Su-33

He - neither do I.

 

But the navigation lights only need one plane(per lamp)......or do you mean for strobe?

How will you show one plane in every direction without what Old Crow is talking about?

I think its done using an alignment setting in the lockon tools. Remember to have seen a post about it in the old sim mod a-10 a very long time ago.

Please, do tell me if you find the solution.

How will you show one plane in every direction without what Old Crow is talking about?

Good question - didn't think about the directional issue.

I haven't done any nav light animations myself, but I assume the reason why you don't want a plane for each direction is that the nav lights would be invisible or look odd from skew angles?

Good question - didn't think about the directional issue.

 

I haven't done any nav light animations myself, but I assume the reason why you don't want a plane for each direction is that the nav lights would be invisible or look odd from skew angles?

Yes, six plane light looks awfully bad and I don't want it unless I don't have any other option.

And yes I animated numbers like this

Frame 0 = 0, 3=1, 6=2, 9=3 and so on but I don't get. I moved the UVs and keyed them. Tell me where am I going wrong.

Yes, six plane light looks awfully bad and I don't want it unless I don't have any other option.

Ok :)

And yes I animated numbers like this

 

Frame 0 = 0, 3=1, 6=2, 9=3 and so on but I don't get. I moved the UVs and keyed them. Tell me where am I going wrong.

Do you mean how to do argument based visibility animation in max or that your animation works in max, but isn't activated in game?

combatace,

Check this out:

Unfortunately, it's just PS.

What do you think about changing your project a little bit?

It would be awesome if you build a fictitious version of the Su-33, some kind of "Su-33MK". Just like the images above.

It's a beautiful airplane.

\\

W0W!!

Awesome, and the ground textures too!

Awesome, and the ground textures too! Any chance of getting those ground textures?!

Sure. There are 5 versions of parking areas and 13 runways.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1105896#post1105896

\\

Found them on your blog, great job!

I think that looks like a Su-30MKI...

I think that looks like a Su-30MKI...

It is indeed. And about the numbers, they get keyed in max but not argument dependent. So I tried to make different plate for each number and animated as I told you but still it won't work. I see zero all the time.

@RF- I had Su-30MKI done about 10-20% but I left the project for Su-33 as it is one of the default playable aircraft. As I said in my earlier post I'm planing to do Su-30 and Su-34 but am not confirming this.

It is indeed. And about the numbers, they get keyed in max but not argument dependent. So I tried to make different plate for each number and animated as I told you but still it won't work. I see zero all the time.

 

 

@RF- I had Su-30MKI done about 10-20% but I left the project for Su-33 as it is one of the default playable aircraft. As I said in my earlier post I'm planing to do Su-30 and Su-34 but am not confirming this.

I think the same way, it's more convenient to finish the su-33... :thumbup:

yeah!!! Su-33 FTW!!! :D

About time for this beauty to get a proper facelift.

My idea wasn't the construction of an existing model, but rather a fictional. Could be the shape of a 30MK or 37 but inside the cockpit, a Su-33 flyable.

I appreciate creativity, the desire to bring new concepts , escape the pattern. There are no limits to creativity.

It is indeed. And about the numbers, they get keyed in max but not argument dependent. So I tried to make different plate for each number and animated as I told you but still it won't work. I see zero all the time.

Its been a long time since I last did any visibility animations, so I had to brush up on it again.

It is a pretty complex procedure, so instead of posting a myriad of screenshots for each step I have uploaded a video(zipped) showing the procedure: visibility animation

The video was made some years ago by a forum member called "strikemax". The video is a tutorial on how to do damage animations, but its the same procedure required for the bort numbers.

What I did was to make a plane for each number, then make a visibility track assigned "arg visibility" as controller for each of them. It worked fine, but I did have some problems with the -30 to 30 time scale.

Using the ModelViewer tool, I can see that for the stock Su-33 model, the first digit(arg. 31) of the bort numbers is animated so that number "0" should be visible from 0.00 to 0.10, while "1" should be visible from 0.11 to 0.20, number "2" from 0.21 to 0.30..etc - the problem being that while you can "translate" the positions 0.10 and 0.20, there aren't enough steps on the -30/30 time scale to get a key at a position corresponding to 0.11.

My idea wasn't the construction of an existing model, but rather a fictional. Could be the shape of a 30MK or 37 but inside the cockpit, a Su-33 flyable.

I appreciate creativity, the desire to bring new concepts , escape the pattern. There are no limits to creativity.

Well considering the number of existing Lock-on/DCS' aircraft entries in dire need of a model upgrade, the number of real in-service aircraft not currently featured in the game as well as the number of interesting real prototype designs that exist, I think its a horrible idea to start filling the game with fictional stuff.

Just my humble opinion.

@Alfa: I even tried with 100 scale but that too did not work for me. Also the pointer will point at a specific frame when displaying the digit. So if I'm keeping my digit at 0.1, 0.2 and so on what will it even matter when it starts displaying, like 0.01 or 0.11 unless it is displayed in a range and is specifically needed. It says the increment should be 0.1 so it should be that pointers points at 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and so on and if it is displaying this specific frame continuously other frames does not matter. Then, this is just my understanding and it is possible that I'm thinking wrong.

About the video, when he is using two different models of the same thing why not animate simply by scaling instead of going through that tedious procedure. Just create a damage model scale it and when it elevator damages just scale the normal one down and scale up the damaged one.

EDITED: And guess what, I was right. Its the position that matters and not the range. I did it on scale of 0-30 by using position control, just moved the plate 1cm inside the plane's body to make it invisible. But still I had to use different plates for different numbers which I didn't wanted to do, as its mere waste of precious polys. If FC engine could use the keyed position of UVs I would say it would reduce a large quantity of polys.

@Alfa: I even tried with 100 scale but that too did not work for me.

It didn't work for me either - well the animation itself worked, but with incorrect duration in the game.

Also the pointer will point at a specific frame when displaying the digit. So if I'm keeping my digit at 0.1, 0.2 and so on what will it even matter when it starts displaying, like 0.01 or 0.11 unless it is displayed in a range and is specifically needed. It says the increment should be 0.1 so it should be that pointers points at 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and so on and if it is displaying this specific frame continuously other frames does not matter. Then, this is just my understanding and it is possible that I'm thinking wrong.

You may well be right - I didn't have time to check in-game whether the off-set values made a difference or not.

about he video, when he is using two different models of the same thing why not animate simply by scaling instead of going through that tedious procedure. Just create a damage model scale it and when it elevator damages just scale the normal one down and scale up the damaged one.

Well you said you couldn't get the visibility animation to react to argument, so I uploaded a video showing how to get it working - if you can get it working in another way you like better, then by all means go for it :)

EDITED: And guess what, I was right. Its the position that matters and not the range. I did it on scale of 0-30 by using position control, just moved the plate 1cm inside the plane's body to make it invisible. But still I had to use different plates for different numbers which I didn't wanted to do, as its mere waste of precious polys. If FC engine could use the keyed position of UVs I would say it would reduce a large quantity of polys.

Let me get this straight - you are building a 300k+ polygon aircraft model and are now worring about the poly-count of simple 2 polygon planes for aircraft numbering? :D

Besides, only visible objects are rendered in the game. So you could include an entire extra model in invisible damage parts without affecting game performance.

One note on the animation bar: If you set your animation bar to start from -100 and end at 100 you also should make sure your FPS is set at 100. If you set your animation bar like this, you set it in accordance with how you should set it in regards for lockon models. This is (I believe) the way the animation bar should be set. This doenst mean that this is the only settings that works, but its the most simple one, and the one they used themselves (most probably).

Another note on the visibility argument: This is a really great tool to use to make things invisible/visible. When you use this method, you will also optimize your model in regards to fps so that the objects thats set to be invisible wont be rendered (as Alpha explains). If you only use scale to do this though, your objects will still be rendered and you will get worse performance, especially when damage model is introduced.

Also, using the visibility arguments literally takes seconds to set up, its not a complicated procedure and its pretty simple to handle.

One note on the animation bar: If you set your animation bar to start from -100 and end at 100 you also should make sure your FPS is set at 100. If you set your animation bar like this, you set it in accordance with how you should set it in regards for lockon models. This is (I believe) the way the animation bar should be set. This doenst mean that this is the only settings that works, but its the most simple one, and the one they used themselves (most probably).

 

Another note on the visibility argument: This is a really great tool to use to make things invisible/visible. When you use this method, you will also optimize your model in regards to fps so that the objects thats set to be invisible wont be rendered (as Alpha explains). If you only use scale to do this though, your objects will still be rendered and you will get worse performance, especially when damage model is introduced.

Also, using the visibility arguments literally takes seconds to set up, its not a complicated procedure and its pretty simple to handle.

The numbers on the body are done so won't change them but the tail ones are left and even the damage model so will give it a shot, the visibility controller.

@Alfa: I'm not using 1 or 2 poly flat planes, I cloned the polygons directly from the model and a single plate is 16 polys. Oh! and yes it not 300K now it 355K.

Well considering the number of existing Lock-on/DCS' aircraft entries in dire need of a model upgrade, the number of real in-service aircraft not currently featured in the game as well as the number of interesting real prototype designs that exist, I think its a horrible idea to start filling the game with fictional stuff.

 

Just my humble opinion.

I second that!

One note on the animation bar: If you set your animation bar to start from -100 and end at 100 you also should make sure your FPS is set at 100.

I did - it still didn't work :dontgetit: .

If you set your animation bar like this, you set it in accordance with how you should set it in regards for lockon models. This is (I believe) the way the animation bar should be set. This doenst mean that this is the only settings that works, but its the most simple one, and the one they used themselves (most probably).

Yeah would certainly makes things easier.

Also, using the visibility arguments literally takes seconds to set up, its not a complicated procedure and its pretty simple to handle.

Well complicated to explain step by step, but true - once you have tried it a couple of times its not hard to use.

@Alfa: I'm not using 1 or 2 poly flat planes, I cloned the polygons directly from the model and a single plate is 16 polys.

Well ok - but still - 16 polygons is rather negligible in the grand scale of things :)

Oh! and yes it not 300K now it 355K.

Ay! :D .

Well ok - but still - 16 polygons is rather negligible in the grand scale of things :)

 

 

 

Ay! :D .

Actually 16*4*10 = 640.

@Old Crow: Well visibility controller is not tough its just lengthy. I made copies after adding visibility controller and still I found it a lengthy process. Still if it saves some performance its worth it.