"VonDos & Co" shipyard! (big images!)

[gap]

Originally Posted by the_frog

the light issues result from 3D objects either not edge splitted...

A quick addition to the tip by the_frog: Silent3ditor spits automatically edges which are contiguous in the 3D mesh, but separated in the UV map (if you don't believe it, just import/export a model to/from S3d and reload it in your 3D editing program), so you don't need to modify your model's geometry directly, i.e. edges which are split in the UV map act anyway as "hard edges"

Originally Posted by the_frog

...or imported with vertex normals. I case of imported vertex normals just re-import the 3D object and un-tick the vertex normals in the import dialogue.

...and a question for the_frog: do you mean that unticking "import vertex normals" is always a good measure, or it should only be done in case of weird lighting issues?

[the_frog]

Hello gap,

I case the S3ditor would split faces separated in the UV map, many parts are contiguous (e.g., superstructures of most ship models) and so no splitting would take place.
I did a quick try -- my ship models have deck and hull often on different maps, so the UV mapping is rather different. Importing the model without edge splitting, followed by export, relaoding into the 3d editing programme, separating the model part -- result: decks not splitted from the hull, still attached to ...

No, unticking "import vertex normals" is not always recommendable. There are original models using vertex models. However, the SH3 graphic engine seems to work better without vertex normals. SH4 is different, I makes use of vertex normals (if well done). The S3ditor is also set up to edit Silent Hunter 4.

Cheers

[gap]

Originally Posted by the_frog

Hello gap,

I case the S3ditor would split faces separated in the UV map, many parts are contiguous (e.g., superstructures of most ship models) and so no splitting would take place.
I did a quick try -- my ship models have deck and hull often on different maps, so the UV mapping is rather different. Importing the model without edge splitting, followed by export, relaoding into the 3d editing programme, separating the model part -- result: decks not splitted from the hull, still attached to ...

My bad.

I know for a fact that GR2 Editor splits edges that are non-contiguous in the UV map.
I discovered it the hard way, when trying to import a model with a secondary UV map (AO channel), and it got corrupted because the two UV maps had different edge splitting* (see note below). I don't know if this was just an extra feature by TDW, or it is imposed by the GR2 format. For some reason I thought I had encountered evidences that the same applied to the S3ditor/dat format, but I probably made confusion between the two editors/formats


* As you know, the number/coordinates of 3D vertices for the two UV channels must be identical, so GR2 Editor tries joining the edges wich are split in the main UV projection but not in the secondary one, and vice-versa, otherwise, for the reason I explained before, the two meshes would have a different number of vertices/edges)

Originally Posted by the_frog

No, unticking "import vertex normals" is not always recommendable. There are original models using vertex models. However, the SH3 graphic engine seems to work better without vertex normals. SH4 is different, I makes use of vertex normals (if well done). The S3ditor is also set up to edit Silent Hunter 4.

Roger that, thank you for the clarification

[VonDos]

While finishing new dark-wood texture, let's have fun wit a different sil file, where you can choose between liner and cruiser:



Best regards,
Vd

[VonDos]

Hi everyone!
As tradition, pre - release poster:



Best regards,
Vd

[radiator]

[gap]

Originally Posted by VonDos

Hi everyone!
As tradition, pre - release poster

Amazing, but what about the troop-transport version?

[VonDos]

Can't find enought info \ pics of final years troop transport version, so i don't know how it was :P

I've found pics of her with 2 funnels and "AMC masts", pics of her with 3 funnel and "civil masts" but with spaces for guns...









With no info, i prefere not risk..

Best regard,
Vd

Originally Posted by gap

Amazing, but what about the troop-transport version?