits of what TDR could handle (size wise, Steamed is close). Big-Dog did not need to have 22 wheels turning, nor did it need all the turret detail.. its just something i wanted to see work.
i use to be hot and heavy into revolt. most OEM cars are 400 faces, ive only made two cars that are close to that number (Go-Va at 620 is one of them). but i grew tired of capping cars at 800 faces and having only one 256 map to work with.
here is a typical example -
complete car is under 600 faces (wheels are 106 each) and it all sits on one 256 map.... ugggg.
revolt came out in 99 and at that time moving 8 3000 face cars would of been a slide show. todays computer will eat that up.
At my work i have to make stuff low poly and i have to use little texture space.... its really work to me because i would want to add a 100 faces here or there, or give it another 256 map to make it look ten times better, but i cant. i have a cap and i must make the object within that cap.
But with these add-on cars i can do whatever i want, i only revise it if the game will not load. Take Da-Dart .. it runs 11 256 maps, all of that could of gone on one 512, but i wanted to see how many maps the engine would take. was it nessary, no way, was it wanted, yes... if only by me.
ill take your request to heart, and see what can be done to find a happy medium ... after all, will you really see the headers on the ram4x4 during game play ???
[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: CADster ]
- DeathChamberNo9
- mechanic
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2002 4:00 pm
Re: LoDs Dodge (truck) :D
I have only one problem with complex models (ADR's in particular) When they slam into an object at high speeds and split in half, I get my ass kicked back to windows. Every time, with no exceptions. Opponent or not, every fucking time. I live with it though..
I'm considering throwing my Voodoo 3000 in this here pc, but its not mine, and if I fuck it up doing so I'm gonna have to pay for this pile of horse shit.
I'm considering throwing my Voodoo 3000 in this here pc, but its not mine, and if I fuck it up doing so I'm gonna have to pay for this pile of horse shit.
Re: LoDs Dodge (truck) :D
thats the bbox not the polys
Re: LoDs Dodge (truck) :D
to ADR:
The model is very nice! Better than 7k, but still too much, the limit has to be around 3500-4000 polys depending on my personal let's say "research". I guess that polycount is just right for.
I'd say in case of carma it is also not worth to put a lot of detail on the interior, engine and other driveline places. Interior especialy. I would hardly dig that uber detailed gear shifter which contains sitloads of polys, because i definetly won't see it and definetly won't give it deserved appreciation to the detail of the shifter - simply because i don't need/want to see detail at that place and simply because i don't care if it is there or not. AND carmageddon is not that realistic in its crash physics to make the models that real. There is simply no need in detail of the motor, because it still won't be crashed the real way.
I'm still trying to talk you in to making carmageddon models, not highly detailed ones. They just don't suit the game in technical way.
Not so long ago i began liking TDR, because i understood people got used to that crash simulation in C2 and everyone (me for example) were waiting for that crash physics sequel, instead we got TDR. And TDR is what carmageddon ment to be, by the price of that physics. But that's just a thought on another theeme.
Try to play with more than 4 opponents, just to feel the C2 global mayhem. You'll see for yourself what it is about. And try to use only your models. I would ride on your cars with pleasure if only it wouldn't make the game UNPLAYABLE.
Moreover, try it on D3D, since most of people use this rendering api and glide is dead for long now.
to CADSter:
Ofcourse every game has to be explored and that's the way to do it - hitting it to its limits and than finding the golden middle. Will be looking forward to your future creations!
to DeathChamberNo9:
May be i'm old and my memory is weak, but as far as i knew this problem persists only if the bounding box on specific model is not setup correctly, it has nothing to do with your system specifications.
[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Boose ]
The model is very nice! Better than 7k, but still too much, the limit has to be around 3500-4000 polys depending on my personal let's say "research". I guess that polycount is just right for.
I'd say in case of carma it is also not worth to put a lot of detail on the interior, engine and other driveline places. Interior especialy. I would hardly dig that uber detailed gear shifter which contains sitloads of polys, because i definetly won't see it and definetly won't give it deserved appreciation to the detail of the shifter - simply because i don't need/want to see detail at that place and simply because i don't care if it is there or not. AND carmageddon is not that realistic in its crash physics to make the models that real. There is simply no need in detail of the motor, because it still won't be crashed the real way.
I'm still trying to talk you in to making carmageddon models, not highly detailed ones. They just don't suit the game in technical way.
Not so long ago i began liking TDR, because i understood people got used to that crash simulation in C2 and everyone (me for example) were waiting for that crash physics sequel, instead we got TDR. And TDR is what carmageddon ment to be, by the price of that physics. But that's just a thought on another theeme.
Try to play with more than 4 opponents, just to feel the C2 global mayhem. You'll see for yourself what it is about. And try to use only your models. I would ride on your cars with pleasure if only it wouldn't make the game UNPLAYABLE.
Moreover, try it on D3D, since most of people use this rendering api and glide is dead for long now.
to CADSter:
Ofcourse every game has to be explored and that's the way to do it - hitting it to its limits and than finding the golden middle. Will be looking forward to your future creations!
to DeathChamberNo9:
May be i'm old and my memory is weak, but as far as i knew this problem persists only if the bounding box on specific model is not setup correctly, it has nothing to do with your system specifications.
[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Boose ]
- Beroc-Lord of Destruction
- road raged psycho
- Posts: 1470
- Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2001 5:00 pm
- Location: here
- Contact:
Re: LoDs Dodge (truck) :D
Heh... much to the chagrin of CADster.... I have been the biggest opponent of High poly models.... They generally cause TDR to crash. I hate that tremendously.... so I, Myself have been looking for that "Magical number"... which... to me is exactly around what Boose is saying... 3.5-4k polys does very nicely... TDR will crash when you hit an object real hard with a high poly model... and.. yeah.. I live with it... cause they look cool.... But if it is the poly count that causes it.... then that is where the problem needs to be resolved... not that I am saying eveyrone should follow some rule... but to me... the fun of playing a car I made in tdr is all physics, speed and shape.... If the car looks cool... and drives fast... but craps the computer cause it was made incorrectly, well I don't know if that is worth it. However... if it looks cool... and drives fast.. and doesn't crash the machine... well... that's even better....
So... I tell CADster all the time... don't kill my machine.... I do the physics for LOD, for the most part... and I test the hell out of the cars.... most of the higher poly ones are a little buggy... As I have been finding that "Magic number", I have been noticing that stability is becoming better.
So yeah... I like to play... not load.....
So... I tell CADster all the time... don't kill my machine.... I do the physics for LOD, for the most part... and I test the hell out of the cars.... most of the higher poly ones are a little buggy... As I have been finding that "Magic number", I have been noticing that stability is becoming better.
So yeah... I like to play... not load.....
Beroc-Lord of Destruction
Re: LoDs Dodge (truck) :D
To ADR:
ok, if you don't care about gamplay i have nothing to say.
To CADster:
Believe me or not i wouldn't start that if i would be running a slow machine. It's 1.5ghz, GeForce 3, gig of ram. Is that slow nowaydays? Say, 3 ADRs' cars meet in game on one screen, each is around 6-7k polys, what that makes it? 18-21k of polys and that is for ADRs' cars (+ textures) only, not to count other 3-4 standard or low poly vehicles that are near all this, plus evinronment with peds. You think game will still run smooth? If you like it that way, you're the boss.
I gisagree about "fun per polygon" politics here. Model doesn't not need to be high polygon to be fun to drive and that looks really good. Without hundreds of those polygons that can be replaced with a bit more detailed texture (but NOT bigger texture!!!). And main fun factor is physics here, including a decent bounding box.
There was a talk tho that C2 handles polygons better than textures, so that has to be balanced.
"...and we both agree that if the game engine can handle it... poly it to the max." - and does it really can handle it? Perhaps, but is it (the game, the GAME, not the active model) playable (smooth and nice with acceptable fps)?
Real art of game modeling is building a conservatively low polygon model but make it look real smooth!
good examples: models built by Ravage, Econobrick, CWR, CoffeyCup.
bad example: for god's sake who the hell needs that much faces on an engine with that fat ass textures?!
To Be short:
LOD does really make damn great stuff (haven't seen anything in ages that good, cept Econo, as an intact modeler) and the crew is awesome! But try to keep it lower and balanced on polygons/textures if you want it playable.
[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Boose ]
ok, if you don't care about gamplay i have nothing to say.
To CADster:
Believe me or not i wouldn't start that if i would be running a slow machine. It's 1.5ghz, GeForce 3, gig of ram. Is that slow nowaydays? Say, 3 ADRs' cars meet in game on one screen, each is around 6-7k polys, what that makes it? 18-21k of polys and that is for ADRs' cars (+ textures) only, not to count other 3-4 standard or low poly vehicles that are near all this, plus evinronment with peds. You think game will still run smooth? If you like it that way, you're the boss.
I gisagree about "fun per polygon" politics here. Model doesn't not need to be high polygon to be fun to drive and that looks really good. Without hundreds of those polygons that can be replaced with a bit more detailed texture (but NOT bigger texture!!!). And main fun factor is physics here, including a decent bounding box.
There was a talk tho that C2 handles polygons better than textures, so that has to be balanced.
"...and we both agree that if the game engine can handle it... poly it to the max." - and does it really can handle it? Perhaps, but is it (the game, the GAME, not the active model) playable (smooth and nice with acceptable fps)?
Real art of game modeling is building a conservatively low polygon model but make it look real smooth!
good examples: models built by Ravage, Econobrick, CWR, CoffeyCup.
bad example: for god's sake who the hell needs that much faces on an engine with that fat ass textures?!
To Be short:
LOD does really make damn great stuff (haven't seen anything in ages that good, cept Econo, as an intact modeler) and the crew is awesome! But try to keep it lower and balanced on polygons/textures if you want it playable.
[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Boose ]
Re: LoDs Dodge (truck) :D
Boose, didn't you make some semi with an ungoldly high count? (or was I dizrunk and dreaming) (been ages ago)
Re: LoDs Dodge (truck) :D
I did and not just some Semi, but a Hard_Truck (there's a thread about its physics a bit lower). Yes, it was 3000 polys. Without a driver, cause 3k is already too much. Was my 2nd model.
...anyways, what's your point here Noodlez?
...anyways, what's your point here Noodlez?
Re: LoDs Dodge (truck) :D
Oh right, I thought it was higher, and umz I don't know
/me slips out the back door.....
/me slips out the back door.....
Re: LoDs Dodge (truck) :D
to C2 Scientist:
Why? No one forgot simple models. They have to be and that's a rule, everyone knows that, so we just don't bring this theeme up. It's about complex models.
BTW, those are some nice low poly cars you have there!
Why? No one forgot simple models. They have to be and that's a rule, everyone knows that, so we just don't bring this theeme up. It's about complex models.
BTW, those are some nice low poly cars you have there!
- C2 Scientist
- jaywalker
- Posts: 2059
- Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2002 5:00 pm
- Location: Finland
- Contact:
Re: LoDs Dodge (truck) :D
Um, now you're forgetting the simple models entirely... anyone remember this?
Looks like familiar? Then you might remember the ridiculous comments of it too:
- "looks ugly"
- "it's boring to make simple model after the detailed car"
About the ugly thing: simple models are only couple of pixels on the screen
And about the boring thing: simple model is *very* fast to make if the actual car is already done.
But that's enough, because it looks like simple models aren't very popular. I like them anyway.
And, an (extreme) example of the "good skin - low polys"-thing: (very low poly)
This too:
This is probably gonna spawn some flames, but I don't care. These were at least MY opinions.
Looks like familiar? Then you might remember the ridiculous comments of it too:
- "looks ugly"
- "it's boring to make simple model after the detailed car"
About the ugly thing: simple models are only couple of pixels on the screen
And about the boring thing: simple model is *very* fast to make if the actual car is already done.
But that's enough, because it looks like simple models aren't very popular. I like them anyway.
And, an (extreme) example of the "good skin - low polys"-thing: (very low poly)
This too:
This is probably gonna spawn some flames, but I don't care. These were at least MY opinions.
- C2 Scientist
- jaywalker
- Posts: 2059
- Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2002 5:00 pm
- Location: Finland
- Contact:
Re: LoDs Dodge (truck) :D
Some car makers have been breaking that rule very often... but you are right.Boose:
No one forgot simple models. They have to be and that's a rule, everyone knows that --
Re: LoDs Dodge (truck) :D
John Carmack on poly-count of doom3 character models:
(or is this a bad example because of the per-pixel lighting and superbumpmapping?)
http://www.doomworld.com/shots/doom3_081502/1.jpg
[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: Aaron ]
And I think it's safe to say that this model is somewhere in the middle of that count. If you look at the silhuette of the model, you'll notice some really jagged angles, but the crazy hires textures don't stop this mofo from looking like it's about to shatter your computer screen...The game characters are between 2000 and 6000 polygons.
(or is this a bad example because of the per-pixel lighting and superbumpmapping?)
http://www.doomworld.com/shots/doom3_081502/1.jpg
[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: Aaron ]
What's Carmageddon?
Check who’s online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 229 guests