Enrique

Hey Ayakashi, I'm sorry, I hit delete by mistake navigating in my phone in your last post when my stupid thumb tried to make bigger the tower concept image that you posted to see it better Could you repost it again please? Sorry... And awesome work.

Scaled it, made some fixes, removed some uneeded geometry, baked ao and it's in! Iberian corral will be next.

That looks nice Idawin! Very cool editor object to make cool scenarios. I also made some eyecandy. This tents will be used in the Ptolemaic mercenary camp that will be coming soon, but the tents will be also available as eyecandy:

These look pretty awesome LordGood! And very organic feel, me likes

lol romolous, after reading this post I'm unable to take you seriously. In first place LordGood's comment is not out of place, he didnt say anything offensive at all, you on the other hand were califying of stupid some comments of another person who was just arguing in a polite manner with you. You can't be more wrong about the dev team listening to the people in the forums, there has been a ton of non-devs suggestions that were implemented to the game, but they were reasoned and correctly argued, unlike your suggestions that the only arguments at their favor are "because I'd like to play that way" and when someone rebates your idea and argue you back, you simply get upset and say that this is not democratic... And players voice is not listened... Open source means dialogue, and that's what is happening here, the problem is that you just want x and y feature because it could benefit your playstyle, which it is not a valid point (for me at least)

A good equilibrium between war tasks and economic tasks with dynamic pace. I respect your opinion about what is fun to you, but you have to understand that your view may not be shared by a lot of people, and from the feedback we receive, I think the direction 0ad has right now is in the good direction.

I just mentioned realistic farm cost because it was one of your concerns. Food-only units are women... I can't see how you can defend yourself by massing women. You can use the market in special moments to exchange some resource for another one, but you can't rely on that tactic to maintain your resources income, it's only useful for specific emergency moments. That being said, I do not find any imbalance at all, therefore I don't find taxation useful in the game to fix an unbalance that isn't there in first place.Upkeep costs has been discussed in the past, and as Erik said in this thread before, we're aiming for a fun game, not a simulator... And from the upkeep costs discussion I understood that it would make the game less fun complicating things and even make the game slower. These are the reasons IIRC it wasn't implemented.

What Romulus fails to see here against his argument, and has been stated a few times, is that realistically farms do not cost any resource. The siege mechanic is represented in 0 A.D. by denying your opponent to expand, and therefore, making your opponent unable to access resources. To his argument that you can trade food for any resource because it is infinite, a very experienced player (and anyone who has played 0ad in a medium level) knows that it isn't enough. You can have all the food you want in the game, but if you're not able to gather other resources at a good rate, you're not going to be able to defend your farms for a long time (unless you're playing against a dumb AI) Another argument, reseeding... Why bother the player with any kind of interaction in reseeding, if the farms realistically do not cost any resource? aren't the workers intelligent enough to know when they need to reseed the field? is like having a worker idle after a tree has been depleted and you have to tell him which tree to cut next. The only thing that would make sense is to make some "rebuild" time in the farms representing a new batch of crops growing, but this is balanced already by the lower gathering rate of food. To his argument about infinite resource being a game killer, why on earth he creates a thread to consider forest plantation? Conclusion: in my opinion making farms bigger would look more realistic, but I don't think it's going to make farms harder to defend... people will just place them in the most defended/hardest place to reach in their city, just a few arrows shot at the farm and you'll have to pay the wood penalty to replant them. Send a raid near the farms and you're going to see the females garrisoning in the nearest building, and stopping food production, and to be fair, I've never seen until now someone complaining about infinite farms since they were implemented (just the opposite when they weren't)

Much better! Good work!

Basically, yes. However is up to the map designer to place them (or not) to make a balanced map. This means that in a map with very little amounts of trees it would be nice to place fertile lands far away from wood, so you have to make a decision where to expand, instead of having a one-way to win for expanding. Naturally, a good map designer would place fertile lands near water, big quarries between mountains, etc... To give them more realistic context.

I'd prefer having some kind of quarries and fertile portions of land that can give you a boost in mining or farming that are placed in the map where de designer wants. This will make these portions of land valuable to fight for them or keep in your territory without having to reivent how mining and farming works. This boost doesn't mean that it will grant you the victory, but it should be enough benefit for the player to conquer. I don't like the idea of having garrisoned workers... This way you cannot stop their mining production with troops, because you'll need to destroy the mine to do so, and that breaks the meaning of raids

Too much verteces and loops in a mesh is a common mistake when you are learning, dont be discouraged by that. I've taken a lot of old models I did long time ago and I was surprised how many unnecesary polygons I used, and I remade a lot of them with something like 25% of the polys used the first time with the same or even better result. Since you're working with max I can only give you theoretical details instead of practical ones, but the best one is practice, practice practice and.... practice. Don't give up on organic modelling, if you master it, then hard-surface modelling is a piece of cake. Also, I don't know if max allows you to import any background image to guide you while modelling, it's a simple yet very helpful feature that blender has, so you can model in top of images to guide you in the modelling process.

As you can see, micket topology is very good (as seen also in his animal models) where the polys are placed only where they're needed to remark forms and conform the shape even when there are some of them to make parts rounder.

It's ok if you made them for practice, but body armors won't work in the unit meshes because they're animated and the armors aren't, and they will look weird having a static armor while the unit is moving and making different poses. Helmets are different, since they're always on the head and they are propped on the unit and will follow the head movements, but they don't need to be deformed in the animation. If you want to get them as eyecandy, it will need to have some kind of stand or wood structure or table to support them.

I think they look very simple, and there isn't any prop that looks like a mine a lá warcraft in atlas at the moment. Maybe a more realistic approach like lion's mine would fit better and could actually be used. Some time ago there was some discussion about making a big prop like a layered quarry where the player would build a mine building to take the resources from there (bigger amount than normal mines) but I think nothing was decided.

Looking nice. Maybe placing the hay props closer to the building on the walls to reduce the footprint of the structure, and probably making the mill rolling stones smaller, they look very big at the moment, but definitely looks better.

It's not that we can make new unit meshes compatible with .psa files. Those will need to be done from scratch.... There are already new unit meshes in the "animation pipeline" thread made by a contributor and some further UV unwrap work done on them. However, the real task that would save tons of work is making an armature compatible with the current one and make it work with the current .dae animation files. This seems to be harder that it looks, but it would let us use new dude meshes that can use the old animations so we can make the transition smoother than starting all animations again from scratch. I made several attempts and I am still trying from time to time with Jason (Wijitmaker). However there's ton of things now in my to-do list that are higher priority at the moment. We've also decided that the new armatures should be done in blender, since it's free and opensource and everyone can use it to modify or make new animations rather than using any other propietary software. That being said, it doesn't mean you can't work on new unit meshes, but keep in mind that we're going to request an high quality work for units, not only good looking proportions and nicely mapped to the current textures, but also topology-wise, with nice loops for nice animation deformations. Also, if someone has blender armature/animation knowledge as well as importing/exporting dae files, we encourage that you take a look to the animation pipeline thread and help us making an armature compatible with the current one.

Awesome work LordGood. Composition and colors are very appealing. I wonder if they can be separated in two or three layers to make them scroll like the main menu now to give some 3D-depth impression.

I still think than making a new texture for Seleucids following the main colors that you achieved would be more appealing and will help feeling the civ more unique.

I have the impression that the eyecandy tasks threads should have some kind of identifier or tag to diferentiate them from the main tasks. As said before, armors are painted in the texture rather than modeled. Some props in the first post look like they have more trianges than needed, but can't be sure without a shot showing the wireframes. And one very important thing, seeing the armor textured shot that Stan posted: keep in mind that we can't use images found around the internet as textures, we must be sure that the images are licensed as CC-BY-SA 3.0 or public domain and credit the image author if requested. I say this because it can be clearly seen the watermark in the red fabric texture you used which is sign that it is copyrighted.

You can unwrap parts of the model that aren't unwrapped yet without affecting the ones already unwrapped and still being connected. This is achieved by selecting all the vertices that you don't want to modify in the UV image editor, and hitting "P" to "pin" those vertices. Once pinned the parts that you don't want to be modified, just select all and unwrap as always, the pinned parts will be in the same place, and the parts that are not pinned will be nicely unwrapped and connected to the rest of the UVs. Puedes mapear partes del modelo que todavia no han sido "unwrappeadas" sin afectar las que ya estan mapeadas en la textura y hacerlo de modo que esten conectadas. Esto se consigue seleccionando todos los vertices que no quieres modificar en el UV editor y pulsando P, para clavar los vertices. Una vez que esten clavados los que no quieres que se modifiquen, selecciona todos y haz un unwrap como siempre. Las partes clavadas seguirán en el mismo sitio y las que no están clavadas se "unwrapearán" manteniendo la conexion con el resto de partes.

Nice animations! So far, the only ones that I think needs more work are the walking animation (has some harsh movements when placing the feet) and the attacking animation, which doesn't looks to me like it's attacking. Overall, nice work so far!

Stan model has a lot of quads that aren't adding detail or roundness. Model topology is one of the trickiest parts of modelling but it can easily be the most important. Micket's one is looking good, could you please post a wireframe shot so Stan could take a look at how you distributed the geometry?

Hello, the biggest functionalities that need to be implemented correctly are: new pathfinder, useful and working formations, running/charging, animal corraling, building/female capturing. Probably there is some feature missing in my list but those are the most complex tasks before hitting beta. Some of them are already been worked or there is some ground work to make them happen.

Well.. To be honest, I like the colors match in your last screenshot. We could try to make new textures approxmating the colors of that shot. However if I'm not mistaken the columns should be corinthian instead of ionic. And we might try to mimic the stone frames that can be seen in the reference pictures above. What do you think?