View Thread
Point Defense Systems » Point Defense Systems Remastered Project » Point Defense Systems 2 R&D Lab
 Print Thread
Initial Project Concept
Warman1
The thickness of the fins can be adjusted as necessary. Strictly speaking the fins in that image are rounded and I figured that at this time we were avoiding round edges except as may be necessary.

As far as the length of the bow of the ship, what I fought (had a lot of mental back and forth on it) with there was sort of one of the discrepancies between the silhouette and the drawing itself. The silhouette implies that the tip of this thing gets to an almost knife-edge point taking forever to get there. But the image itself does not imply that sort of distance or 'sharpness'. Come to a point, yes, but not quite stiletto grade. As it is, I made the bow take up the entire front half of the ship (inclusive of the engine nozzle fins).

One of the additional parts I've been slightly combating myself over is to what extent I need to interpret the 'texture' of that drawing as stuff for the model to carry vs the artwork. The round dome on the side of the engine nacelles (which, depending on how much we care about poly counts can be round or more hex), and the front panels on the nacellels, those definitely are needed. The side to the bridge? (which I assume is right above the spinal mount gun in the tip) Necessary. The attitude rockets at the front, and the reverse rockets on the nacelles? Less certain. I can go as poly heavy as people want though. >Grin

When you say 'space between ship panels' are you meaning in the texture layers for denoting like 'here is a single plate of hull material and where it joins to adjacent plates'?
 
Ironwatsas
I think what he's saying is the texture just needs to be scaled so it looks the proper size for a small destroyer/very large frigate.

Still though, the model looks a bit scrawny compared to the concept, I'll be honest. I'd recommend extending the keel downward relative to the top flat bit and giving the prow a bit more substance.
 
Warman1
Hmmm. I can try that, though given the description of it being a "small Taiidani destroyer" at the moment I've maintained (minus the engine nacelle fins) the ship being roughly about 2/3 the height and length of the HW2 Hiigaran destroyer. In my opinion this software is notorious for giving incorrect impressions of scale, which is amusing because it is one of the premiere engineering CAD software packages. I can make the prow 'thicker' but you end up sacrificing either the pointed tip (it gets wider at the tip) or the relative size.

When I get home I'll see about putting it next to the destroyer so we can compare it to other things as opposed to a vacuum. Unfortunately, given the way that the CAD program works, making the angled part of the ship (beneath the 'flat band' around the top flat deck) 'taller' pretty much requires reworking about 70% of the model. I think systems more meant for graphics modeling let you do things like grab a vertex/point and drag it to stretch out shapes, but in this program you have to put in specific sizes and relations to other parts. Sometimes if you change something, it cascades through the relations and it comes out great. Other times it is a cascade of failures. Considering how the arbitrary plane system seems to work, I'm inclined to believe it will come out the latter. Now, this isn't terrible because all of the hard work of figuring out the 'process' is done, it basically just entails going back through and redoing each aspect. "Yes this point doesn't exist anymore, because it moved over here. Now this cut needs to be this depth instead of that depth." So a series of modifications rather than generation.

If after the size comparison shot it's decided to still beef up the prow I'll go ahead and do it. ^^
 
carl
You could shoot it to someone with wings 3d or get that yourself, (it's free), and use that to modify it. I'd offer but i'm still working on the taidanni write up plus getting my current PC ready for the upgrade, (backing data up so i can disconnect a load of drives plus other stuff), whilst digging through the remastered lua files
 
Sun Tzu
Wings3d is very limited compared to 3ds Max, which is not very expensive if you're a student or teacher (who is not? ^^).

Reading GBX's today posts on their forum brings bad news: if I understand correctly they will not release any tool to re-rig HWR HODs and decrypting HODs will be lossy (on top of being frowned upon by GBX).
 
carl
Care to link to the post for us. Because if true that basically kills modding for stuff like PDS dead. Hell it kills any TC's and most major edits dead. If we can't get new models in game at remastered quality we basically can't do anything but edit LUA's.
 
EatThePath
The implication I take from GBX is not that extracting from hods is lossy, but rather that importing is. That implies that their tools take rawer source files and produce compressed or otherwise processed output files, and so repeated export and import will result in an inevitable loss in quality. Like repeatedly editing and re-encoding an .mp3 or .jpg file. Them frowning on it appears to at least in part be because it's fundamentally bad practice, which it is. There are other possible motivations, but speculation along those lines seems like it could poison their fledgling attempts to work with the modding community, so I'd rather refrain from it.
AKA Siber
 
Sun Tzu
Here is the link: http://forums.gearboxsoftware.com/t/for-those-who-havent-noticed-yet-big-decrypter/113186/36
 
carl
Thanks though someone over at Rn beat you to it Pfft. As noted over there it sounds more like they won;t help rather than they'll actively stop us. Besides like someone else pointed out it's going to make correcting or altering any aspect of an existing project a complete pain in the ass the way they're setting up. Quite aside from how it impacts mods using existing assets it just flat out makes hardpointing a complete pain in the ass.
 
Sun Tzu
@warman1 - Here is the poly budget given by GBX :

Quote

I'd ballpark it at 2-2.5k for scouts through frigates, 3k for frigates, 5-6k for capitals, motherships start at 10k. We don't use LODs.

Plenty enough for nice details Grin
 
Sun Tzu
I am starting to "remaster" a ship to see what is concretely involved in the workflow. Preferably a small one like the HSF. Does anyone know who created the HSF?
 
Sun Tzu
Alright I am answering my own post, which is a sign that either my question was idiot or people lack some proper motivation Grin.

So I found that James O'Donnell was the creator of the HSF/Avenger. Does anybody know how to contact him?
 
Ironwatsas
Sadly I don't. He was probably before my time. I'll search around and see if I can get in touch in some way.
 
Ironwatsas
I've been thinking about gameplay dynamics a bit; the general consensus seems to be that the 'best' version of PDS was version 7.3.1. v11 had some things going for it but there were some major drawbacks that cropped up.

What I was thinking was we revert to the PDS 7 era's general levels of hitpoints, ranges, and survivability of individual ships, but with v11's physics models (I.E. larger ships need a bit more 'get up and go' than PDS 7 had, without significantly altering their top speed). Ships in v11 seemed much squishier than in v7, and tended to fly off into the yonder and get themselves killed much easier.

Excessive beam-spamming (PDS 7's ICAs) should be toned down both for performance's sake, because it looked weird, and due to lore changes (heat dissipation). Hiigaran Blade fighters, Gunships, and Vaygr Pioneers will not be equipped with plasma repeaters (though HWC energy cannons might make a comeback, we'll need to think about that).

Ship naming and designations will be reverted back to their PDS v6/v7 identities. There seemed to be quite a bit of a gap in designations and a few continuity errors in nomenclature when making the jump to v11. The main thing here is, ship names should match up with the custom voice acting (I.E. "Defiance" and not "Deliverance"). We'll probably want to do new VOs as well, trying to have some sort of continuity with what we already have.

Another thing I'd like to consider: Ship Eras.

PDS was supposed to represent an "arms race" going from v1 through v11, with ships changing drastically as wartime conditions necessitated. Since we're going backwards and forwards and all over the place with chronology here, here is what I suggest. Create a system wherein there are different selections of ships based on their historical era (I.E. pre-Vaygr War, Ascension era/HW2 campaign, post-War, etc. Probably summed up as 1G, 2G, 3G, and so on). SW Warlords had a similar system in skirmish mode where you could select, for instance, Clone Wars era ships, A new hope, Return of the jedi, etc.

That will allow for a lot of alternate configurations and intermediary designs in the same mod architecture, to avoid continuity errors, and to explore a lot of facets that PDS classic overlooked, hopefully.

First and foremost is, of course, we get a basic Hiigaran and Vaygr lineup going with what we already have, and get the physics sorted out. Then we move on to the cool stuff.
 
yasotay
Greetings Iron!

It is good to see that PDS is rising from its long slumbers! I agree with you that PDS 7 was the best version of the mod. I have most of the PDS versions from PDS 4 through PDS 11 I think along with a lot of the documentation that we developed. Sure hope to see my beloved Liir Hra light cruiser and Shamshiir corvette grace my screen again.

Yas
I am ancient
 
Typhoone
I am also preferential towards the PDS 7-series. I agree with the greater theme of 'arms race' and evolution in multi-role ship designs. Within a skirmish, it provided a good match balance where you start out with low-tech, role-specialized units and over the course of the match higher tier units trended towards being multi-role, and doubling in firepower/armor. I forsee squadrons of late-game multi-role advanced strikecraft have more 'staying power' and most importantly require less micro-management than early-game 'heavy bombers' but the early-game strikecraft should always fulfill a tactical need the player can exploit.

Out-tiering ships with too much of an arms race mentality makes early game a chore - work that needs to be done - to get to late-game fun and gameplay. In planning for the 'life-cycle' of a match, I hope that PDS:RM combines evolution of units to becoming more multi-role and more-powerful, but maintaining the opportunity for early-game units to not be obsolete from a gameplay or tactical perspective. I'm not sure how to achieve this, but food for thought in the planning process.
 
Jump to Forum