So I merged REARM on top of the Ballance mod, while carefuly docummenting which files are actually the REARM ones. Numbing experience I must say…
…aaand it crashes and doesn’t bother to say why.
But hey, at least I have the updated research files structure and my ships can be balanced against the Balance patch’s Frigate swarms and Battlecruisers …when I’ll make it to work eventually. If I’ll make it to work. I expect it’ll be a lot of fun to figure it out.
Loading multiple mods at once and making ‘mods of mods’ was one of the reasons Gearbox made (and are making more) changes to the game’s data structure. Try loading both the Balance Mod and V2 at the same time via the launcher… I just successfully ran V2 and No Build Limits together:
Not sure if mods on the top or the bottom of the load order take precedence, as these two don’t have conflicts. So the launcher is one solution, but the real question is command line shortcuts. How can we load multiple mods in such a way that we can make use of -moddatapath or -overrivebigfile?
‘Discussion’ is still ongoing
Both the model and the textures should fit Hiigaran aesthetics. It’s tragic how Le Sun Tzu’s Vortex (Complex mod) has amazing textures, but the model is decidedly non-Hiigaran. That’s a rather extreme example, but hopefully you can see how good texture work won’t necessarily gloss over a problematic model. The previous version was more busy than a typical frigate, and many of those extra details were reminiscent of the battlecruiser and cruisers from other mods.
What Pouk posted yesterday isn’t as aesthetically pleasing as previous versions, but now it’s reasonably frigate-like. This may or may not be the last major version of the artillery frigate, but this one is a decent baseline which would turn out all right with further refinement.
A mistake on my part over the last two weeks was I discussed ideas with the same priority as I discussed critical problems with Pouk’s version. Namely: the ship must look ‘Hiigaran’ and ‘frigate’. We’re still in the concepting stage (Pouk does more concept work in 3D than on paper), so I’m still putting forth very different concepts and variants. Whichever base concept and variant we go with, I intend to push for a balance between strong visual impact and being authentically ‘hiigaran’ and ‘frigate’. Wow that’s flowery language. Well whatever, this post has taken long enough as it is.
It gets ugly at times. Good intentions, but strong opinions.
Anyway my question would be what would you change? The top side of the main body is both nice and reasonably Hiigaran. Here and in the private discussion it seems you still have a problem with the current version, but so far I don’t know what it is. Because as far as I can see it, it’s pretty good now.
Your feedback had an amazing effect. You and Fil turned that thing from an anime spider to a decent Hiigaran ship. But at this point I’m happy.
Well you know I draw too. I just draw something general and turn it into 3D. Basically my drawings gets me only so far. It’s not a sin to sketch in 3D if you’re not a slave to your original meshflow and you casually break your model apart and reconnect to whatever shape you have on your mind.
(PS I read this after I responded in the dev group, you’ll notice the reason I’m saying that is because of some similar sentences and thoughts.)
Related to textures, arguments are based on what I see, not what I do, I’m not a texturer.
It’s not my intention to convince you guys what is the better option because it seems to be a subjective field.
However, I’m not convinced on what have been said about textures-model relation. Check for example, the Vaygr probes and the Vaygr Corvettes. It seems to be the same matrix model (chassis if you want), shrinked to make the probes and stretched to make the vettes, with less or more detailed textures - precisely what I’m arguing about what can be done with the model, either if it’s a cruiser or a frigate. The textures can compensate if you want to keep the model. Still, I would need to implement that to be totally sure. At the moment, I can’t make that.
Vortex, respectfully, is a bad example - it’s not a frigate, not a cruiser, not Hiigaran, not Vaygr and not a Starship at all. I like Complex and I am a big fan of @LeSunTzu, but I dislike Vortex. When I play Complex, I don’t build that thing. I prefer to have a hard time or lose the game than using it. When I play Complex I tend to avoid those ships that have guns all over the hull. It’s a personal choice, nothing against those who play with it.
As I said earlier, I am satisfied with all options, I was just being coherent.
[quote=“Chimas, post:387, topic:127672”]
I’m not convinced on what have been said about textures-model relation.
[/quote] Likewise. The corvettes have a more busy shape thanks to extra detailing, and they have fewer thin, “fragile” parts that stick out from the model. The kinds of shapes used in that detailing are important too - contrast corvette and frigate engines.
Your reaction to the Vortex tells me it’s a great example. It’s model is so “not Hiigaran” that you refuse to build it on principle, and yet if you look closely at its textures, they’re very much like what you’d expect on a large Hiigaran warship.
Lights as in glow maps? There is a placeholder glow map, but only for the hangar (you can see it being bright blue). The rest, what you see on these pictures, just came out that way. It’s not shining, it’s just mostly not placed in the shadows, so it looks bright as if it was glowing.
But I could create a glow map with lights I currently have, but I don’t need to yet.