C3-class cargo ship

[Rosomaha]

C3-class cargo ship (SH5-edition)

https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=1302&pictureid=11138


The model I once made for SH4, in turn was remade from the SH3 unit. And now in SH5. The SH5-files of the NAMC_Rawalpindi unit were used as the "bones-donor". GR2-files underwent a major redesign, which resulted in a complete independent SH5-unit.

Model: made up of 2 parts: hull-1/2.

Damage-Model: Damage architecture is based on Liberty/Victory and similar Cargo typ. I used only native types of "Zones" stock SH5 (v1.2.0). I understand that they are imperfect, and I do not like the SH5-“fireworks” either, but it was important to create a unit that is completely consistent with SH5, so everything in it is identical to the native units and is made in their image and likeness. But it is not difficult for any to change in GoblinEditorApp for every taste, color, mod.
Insert/replace in mods: I remember that in mega-mods there was already NKC3 based on .dat-files and SH3-4 architecture https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=1302&pictureid=11143, so I tried to save the main unit tags : NKC3/C3Cargo for soft adaptation to mods.

Weapons/eqp: the Guns are installed by me approximately, with the replacement of cargo boxes by time periods, you can edit more accurately.

I have experienced the ship in the ocean quite a bit, of course, may be bugs and fixes, so test and feedback is welcome.

NKC3 is registered in 2 countries: American, British. But you can easily add to any other countries in the Roster folder.

Added objects: weapons platforms and cargo elements for mutual substitution at an Early War. Objects and their registration in the equipment of the ship:

https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=1302&pictureid=11137

Mod: Archive with folder for JSGME/ MODS.

Remember to add a name to Silent Hunter 5\data\Poster\ Names.cfg if you decide to add NKC 3 to your mod build.

If you want to try right now NKC3 in gigamodes where NKC3 vSH3 is already present-replace the old folder completely, i.e. deleting all old files, without leaving tails. Also note the files in \data\Roster.

https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=1302&pictureid=11141

https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=1302&pictureid=11142

Screenshots there: (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2675982&postcount=38)

Used Software: Autodesk 3ds Max, Adobe Photoshop, GR2EditorViewer v.1.1.453/1.1.459.1, Hex Workshop, GoblinEditor, S3D-CFG and other.
..................................................


DOWNLOAD (https://www.mediafire.com/file/czfjfq7c11bdh33/NKC3.zip/file)

(UPDATED 06-09-2020)

[GrenSo]

Looks nice!

[kapuhy]

Great job :up:

I'm at work at the moment, but I'll check it out later and post some feedback.

[vdr1981]

She looks beautiful! :up::up::up:

[kapuhy]

@Rosomaha,

Some feedback:

- I like the damage model, it may just use native zones but the ship behaves very believably when hit: listing, breaking up and sinking in a way one would expect from a ship this size. Amazing job!

- Since you gave it the same class name as existing dat version in TWoS, it works right out of the box in TWoS after just substituting your Sea/NKC3 folder for TWoS one.
In stock game, you would probably also need to add modified Names.txt as this file is not in your download and stock Names.txt don't contain this ship.

- If you'd like your ship to support SH5 randomly generated deck cargo, I suggest to rename deck cargo bones from cfg#Y01,cfg#Y02... to cfg#K01,cfg#K02... and so on. If you do that, SH5 will recognize them as places for deck cargo and randomly assign various items (tanks, trains, cars, crates etc) without need to define them in cfg file:

https://i.imgur.com/F5Sql3j.jpg

[Jeff-Groves]

Nice work!
:salute:

[Rosomaha]

Hi, kapuhy. Thank you for the good feedback!

FX-model: To be honest, half of the FX_XX_DummyXX positions are not finished, there were too many of Them in the source file and I was tired of coordinating them according to the places where the new model matches. Perhaps later I will finish and update _FX. GR2.

- Since you gave it the same class name as existing dat version in TWoS, it works right out of the box in TWoS after just substituting your Sea/NKC3 folder for TWoS one...
This is good news, I counted on it. I guess that in stock (vanilla) SH5 probably almost no one plays now. The ship will naturally go into any G-Mod/s, and I try to make this process as simple as possible.

Names: Yes. I intentionally did not add Names.txt, in other mods my Names.txt - anyway there change / add.
I practically do not play the game. I'm in the process of creating units / mod. But I try to do this process in a pure (vanil) game environment - it’s like “experiments in a sterile environment” in order to exclude the influence of possible extra acquired errors. - just It tells why I work on the pure (vanil) version.)

By the way, I see a lot of TWoS-threads, and I don’t know which of them people mostly play. Which version of TWoS is the most current right now?

- If you'd like your ship to support SH5 randomly generated deck cargo, I suggest to rename deck cargo bones from cfg#Y01,cfg#Y02... to cfg#K01,cfg#K02... and so on. If you do that, SH5 will recognize them as places for deck cargo and randomly assign various items (tanks, trains, cars, crates etc) without need to define them in cfg file:
:yeah: Good. As I understand it, the generation of cfg # K0X cargo does not occur in the Museum, but the cargo will appear in the Campaign. Does it happen in Single Missions?

[Texas Red]

Thank you for the mod! Works well with The Wolves of Steel mega mod!

Sank my first C3-Cargo yesterday, enough for me to complete the "South Western Approaches" mission :yeah:


I really appreciate your hard work, Rosomaha.

[kapuhy]

By the way, I see a lot of TWoS-threads, and I don’t know which of them people mostly play. Which version of TWoS is the most current right now?

Most recent version is 2.2.18 for which you'll find a download link here:

https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2669598&postcount=13129

:yeah: Good. As I understand it, the generation of cfg # K0X cargo does not occur in the Museum, but the cargo will appear in the Campaign. Does it happen in Single Missions?

As far as I understand it, in campaign they are generated in the process of generating convoy groups. In single missions, they need to be defined in Mission Editor during mission creation. If you want to test them, make a single mission with just player's U-boat and your cargo ship and select "external cargo" type in cargo ship's properties. If you then play this mission, ship will carry the cargo type you defined (that's exactly how I took screenshots above).

[gap]

Well done Rosomaha!

Thank you for sharing your great work with the community :yeah:

[iambecomelife]

Nice job. The textures are much better than the standard C3 from SHIII.

[gap]

Nice job. The textures are much better than the standard C3 from SHIII.

I agree, rosomaha made a great job with those textures, though I think that the pre-rendered shadows could be a bit better.

[Jeff-Groves]

I go with what the Dev's told me about how to do the AO.
Pretty sure I've disclosed that info in the past but can do so again if needed.

[gap]

I go with what the Dev's told me about how to do the AO.
Pretty sure I've disclosed that info in the past but can do so again if needed.

Hi Jeff,

If memory serves you once pointed me to Autodesk Softimage, which is the tool I always use for AO map baking BTW. Is there anything else we should be aware of? :)

[Jeff-Groves]

What I was told by the Dev's

":One of the problems we encountered while doing this was the fact that generating automatic uv’s in max is poor and so is the map rendering(AO and others) . Mapping the ships two times(once for AO and once for Diff) was not an option for us. XSI is doing a great job on generating automatic uv’s and AO.
The workflow we used for the ships from SH5 :
-modeling in max
-exporting it to Softimage XSI(use the format ’.obj’)
-generating UV’s in XSI (is called ‘unique uv’s’)
-rendering AO (in XSI)
-exporting it to max(use the format ’.obj’)
-mapping the diffuse texture on channel 1 , but before mapping the diff you need to copy the AO uv’s channel on channel 2
This procedure can be time consuming since you will have to map every single identical piece on the ship(when mapping diffuse). You cannot delete a single polygon(while mapping diff) and duplicate a mapped one instead because every single polygon has his own mapping coordinates for AO.

You can also use this method, which is faster:
-modeling in max
-mapping the diffuse channel in max(channel 1)
-exporting it to XSI(use the format ’.obj’)
-generating uv’s for AO (channel 1 is already mapped for diffuse, make sure you use channel 2)
-rendering AO (make sure you select uv channel 2 for geberating AO)
-this part is a bit harder. The ‘.obj’ won’t export 2 uv channels . In order to export the object back to max with both uv channels you need to export the object from XSI twice(use ‘.obj’). The first time with the uv’s used for diffuse on channel 1, and the second export you are going to make is with the uv’s for AO on channel 1. In XSI you can move the uv’s from channel 2 to channel 1 by deleting channel 1.
So now you have 2 obj files , one mapped for diff and the other one mapped for AO
-import the the .obj file mapped for diff back in max
-import the the .obj file mapped for AO back in max
-save the uv channel of the object mapped for AO and copy it to the second uv channel of the object mapped for diff."

Now the Devs exported in the GR2 format so you skip the import back into Max.

[vdr1981]

Rosomaha (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/member.php?u=302164) can you please tell which tool you were using to create files NKC3_ClassShips.fx and NKC3_ClassShips_FX.dsd? S3D maybe? I had some CTD problems with new C-3 moddel in my museum rendering test. I've re-saved mentioned files in goblin editor and CTDs are gone...:yep: This is also a note for anyone who use this ship in custom modlists...


BTW, the new model looks truly gorgeous.


P.S.
Do I have the permission to add this ship to TWoS ?
I can also upload here C3 files with some tweaks, including mentioned CTD fixes, few damage zones tweaks for better listing effects ect.

[Jeff-Groves]

NKC3_ClassShips.fx does have the S3D information listed in the AuthorInfo section.
NKC3_ClassShips_FX.dsd does not.

[gap]

NKC3_ClassShips.fx does have the S3D information listed in the AuthorInfo section.
NKC3_ClassShips_FX.dsd does not.

I wonder whether the culprit for SH5 not liking binary files saved in S3d, is the AuthorInfo chunk or some other watermark that S3d adds to the files. Apparently S3d-saved files work normally but - Vecko correct me if I am wrong - they make the game much more prone to CTD's. Whatever is the problem, vdr1981's experience demonstrates a load/save in Goblin Editor removes it, so it must be something very trivial. :hmm2:

[Jeff-Groves]

I'd have to have vdr1981's files to examine in 010 to see if I can spot the problem.

I have the original files released.

It could be a problem with the cs files for S3D adapted for SH5.
:hmmm:

One can remove the whole AuthorInfo section in S3D and S3D will never 'brand' the file again.
I wonder if that section is removed will Goblin throw a fit?

NKC3_ClassShips_FX.dsd only lists RSMaH as the Author.
The description where you would find Goblin or S3D listed is blank.
That makes me wonder what was used to edit that file?

[vdr1981]

I'd have to have vdr1981's files to examine in 010 to see if I can spot the problem.

I have the original files released.

It could be a problem with the cs files for S3D adapted for SH5.
:hmmm:

One can remove the whole AuthorInfo section in S3D and S3D will never 'brand' the file again.
I wonder if that section is removed will Goblin throw a fit?

NKC3_ClassShips_FX.dsd only lists RSMaH as the Author.
The description where you would find Goblin or S3D listed is blank.
That makes me wonder what was used to edit that file?
Here are the edited files ...http://www.mediafire.com/file/sttmuk8ivqdibq8/Desktop.rar/file

[Jeff-Groves]

Got them Thanks!
I'll see what is going on and report back.
:salute:

[Rosomaha]

Hi guys. I had a short break.

Rosomaha (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/member.php?u=302164) can you please tell which tool you were using to create files NKC3_ClassShips.fx and NKC3_ClassShips_FX.dsd? S3D maybe? I had some CTD problems with new C-3 moddel in my museum rendering test. I've re-saved mentioned files in goblin editor and CTDs are gone...:yep: This is also a note for anyone who use this ship in custom modlists...

Hi, @ vdr1981. I can no longer remember and say exactly which file in which program made the last save. I edited them all many times, both in GoblinEditorApp and in S3D with own Configurator add-on, for example, when creating some files I took them from other Units, emptied them and started to fill them up again for C3. When editing the specific values of individual controllers, I used S3D - it was more convenient for me to work, I was well used to S3D and not used to GoblinEditor, at the same time during the final assembly of files I opened them in GoblinEditor, looked at their general correspondence in the “Merge” mode, and if it was necessary to make corrections and save it again, but apparently not all files passed the last save in GoblinEditor.
:hmmm: Before that, I absolutely did not attach any importance to which program they should be saved, I thought they both do the same thing only in their environment, and give the same result.
So, this explains some of the points that I had - one day the ship took off СTD during destruction in a SingleMissions, while I slightly adjusted some numerical values in .sim, for example, mass, speed, displacement, etc. and the next day not a single departure - the ship is stable in the game, then again. I did not understand the relationship and dependencies of this and how changing the values could affect CTD, but it was very likely that the parameters themselves did not matter, and I just saved the files in different programs, probably when there was a save to S3D and there were crashes. Your example and guesses now open up a new perspective on this for me. Therefore, I always say that we need testers and high-quality feedback.:up: This is very interesting information, and I will not be surprised that it can even have CTD as a result, Silent Hunter has always been very moody and in the most unexpected places.

It turns out that at the end of the work it is necessary to re-save all files through GoblinEditorApp :06: - we will take this into account in the future.


P.S.
Do I have the permission to add this ship to TWoS ?

Yes of course you can.
You can also wait for the final update of NKC3 - there I am going to make changes.
So far I have put a little order in the NKC3_ClassShips_FX.GR2 file by distributing the points of fracture effects according to the model. I also deleted a couple of explosions, I think there are too many of them in the source file and there is an excess of fireworks. I think whether to delete something else.
Link who wants to try:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/kehch3wwu9idf75/NKC3_modified_file.zip/file

Destruction effects can be quickly viewed in the Museum: if in the file .zon - ColisionableObject - Hit_Points set the value = 0 - sequential destruction of the ship; if you reset the remaining values or completely remove ColisionableObject - the instantaneous catastrophic destruction of the ship. I also plan to rename cfg # Yx, as advised by @kapuhy to cfg # K0x, put the third cargo cfg # K03 on the front, borrowing the radar cell - active detection tools are still not used on vehicles in the game. And main - in the process of working, the file with “Platforme” for NKC3 will be platforms similar to the old Platforme.dat only on the basis of the GR2 file and they can be put on the GR2-model of ships without problems in rendering harmony, I've found a suitable gr-donor, and I think I can.


https://s8.hostingkartinok.com/uploads/images/2020/06/13a026335f0a6b975ca67552e76c4bea.png

I welcome @gap. I read about AO. Yes, you're right, the textures of AO, however, like everything else, are very old and were made for SH4. I am an alien for SH5), I used to dig mainly with units in SH4. There are no dynamic shadows there, so a “shadow prerender” was needed, more “bold” and there was a slightly different ship equipment. It was all more harmonious and to the point:

https://s8.hostingkartinok.com/uploads/images/2020/06/5db163db3d9683bb3c88b9cf67865eba.png
https://s8.hostingkartinok.com/uploads/images/2020/06/d243705224a668ed0a94fe231d49e417.png

In SH5 now, some parts have too much black-out shading on the deck if you mean it (?). But adding the three main Cargo in its place and adding platforms that will also change commensurate boxes in these places, I hope will improve the overall picture. Maybe, can still lighten the spots. I will not redo the UV-sweep and re-render, this is rebuilding GR2 again, this is labor costs comparable to assembling a new unit.

[gap]

I welcome @gap. I read about AO. Yes, you're right, the textures of AO, however, like everything else, are very old and were made for SH4. I am an alien for SH5), I used to dig mainly with units in SH4. There are no dynamic shadows there, so a “shadow prerender” was needed, more “bold” and there was a slightly different ship equipment. It was all more harmonious and to the point:

https://s8.hostingkartinok.com/uploads/images/2020/06/5db163db3d9683bb3c88b9cf67865eba.png
https://s8.hostingkartinok.com/uploads/images/2020/06/d243705224a668ed0a94fe231d49e417.png

In SH5 now, some parts have too much black-out shading on the deck if you mean it (?). But adding the three main Cargo in its place and adding platforms that will also change commensurate boxes in these places, I hope will improve the overall picture. Maybe, can still lighten the spots. I will not redo the UV-sweep and re-render, this is rebuilding GR2 again, this is labor costs comparable to assembling a new unit.

Hi Rosomaha,

you have made some good points, yet there is another point that you should consider: if you are planning to make external cargo nodes configurable as suggested by kapuhy, your ship is going to carry a variety cargo types of different sizes and shapes or, in some cases, no cargo at all. In most cases the pre-rendered ao shadows mapped on deck would be inappropriate to the cargo actually carried, so it would be preferable making those shadows very subtle or not having them at all.

If, as I suppose, the secondary (ambient occlusion) UV map of your units is non-overlapping, you don't need redo it, nor you need to re-import the 3D model. All is needed is re-baking the ao map based on model's geometry. As suggested by Jeff, devs used Autodesk Softimage for this task. I have always used the free version (https://www.moddb.com/downloads/autodesk-softimage-mod-tool-75) of that program and with excellent results. If you decide to give it a try I can explain to you how to calculate the ao map using the rendermap tool or, if you prefer, I can do that for you :salute:

[Demon777]

Hi guys,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but NKC3 is already in TWOS 2.2.18.
Are we going to have updated files for this ship to be replaced in /data/Sea ?

[kapuhy]

Hi guys,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but NKC3 is already in TWOS 2.2.18.
Are we going to have updated files for this ship to be replaced in /data/Sea ?

I'm using TWoS 2.2.18 and after just replacing Sea/NKC3 folder Rosomaha's ship appears in game in place of TWoS's version. I haven't experienced any CTD's, though from what vdr1981 wrote above, in certain circumstances they might happen so you might want to open and save files he mentioned in Goblin to fix it.

[Rosomaha]

@gap, thank you for offering help. But I don't think it's necessary specifically here. If the problem is only in the shadows on the deck and our don't need to rerender – it's easier to fix it in Photoshop , I've already lightened the spots. You can help later with answers to questions about sh5 modding, which I have accumulated a many). So far I’ll may just ask: what can Softimage do for our piece-production individual SH5 modding, and what can't Autodesk 3ds Max do on its own in 2020? What is the feature or profit of all this manipulation?

https://s8.hostingkartinok.com/uploads/images/2020/06/ee15641e498e971f926a0301ea721eef.png

Now I have the main question, guys, when making PlatformeGR2 I stopped and think: which way make their direction? The fact that in the old Platforme.dat ordinate axis their provisions were directed in the opposite direction from the main axis, their position is guns looks the opposite and does not match cfg napravleniem cell #, for example, from conventional weapons in the game it matches and where to watch the cell cfg # - to look and gun, and “Platformes” all looks in the opposite direction.

Well. What is the best way to do this - leave their own orientation as before in the opposite direction or turn them and make them like standard guns?

It would be possible to solve this while the assembly is in progress, It makes no difference to me, I can rotate them by turning cfg # in the opposite direction, but then it will probably be important, perhaps in the future they can be used elsewhere.

[gap]

@gap, thank you for offering help. But I don't think it's necessary specifically here. If the problem is only in the shadows on the deck and our don't need to rerender – it's easier to fix it in Photoshop , I've already lightened the spots.

Yes, I have seen your screenshot and the deck looks much better now! :up:


You can help later with answers to questions about sh5 modding, which I have accumulated a many). So far I’ll may just ask: what can Softimage do for our piece-production individual SH5 modding, and what can't Autodesk 3ds Max do on its own in 2020? What is the feature or profit of all this manipulation?

Please refer to post #15 in this thread (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2672814&postcount=15). For devs the advantage of Softimage over Max was that Softimage had better auto-UV and AO baking features. I have never used Max so I can't confirm dev's opinion. For me the advantages of using Softimage are that it has a free version, that I have learned how to use its remdermap generation tool for creating AO maps, and that with the experience learned the quality of my AO maps has become consistent with the ones of stock game.
If you are familiar with Max and you are happy with the AO maps it generates, I see no reason for switching to any other program.


Now I have the main question, guys, when making PlatformeGR2 I stopped and think: which way make their direction? The fact that in the old Platforme.dat ordinate axis their provisions were directed in the opposite direction from the main axis, their position is guns looks the opposite and does not match cfg napravleniem cell #, for example, from conventional weapons in the game it matches and where to watch the cell cfg # - to look and gun, and “Platformes” all looks in the opposite direction.

Well. What is the best way to do this - leave their own orientation as before in the opposite direction or turn them and make them like standard guns?

It would be possible to solve this while the assembly is in progress, It makes no difference to me, I can rotate them by turning cfg # in the opposite direction, but then it will probably be important, perhaps in the future they can be used elsewhere.

Maybe I a missing something, but I don't see any Platforme.GR2 in your mod. Isn't your model using stock guns? :hmm2:

In any case, in SH5 all the guns are facing the same direction, and their orientation in game is determined by the rotation of the equipment nodes they are linked to. If you plan to create new guns to be used with you C3-class freighter, my suggestion is to maintain the same orientation as stock guns, so not to create confusion in case the same guns will be used on multiple ships

One last note. I have never seen a ship ensign in front of a funnel. Usually ensigns are found near the stern of a ship, and during navigation they are often flown from the rearmost mast :yep:
:salute:

[Rosomaha]

Maybe I a missing something, but I don't see any Platforme.GR2 in your mod. Isn't your model using stock guns? :hmm2:

In any case, in SH5 all the guns are facing the same direction, and their orientation in game is determined by the rotation of the equipment nodes they are linked to. If you plan to create new guns to be used with you C3-class freighter, my suggestion is to maintain the same orientation as stock guns, so not to create confusion in case the same guns will be used on multiple ships

It work in progress. I wrote about it above, @gap.
I built the model in 3ds Max, made textures, put the entire mesh replacing the cell in ship_cargo to see how it looks in the game-it looks good, checked, but everything is useless. I can't split it up and distribute the bones as I need .:/\\!!

[gap]

It work in progress. I wrote about it above, @gap.
I built the model in 3ds Max, made textures, put the entire mesh replacing the cell in ship_cargo to see how it looks in the game-it looks good, checked, but everything is useless. I can't split it up and distribute the bones as I need .:/\\!!

I think I have got you now. You want the guns not to stick out directly from ship decks, but to be fitted on top of some raised platforms, right?
To the best of my knowledge, there are three ways to do that:


You could combine the gun platforms with hull mesh, but that's probably the trickiest method as you would be forced re-importing the hull, and that might mess your AO mapping.


If your GR2 file has still some unused meshes, you could import the platforms as individual parts, separated from the main ship hull, and you could change the parent bone settings of each gun equipment bone appropriately so that when a platform is destroyed, then gun(s) on top of it will be destroyed as well.


You could import the platforms in a separated GR2 file to be stored in the library folder and link them to your ship through equipment bones. Again, if you want a gun to be destroyed when its platform is destroyed, you should move the gun linking bones from the main unit to the platform equipment items in the library folder. Nested equipment items work perfectly in SHIII and I suppose they similarly work in SH5.


I would recommend you to stick to the latter method, as it would minimize the tweaks to be done on the main GR2 file, and it would have the advantage of making each platform configurable by date and ship class as well as any other equipment.
Whatever is your decision, you might need to duplicate some bones. Unfortunately the latest version of GR2 Editor is not the best for doing that. Its bone-cloning features are severely bugged, but you can do that using some older version of the program. Please find at the link below all the GR2 Editor versions in my own possession:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/cb609abpmobtbys/GR2EditorViewer_vv_1_1_265_1_to_1_1_453_1.7z

For now I think that's all from my part but let us know if something is unclear to you or if you need any other advise :salute:

[Rosomaha]

Why do models of ship halves after destruction sometimes stick together and penetrate each other? How to fix it? This was not the case with me in the early experiments of the NKC3 and it fell apart well, but then the ship during the experiments in the mission had a different property - at the time of destruction, its parts appeared much higher than water and fell from above, then I twisted the values in the .sim file and the parts the ships stopped “bouncing”, but apparently, this periodic “sticking together” appeared instead. This does not happen every time, but sometimes.

https://s8.hostingkartinok.com/uploads/images/2020/06/e3ed4370c3a47bd3f4aed7ea7c31da0a.png

Another point: holes - 3d_damage on ships from weapons falling into the destroyed parts. But as I understand it, the same thing happens on other original ships of the game. Is this a general game bug or some kind of local flaw in the construction of units?


gap, :salute: . TY.



You could combine the gun platforms with hull mesh, but that's probably the trickiest method as you would be forced re-importing the hull, and that might mess your AO mapping.


If your GR2 file has still some unused meshes, you could import the platforms as individual parts, separated from the main ship hull, and you could change the parent bone settings of each gun equipment bone appropriately so that when a platform is destroyed, then gun(s) on top of it will be destroyed as well.


You could import the platforms in a separated GR2 file to be stored in the library folder and link them to your ship through equipment bones. Again, if you want a gun to be destroyed when its platform is destroyed, you should move the gun linking bones from the main unit to the platform equipment items in the library folder. Nested equipment items work perfectly in SHIII and I suppose they similarly work in SH5.


I would recommend you to stick to the latter method, as it would minimize the tweaks to be done on the main GR2 file, and it would have the advantage of making each platform configurable by date and ship class as well as any other equipment.
Yes. I understand this game mechanics. The problem is not with that. Problems with understanding the mechanics of GR2EditorViewer. I'm just learning to use it. I can't use its menu functionality:

Create a new bone
Remove a bone that has a mesh inside it
To bind any bone to the "World" : parent (-1)

[vdr1981]

at the time of destruction, its parts appeared much higher than water and fell from above, then I twisted the values in the .sim file and the parts the ships stopped “bouncing”

What values? :hmmm: This is also the case with almost all stock gr2 ships in SH5. When catastrophic explosion occurs, they'll just bounce of the water and then fall down...

[gap]

Problems with understanding the mechanics of GR2EditorViewer. I'm just learning to use it. I can't use its menu functionality:

Create a new bone
Remove a bone that has a mesh inside it
To bind any bone to the "World" : parent (-1)


You can't "create" any bone from scratch, but you can clone existing bones.
As I said in my previous post here, this feature is buggy in the latest version of GR2 Editor; nonetheless bone-cloning can be performed with one of the previous versions of the program that I have linked in the same post.

You can't simply remove a bone with a mesh inside it.
If you have redundant bones/meshes, the best way to deal with them is either replacing them with a basic mesh (a simple triangle is okay) and setting them as invisible, or further separating your main model so that you can import the separated parts in place of the redundant meshes.

You can't bind any bone to the 'world'.
If you need to import a number of individual models in the same GR2 file (a series of equipment items for example), the way to go is choosing as template a stock GR2 file with a similar number of world-bound bones.
Bone/model number is not the only criterion to be followed though. Not all the stock files have support for AO, specular and normal maps. GR2 Editor can detect these limitations on loading a file and, in theory, it will let the used to choose whether he wants to add the extended data for some of the missing maps. Nonetheless this feature has never been 100% reliable for me, so you better make sure that you choose a native GR2 file with all the needed maps :)

[Rosomaha]

You can't "create" any bone from scratch, but you can clone existing bones.
As I said in my previous post here, this feature is buggy in the latest version of GR2 Editor; nonetheless bone-cloning can be performed with one of the previous versions of the program that I have linked in the same post.

You can't simply remove a bone with a mesh inside it.
If you have redundant bones/meshes, the best way to deal with them is either replacing them with a basic mesh (a simple triangle is okay) and setting them as invisible, or further separating your main model so that you can import the separated parts in place of the redundant meshes.

You can't bind any bone to the 'world'.
If you need to import a number of individual models in the same GR2 file (a series of equipment items for example), the way to go is choosing as template a stock GR2 file with a similar number of world-bound bones.
Bone/model number is not the only criterion to be followed though. Not all the stock files have support for AO, specular and normal maps. GR2 Editor can detect these limitations on loading a file and, in theory, it will let the used to choose whether he wants to add the extended data for some of the missing maps. Nonetheless this feature has never been 100% reliable for me, so you better make sure that you choose a native GR2 file with all the needed maps :)
Wonderful! Excellent! Great!... It'sm just bursting with optimism!! :har:

[/LIST]
What values? :hmmm: This is also the case with almost all stock gr2 ships in SH5. When catastrophic explosion occurs, they'll just bounce of the water and then fall down...

I only remember changing these parameters at the time:

https://s8.hostingkartinok.com/uploads/images/2020/06/6938ea08c1c9b8b8bc207913c22aabed.png



Guys, please remind me what this is and what is responsible for: Islands=xxxxx in the xxx.cfg file?


@gap, perhaps you know: Registration of additional diffuse textures (_T02, _T03...) in SH5 works similarly as in SH4? I added everything, and registered it in the Roster too, but I have never seen the options yet.

[vdr1981]

Guys, please remind me what this is and what is responsible for: Islands=xxxxx in the xxx.cfg file?


Those are filters for in game recognition manual (SOAN).:yep:

[gap]

Wonderful! Excellent! Great!... It'sm just bursting with optimism!! :har:

Well, think of GR2 file editing as an obstacle course. On the first try, only the most resolute modders can reach to the end, but once one gets to know all the tricky points, the whole process becomes much easier.


Guys, please remind me what this is and what is responsible for: Islands=xxxxx in the xxx.cfg file?

Those are filters for in game recognition manual (SOAN).:yep:

:sign_yeah:


@gap, perhaps you know: Registration of additional diffuse textures (_T02, _T03...) in SH5 works similarly as in SH4? I added everything, and registered it in the Roster too, but I have never seen the options yet.

Yes, the same way :yep:

[Rosomaha]

Fixed:
Effects of damage-destruction, their placement on the ship's doll. Added some new textures. The flag is offset. Registered for random cargo cargo K01, K02, K03.

Added objects: weapon platforms and cargo elements for mutual substitution at an early stage of the war. Objects and their registration in the ship's equipment:

https://s8.hostingkartinok.com/uploads/images/2020/06/ec26d51483ead2b13d3890547053529f.png

@GrenSo, @kapuhy, @vdr1981, @the beast, @gap, ... :salute:

[vdr1981]

Fixed:
Effects of damage-destruction, their placement on the ship's doll. Added some new textures. The flag is offset. Registered for random cargo cargo K01, K02, K03.

Added objects: weapon platforms and cargo elements for mutual substitution at an early stage of the war. Objects and their registration in the ship's equipment:

https://s8.hostingkartinok.com/uploads/images/2020/06/ec26d51483ead2b13d3890547053529f.png
Truly magnificent work Rosomaha! :up::up::up:

[Rosomaha]

And a few screenshots:


https://s8.hostingkartinok.com/uploads/images/2020/06/0c695b888c2f2878a2a661c6855bf055.png

https://s8.hostingkartinok.com/uploads/images/2020/06/9ecf9eea37a3adf9a75f0543d503b0ac.png

https://s8.hostingkartinok.com/uploads/images/2020/06/a3bd0e81f06e6d3446799411fee945e5.png

https://s8.hostingkartinok.com/uploads/images/2020/06/875c3274f1f697a7cd82779480103749.png

https://s8.hostingkartinok.com/uploads/images/2020/06/09df1afe6632a84824bfcb72ecb068d2.png

[gap]

@ Rosomaha

Awesome work mate! :yeah:

[Demon777]

@Rosomaha

Thanks for your amazing work!! The ship is cool.
I'll test updated C3-Cargo in TWOS 2.2.18. May I use the link you provided on the 2nd page of this thread, or there will be a newer version?

[vdr1981]

I wanted to test new files but it seems that my motherboard have died again...
Anyway, here's what you can do for a quick testing...

Start new Western Approaches campaign using silentotto cheat and exit to main menu. Then enter the museum and go trough the entire British and German roster but skip new C3 ship. After you're done with units rendering jump to previously skipped c3 . If game CTD then something is wrong with c3 controllers and they have to be re-saved in goblin. :salute:

[Rosomaha]

I'll test updated C3-Cargo in TWOS 2.2.18. May I use the link you provided on the 2nd page of this thread, or there will be a newer version?
The most recent update is in the first post of this topic, everything is new there, the link is green DOWNLOAD. Use it.

Start new Western Approaches campaign using silentotto cheat and exit to main menu. Then enter the museum and go trough the entire British and German roster but skip new C3 ship. After you're done with units rendering jump to previously skipped c3 . If game CTD then something is wrong with c3 controllers and they have to be re-saved in goblin. :salute:

All the files this time I went through in the final save through GoblinEditor. And the new added ones were created at all in it. I tested at the Museum many times - everything fine. At least in the sh5 stock I never had a CTD.

:hmmm: The new version NKC3 has changed the composition of the textures. Maybe it can affect? And TWoS have are more countries with NKC3 than USA & GB.

[kapuhy]

Hi Rosomaha,

There's one thing I noticed you did in your unit and I'm very interested how did you do that, as it gives me a lot of trouble with my ships.

All bone names in your unit start with NKC3_ClassShips, which means you've changed their names from unit you used as a template. TDW's GR2Editor allows to do that, but when I change name of a bone, all controllers attached to it display "lost controllers" error in Goblin and have to be deleted and remade from scratch, which is horribly time consuming. Did you perhaps manage to find a simpler way for changing names without remaking all controllers?

In my units I didn't change bone names and this appeared to work fine, but I noticed that when I got to editing FX file, the modified unit still uses FX file of template unit - I suspect unchanged node names are at fault.

[gap]

Hi kapuhy,

Rosomaha might have a better answer, but while you wait for his feedback here are my two cents: unlike dat-format nodes, granny bones get their Id calculated automatically from their name. Changing bone names means changing their Id's as well; that's why, after doing that, you usually get a bunch of 'lost controllers'
If memory serves, TDW tried investigating the routine used by devs for bone Id assignment but he didn't find any way to predict a bone Id from its name. Nonetheless you can grasp that information from Goblin Editor. When you select a bone in the scene tree and you choose 'Edit Controllers' from its pop-up menu (called by RMB click), in the title bar of the following window you get the bone name, i.e. Torpedo_Mk14, and two hex numbers in the format 2156E929 : 53114C2E. The actual bone Id (as it would be displayed by S3d) can be obtained by the combination of those two number in reverse order. In the example above: 0x53114c2e2156e929 :up:

[Rosomaha]

Hi kapuhy.

Working with SH5 units is a lot of combinations of various tricks that come with experience. C3 - became my first mod-experience in SH5. I was interested to know whether it is possible to assemble a home-made unit that is fully functional and identical to the original SH5 with an accessible set of tools. Yes, it turned out to be possible, with some nuances, but it is possible. I think it’s even possible to assemble a new game submarine, at least type 2, with other boats it will be more difficult since need to solve issues with animated details. There is only one big “but”: making a unit is a very big job, and a submarine will be just titanic work.
Back to the topic. I did not use any one specific method. In the course of work, I tried and used different methods.

All bone names in your unit start with NKC3_ClassShips, which means you've changed their names from unit you used as a template. TDW's GR2Editor allows to do that, but when I change name of a bone, all controllers attached to it display "lost controllers" error in Goblin and have to be deleted and remade from scratch, which is horribly time consuming. Did you perhaps manage to find a simpler way for changing names without remaking all controllers?

Yes, I used template in Hex with called NKC3_ClassShips. TDW's GR2Editor changes component names for a long time. At the very beginning, I used Hex-editing a bit, for example, to reassign tags of all names at once, it was not a good idea, I had several broken files at the beginning of work. Although editing in Hex is always a working option and opens up additional possibilities in editing various files. But in order to work with this correctly, you need a full understanding of what you are doing and the file format you are working with.

Something that will somehow help you reduce your time is the” magic " Ctrl-C + Ctrl-V, & etc.
Yes. the most difficult process here will be files .fx , and as a rule, the larger the ship (unit), the more individual FX elements it contains.

So. I think here for many suitable method “dat-twin”:

[1] Build in S3D in the .dat file -“Skeleton” - a copy of the file xxxship _FX. GR2 (the donor ship from SH5 “xxxship”), all we need is the linked order of all Nodes the same as bones in _fx.GR2. The names can be copied directly from GoblinEditor.

[2] the Next step is to assign all nodes in the “Skeleton” ID-numbers the same as in the original “xxxship”.

This will take you a lot of work at the beginning, but then you can easily get the desired order of all completed ObjectCtrlsRef for your new unit. And this is less work than re-creating them again.

Which method you use to extract the source IDs - is purely your choice, & depending on the personal skills of working in certain programs.

As mentioned by @gap: the original IDs are visible in the GoblinEditor.
The ID is in S3D in Parent id. Let me remind you: files .fx can also be opened in S3D, as I have already described here: https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=227910
also ID in files when working with Hex-programs:

https://s8.hostingkartinok.com/uploads/images/2020/06/9b956637b2aaa3636fa2670efee44892.png

It is also useful to understand what the components are .fx have an order, sometimes it can be reversed, but it is there and corresponds to the structure of elements :

https://s8.hostingkartinok.com/uploads/images/2020/06/55b3992edbd7ac70d34e0e5437709684.png

So. You have made a dat-"Skeleton" of the sh5 source, with all the source IDs (save, do not forget to make backup copies of your intermediate work files, this may come in handy)

[3] You can now import the “donor” (fx) file to our .dat [by setting it an extension readable by S3D]. (File->import-> Dat file). This way we will already have controllers filled with values. They must be installed directly in the element to which they belong.

[4] If everything is in its place - RENAME the main elements of the skeleton as in your NEW unit-save .dat.

[5] Then open this .dat. in GoblinEditor – for .dat has the “Save file with Granny IDs " function. This useful function makes a clean extraction of controllers from the .dat. file, setting them the desired Granny Ids based on the names of the component elements.

"]https://s8.hostingkartinok.com/uploads/images/2020/06/f3a6e8f7dba5d2fc9acfe186a600df6b.png

The <xxx.dat.GrannyIDs> file is saved. Leave the file extension .dat - now you have a .dat file with the composition of the group of controllers with your names NEW Ids, you can do the rest from it: .sim .val .zon and .fx including. And don't forget to re-save it all to GoblinEditor at the end.

Theoretically, this dat - "Skeleton" can be used as a template in the future for other similar ships with a similar number of fx, if we accept that the same composition of effects will be used. Only then will it be necessary to customize the names in _FX.GR2 to the template, or something like that.

In my units I didn't change bone names and this appeared to work fine, but I noticed that when I got to editing FX file, the modified unit still uses FX file of template unit - I suspect unchanged node names are at fault.

Yes. This will happen if you do not change the names of internal blocks in the ships.. For now I think that's all on this issue from my part.

A little more. I looked at your ship files. I think you will find the following information useful for creating .dds textures and the correct formats used in SH5:


AO:
Format RGB8888
Compressed Format DXT1
Mip-Levels 11(1024x1024) / Generated
Alpha=No


Diffuse:
Format RGB8888
Compressed Format DXT5
Mip-Levels 11(1024x1024) / Generated
Compressed Bits per pixel 8.0
Alpha=Yes (#if specular)


Normal:
Format RGB8888
Compressed Format DXT1
Mip-Levels 11(1024x1024) / Generated
Compressed Bits per pixel 8.0
Alpha=No


_sil:
Format RGB8888
Compressed Format DXT5
Mip-Levels 1 / No Mip maps
Compressed Bits per pixel 8.0
Alpha=Yes (#if opacity)


https://s8.hostingkartinok.com/uploads/images/2020/06/c42da6d153fcd983045e8f206f3739d3.png

[Rosomaha]

About all this:

... Start new Western Approaches campaign using silentotto cheat and exit to main menu. Then enter the museum and go trough the entire British and German roster but skip new C3 ship. After you're done with units rendering jump to previously skipped c3 . If game CTD then something is wrong with c3 controllers ...

I saw dark spots on the deck of NKC3 in recent kapuhy screenshots and looked at the files in TwoS.
@vdr1981 used an early release of NKC3, although I later released fixes: removing dark spots; a more correct FX model (!), adding platforms, and some more edits. This is not included in TwoS :06:. But this is all uncritical. What is important is the composition of the files that I saw there.
Just compare:

https://s8.hostingkartinok.com/uploads/images/2020/06/bff87d0ba347fbe85f3bcff3f68efa34.png


Hi vdr1981,
If you are here. Old C3 files are still part of TwoS, they are at least -superfluous (marked with a red cross), at most -they may even be malicious.

[vdr1981]

Hi Rosomaha,

Unfortunately, I couldn't add new version of you C3 ship even though I like it even more than the first version. From some reason, with new files, CTDs in my museum rendering tests are present even with all files re-saved in goblin. This means that the problem is somewhere in other TWoS (probably imported) units. These conflicts are very hard to isolate so for now I have to stay with old files.

Regarding old C3 files...These are completely irrelevant and ignored by the game since now new file path is stated in C3.cfg file, which is "3DModelFileName=data/Sea/NKC3/NKC3_ClassShips". :yep:

[kapuhy]

Hi kapuhy.
(...lots of great advice...)
For now I think that's all on this issue from my part.

Thanks so much! That helps a lot, and the texture specs allowed me to shrink my textures in size considerably :up: