[REL] C3-class cargo ship

[vdr1981]

Rosomaha 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... 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]

Originally Posted by Jeff-Groves

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.

[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.


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]

Originally Posted by 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.


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/sttmuk...sktop.rar/file

[Jeff-Groves]

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

[Rosomaha]

Hi guys. I had a short break.

Originally Posted by vdr1981

Rosomaha 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... 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.
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. 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 - we will take this into account in the future.

Originally Posted by vdr1981

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/kehch3..._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.

 

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:

 

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]

Originally Posted by Rosomaha

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:

 

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 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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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 ?

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?

 

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by Rosomaha

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. 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.

Originally Posted by Rosomaha

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?

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

[Rosomaha]

Originally Posted by gap

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

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]

Originally Posted by Rosomaha

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/cb609a...o_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

[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.
  
   

  
  
  
  
• 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, . TY.

Originally Posted by gap

• 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)