WIP: T-14 Armata
-
-
Which are?
Which has * character in DB, they none of them used, not in campign not at all. Only in aircraft tab is about 30+…
Are tons of ground vehicles which are not used in any battalion or the battalion is not listed in TE…
I won’t list all of them are so many. Considering timeframe of Falcon all Vietnam era stuff on US side have olny one role, video and screen shot fun, nothing else.We are speaking in totaly 100-200 or more DB entires.
-
please molnibalage… One time shut up.
EGHI- master -
please molnibalage… One time shut up.
Let’s keep it civil gents.
Molnibalage is expressing an opinion which does have some merit, agree with it or not - all you have to do is look with the Editor to see what he is talking about.
And on the other hand, if Eghi wants to work on the T-14, let him be - one can think of a ton of scenario/theater where a modern Red tank might be useful.
So how about focusing on the (very nice, BTW ) artwork here.
-
please molnibalage… One time shut up.
EGHI- masterCan I ask why?
Adding T-14 is just as good idea as adding F-16E/F or F-35A… Or even worse because these are much more matured than Armata…
I simply forgot (neglected this) and I asked about the technical aspects of integration in case maybe somebody know anything about 2D modeling values…
Just a hint, Falcon is more than a bunch of 3D models…
Adding a new model considering it modeling and imact on tactical envrinoment is quite strange… -
should be nice to know how to delete that garbage from db or have a new one from scratch and add what you want\need.
Congratulations Eghi, new 3d is always welcome for me.
cheers
-
Will the systems be modelled, e.g. Protection systems, ATGM’s? Or is this just a model and the devs are going to code it?
-
Will the systems be modelled, e.g. Protection systems, ATGM’s? Or is this just a model and the devs are going to code it?
Falcon is not a land based simulator. Currently ATGMs are modeled as guns. It is possible to change to see ATGM in 3D world but their profile because of missile gudiance can’t be the RL and no ERA or any similar stuff can be modeled. I doubt that ever will. This is not Steel Beast and I doubt even SB is modeld such systems. Falcon uses a dmg. + dmg. type for wepaons and HP + dmg. resistance model for units.
-
I won’t list all of them are so many.
You should.
Indeed you should if you want to help us on that area rather than repeating endlessly the same statements almost every days. Energy could be (?) used in a more useful way.
-
You should.
Indeed you should if you want to help us on that area rather than repeating endlessly the same statements almost every days. Energy could be (?) used in a more useful way.
Now I have a request. As long as I did not have it seemed me pointless to make such list considering the impact of my suggestion thread…
I can make if you wish but you have to understand it will represent my aspect. Why does this mean?-
Except old weapons which were used in lots of countries all old other stuff should be recycled before mid '70s. They are simply out of timeframe. I mean MiG-21PF/MF with old R-3S (basic Atoll) can be kept because were used in WPACT, or course SA-2, SA-3 ect. also should be kept or T-55/62, etc. Keeping F-4B with AIM-9B is maybe pointless because of modeling limitation and era factor. F-4 variants can be exception because now we have good F-4 model consdering the currently used F-4 LODs. (The converted F-4 models with skins form FF.) But what about rest? F-105 (maybe except SEAD wihch were used by ANG up to mid '80s) , F-100 F-86, etc. they should not part of game. Bye-bye… They can’t be modeled well they do not have not any use in campaigns and TE.
-
I assign all trainer aircraft recycleable stuff. As long as Falcon does not support two seat cockpit control (pilot/WSO) and do not have cockpit their existance is pointless from my aspect. Their 3D models and skin are mostly LQ and does not have any real function.
-
Also should be considered what is the purpose of core DB. Should it provide DB more than one theater or only for KTO? Because in this case should be considered the main units of possible 3rd party theaters and reassing by that way the recycleable DB entries. Which are the most potential 3rd party theater? It depends who is asked…
-
What about subvariants? It is pointless to create tons of different tank 3D model what we cannot model well. Just think about how any T-64, T-72 and T-80 variant existed between 1960 and ~1995.
T-64, T-64A, T-64BM, T-64BV,
T-72, T-72A, T-72B, T-72B1, T-72B obr. 1987, T-72BU (T-90)
T-80, T-80A, T-80B, T-80BV, T-80U, T-80UM, T-80UKAnd these are only three different main MBT family of USSR. So you can see the magnitude of this issue.
How many of them should be modeling considering the limitation of modeling and absraction? Good question…
I can set up a conception but question is who can accept that?Same case for air defense or any othe unit class. For ex. there is difference between basic OSA and OSA-AKM. Here comes the era factor. In RL the AKM was the widely used variant as I know older OSAs were converted. (I have to ask Hpasp.)
Also another factor is the operator of the same unit. If you wish to see in a 3rd party theater both RSAF + USAF or JSDF + USAF F-15 you need different DB entries. You can put here any AC and countries who used the same hardware.
-
Etc.
Should I start making this list? Because it would be very time consuming and considering the goals of BMS4 Team… Is it worth to spend my free time working on this?
-
-
Maybe commencing with units/vehicles (not sensors nor ADC because some changes to expect in the list in future version.)
considering the impact of my suggestion thread…
How could you know if it has been useful or not? You can’t know it (no 4.32 updates since this time).
So now, I tell you that it has been useful. At least to re-consider some things. Maybe not always 100% as you advised, but it has been considered. Rendez-vous in 3 - 4 weeks.Also should be considered what is the purpose of core DB. Should it provide DB more than one theater or only for KTO?
Some evolution to expect for some theaters. But it is not possible to fit with all 3rd party theaters.
I assign all trainer aircraft recycleable stuff. As long as Falcon does not support two seat cockpit control (pilot/WSO) and do not have cockpit their existance is pointless from my aspect.
Candy eye only. Just like trees, contrails and skins/tails.
What about subvariants? It is pointless to create tons of different tank 3D model what we cannot model well. Just think about how any T-64, T-72 and T-80 variant existed between 1960 and ~1995.
For an initial cleaning, forget about what is working. Lets focus on what is non working/non finished.
Should I start making this list? Because it would be very time consuming and considering the goals of BMS4 Team… Is it worth to spend my free time working on this?
Anytime we are starting something in the team, it is always without any guaranty of success. But if we just sit here and wait … nothing will ever change.
I can not promise anything, but if you edit a list … we might use it since anybody until now took the time to seriously study and consider a real and deep DB “cleaning”.… Is it worth to spend my free time working on this?
I do not know(?) If you don’t try, we will never know. Your option. But if you do not do it … please, do not complain or do not ask why there is garbage in stock DB.
-
I feel this thread became shameful
Our dedicated friend, Eghi started a gorgeous T-14 model of his very own choice, and , we got now 3 pages of debates…
Too often something has started and is pointed how “useless for BMS this model is”… T-14, F-2 and others…
Come on, keep for yourself these remarks of yours, because there is talented and respectful people like our friend Eghi who spend time to offer us their dreams.
Be smart and reasonable. Please.
-
Yes it’s a shame indeed… Molni I think you should be more positive about things in general and understand that not everything is according to what you have in mind, some people have different priorities and a 3D modeler is (of course) the only one to choose what he likes to work on. You should just be happy that we have a 3D modeler from the community that is doing AWESOME models with low tris count and in the modeling requirements of BMS, instead of turning such a thread into a mini-fight, you should be more positive man.
-
How could you know if it has been useful or not? You can’t know it (no 4.32 updates since this time).
So now, I tell you that it has been useful. At least to re-consider some things. Maybe not always 100% as you advised, but it has been considered. Rendez-vous in 3 - 4 weeks.Great.
But why only now I can get the feedback? If anybody does not get feedback is hard to know what is worth to do.For an initial cleaning, forget about what is working. Lets focus on what is non working/non finished.
I do not understand how should I interpret this.
Anytime we are starting something in the team, it is always without any guaranty of success. But if we just sit here and wait … nothing will ever change.
I can not promise anything, but if you edit a list … we might use it since anybody until now took the time to seriously study and consider a real and deep DB “cleaning”.Ok, I will make such a list but I cannot give ETA.
-
I feel this thread became shameful
Our dedicated friend, Eghi started a gorgeous T-14 model of his very own choice, and , we got now 3 pages of debates…
Too often something has started and is pointed how “useless for BMS this model is”… T-14, F-2 and others…
Come on, keep for yourself these remarks of yours, because there is talented and respectful people like our friend Eghi who spend time to offer us their dreams.
Be smart and reasonable. Please.
Shame? I simply asked how should be integrated the 3D model in DB… As I have said Falcon is more than bunch of 3D models. I gave an example why I cannot do it. If you simply recycle and old and non useful tank T-14 would have stat of that unit and even you set diffent values it may happen that unit won’t perfrom well. You simply missed the point of my post. The point was “how can be made T-14 to be better and different from T-90 or any older MBT”? T-14 is useful in future scenarios as long as it represents a different capability than older tanks.
And one more comment about “shame” word… Is it not shame that community bashes anybody how has different point of view and cares about things what also makes Falcon what it is…?
(BTW nobody ever noticed how OP firepower have artillery units in 3D world? They can eradicate armored battalions within minutes while in RL barrage arty fire literally has no effect on moving MBTs… I tried to fix this with no success. The best what I could do to reduce the qty. of arty battalions and qty. artys in the battalion.)
-
Yes it’s a shame indeed… Molni I think you should be more positive about things in general and understand that not everything is according to what you have in mind, some people have different priorities and a 3D modeler is (of course) the only one to choose what he likes to work on. You should just be happy that we have a 3D modeler from the community that is doing AWESOME models with low tris count and in the modeling requirements of BMS, instead of turning such a thread into a mini-fight, you should be more positive man.
You also missed the point of my comment. My post concerned on “how”. I’m willing to add even my Korea '80s DB much later units for TE purpose, but I simply do not know what should be set in stats to make T-14 really better than other tanks. This was the point of my comment.
I cannot create new DB entires and even I could do the problem would be the same. In most of cases in 3D world happens what I predict and stat suggest but 2D world? It is a “twilight zone” to me. Even in 3D world sometimes some unit is more powerful what its stat justifies and I do not know why.
Is it not enough positive attitude to find answer or help…? Strange. Or simply my words lost in translation, English is not my native language.
-
Molni OK, I suggest to re-evaluate all such bugs or issues when the next version will come out (3-4 weeks it is…), then I guess we will all be smarter to see what’s really need fixing. Some stuff of course isn’t possible to fix fast so some stuff will need to wait for later for a rewrite kind of fix, but we aren’t ignoring.
I would have told you to create a TE for example of a bug, but I guess it’s too hard now for the devs to find anything on 4.32, so let’s just wait and see later.
-
Great.
But why only now I can get the feedback? If anybody does not get feedback is hard to know what is worth to do.Come on Molni, I told you via MP that we were working on SAMs and that I took some of your comments in consideration for missiles data (but has been re-worked again later by Cruz for specifics reasons )
I do not understand how should I interpret this.
Just forget about MIG21 variants or F-105 (working a/c IIRC) … etc … rather list what is pure unfinished “garbage” which will probably never finished, like Agusta A109, unused missiles, … etc …
Ok, I will make such a list but I cannot give ETA.
Do not worry at all … do it slowly (if you wanna do it) and do not do too much. A little bit, (the most important to your eyes) then wait and see if it is considered. If yes, continue a little bit … etc … Baby step after baby step.
Just try. Will see. (?)
-
First leave my battalions alone… They are fine. :lol:
Second… Yeap I’ll say it could devs stop trolling that much on the 3-4 weeks of the 4.33? It’s our job. Unless you believe we’re not that good. :rofl:
Third very nice model m8 any skin preview?
Any video on the wip?Forth thanx for your time and efforts.
-
Come on Molni, I told you via MP that we were working on SAMs and that I took some of your comments in consideration for missiles data (but has been re-worked again later by Cruz for specifics reasons )
Just forget about MIG21 variants or F-105 (working a/c IIRC) … etc … rather list what is pure unfinished “garbage” which will probably never finished, like Agusta A109, unused missiles, … etc …
Do not worry at all … do it slowly (if you wanna do it) and do not do too much. A little bit, (the most important to your eyes) then wait and see if it is considered. If yes, continue a little bit … etc … Baby step after baby step.
Just try. Will see. (?)
Rgr. About AD likely I can provide more concerning to RL and how should model the battalion structure.