Post Your Current WIP V.3!: Tutorials, Tools and Model Packs Galore (GM13 googogogo)

[TheCube]

[QUOTE=iwancoppa;38699328]I don't think you're experienced with building ACF tanks.

Right now, it's piss easy to make a tank with the engine and transmission at the front, ridiculously small frontal area, ammo stuffed behind stupidly thick armor, pod in the hull and no armor at all on the turret. Then, for a battle, you get a slog fest of who has more armor HP.

People who build with realistic size and proportion are not really around anymore. It's all about the tiny craptanks.[/QUOTE]

I remember you telling me that armor on turrets was dumb and completely useless.

[Munkywrench]

ACF needs the option to lock the differentials in transmissions, diffs, and transfer cases :/
Someone should add it

[Beanz]

[QUOTE=MrWhite;38693690]My server has a nearly-perfect version of Precision Alignment.

if anyone is interested in joining,
[sp]The Pit: 67.202.70.80:27015[/sp][/QUOTE]

went there. still can't find inspiration for building anything though, but there were cool roller mines.

[m1cr0man]

[QUOTE=Munkywrench;38704010]ACF needs the option to lock the differentials in transmissions, diffs, and transfer cases :/
Someone should add it[/QUOTE]
Definately, even though my Landie doesn't need them.

Speaking of which (Still no video - I added all the decoration just there now. Will definately make one tomorrow). [URL="http://imgur.com/a/O0Xmg#0"]Click here[/URL] for all development shots...
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/xck1i.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/zwfZH.png[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/SywOm.png[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/AP1Jd.png[/IMG]
I tried to do it as accurately and to-scale as possible. Just incase you don't know/didn't read back - its a Land Rover Lightweight Series III FFR. I put a 3.1L I4 in it with a 6-speed gearbox and 2 transfer cases. It weights about 1645 excluding sprops body pieces (which weight 1 each, parented to chassis). It can traverse all of VehicleConstruct v2 no bother, and has a good center of gravity as to stop it tipping. Like I said, I'll upload a video of it greenlaning tomorrow. You can thank my homework for not getting it tonight. :P

Oh, and if anyone can point me in the direction of a good steering wheel that would be great!

[Winston]

[QUOTE=iwancoppa;38699328]I don't think you're experienced with building ACF tanks.

Right now, it's piss easy to make a tank with the engine and transmission at the front, ridiculously small frontal area, ammo stuffed behind stupidly thick armor, pod in the hull and no armor at all on the turret. Then, for a battle, you get a slog fest of who has more armor HP.

People who build with realistic size and proportion are not really around anymore. It's all about the tiny craptanks.[/QUOTE]

This is fairly true.
As opposed to nerfing armour, the requirement for three more bulky, vulnerable yet critical entities should be imposed;
Driver, Gunner and Loader.
Destroy loader ent? Can't load another shell. Destroy driver ent? Can't use any movement controls, etc.
This would increase the average size and non-armour weight of a tank and make battles more interesting.

[Unslinga]

[QUOTE=m1cr0man;38705399]Oh, and if anyone can point me in the direction of a good steering wheel that would be great![/QUOTE]

[url="http://www.garrysmod.org/downloads/?a=view&id=53683"]Steering Wheel Pack[/url] is a good option for steering wheels, just remember to rename info.txt to addon.txt and the spawn list is pretty useless, you can find them in the all menu under steeringwheels.

[RedReaper]

I never have a problem penning enemy tanks with more than a few shots. This dillemma never showed up for me, since I just figured the answer was "more firepower" or "more creativity". Hence the double barreled tank prototype.

[Cinnamon]

[QUOTE=Beanz;38704605]went there. still can't find inspiration for building anything though, but there were cool roller mines.[/QUOTE]

Damn, didn't realize that was you, despite you having the same name ingame. Oops.

[iwancoppa]

[QUOTE=RedReaper;38707125]I never have a problem penning enemy tanks with more than a few shots. This dillemma never showed up for me, since I just figured the answer was "more firepower" or "more creativity". Hence the double barreled tank prototype.[/QUOTE]

Well red haax blah blah blah.

On a serious note, I find that most battles take a bit more then a few shots. just saying.

Dear thecube, I know that turret armor is useless. I take a problem to that since on a real tank it isn't useless. Although it's a shitty way to play, right now tanks have no need to have any armor other then blocks/plates covering the pod, wire and ammo.

Essentially, the issue is to do with people who build in cheesy ways to win everything and people who build with less ridiculous and extreme methods to have fun fights. The annoying thing is that it's getting to the point where it's harder to make the 2nd example then the first example.

To be honest, Winston's idea is actually marvelous indeed. It could also be changed to be more encompassing of smaller designs, but with payoffs. Imagine; All weapons need a loading system of some sort attached. The size, weight and ability of the loading system is all varied, from large and effective to small and slow. Loading systems take damage from gunfire which reduces there effectiveness to 0-5% or something puny. Scales with gun size ETC. human loaders for burst ability, autoloaders for sustained fire and slightly tougher. Clip fed guns(IE autoloading cannons, MG's) require human crew.

[Munkywrench]

[QUOTE=MrWhite;38708291]Damn, didn't realize that was you, despite you having the same name ingame. Oops.[/QUOTE]

I saw him :P hell, I'm pretty sure you were there for a bit while he was, good on you for not noticing lol

You know, it's about damn time I throw up shots of some of my stuff, can't recall ever doing that. I'll get to it tomorrow.

[RedReaper]

[QUOTE=iwancoppa;38710383]Well red haax blah blah blah.

On a serious note, I find that most battles take a bit more then a few shots. just saying.[/QUOTE]

Yup. :>

It does, on one hand, take far more to kill an enemy tank than real systems. This is compounded not by acf balance but just by building methods--we, as a community, are getting much more efficient and skilled. I think that yes, sloping is overpowered--while the deflection properties are correct, the way acf converts slope into damage effectiveness is NOT realistic. On the other hand, one-shot fights is not practical. They should be long, drawn out slugfests more than "who shoots first". Though, I do find it ridiculous that some of my tanks can take fifty shots and keep on chugging with no fucks given (though I'm an armor [B]WIZARD[/B]).

May I counterpropose a modification of ACF's damage system, wherein damage to a prop affected is Damage = (Damage as sloped + Damage if it was flat)/2? Right now damage and slope are directly linked, and it makes it retarded that paperthin armor at trollslopes can last forever. I think it would shorten tank fights (but not decisively), while not nullifying the effects of slope. It'd also be a lot less intrusive and keep the learning curve shorter for ACF building.

Stop bitching about the turrets. If someone wants to throw away a chunk of their tank's weight to keep a gun upright with no other purpose, let 'em. Only really [URL="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fa/Gary_the_Snail_SBSP.png/200px-Gary_the_Snail_SBSP.png"]one country[/URL] ever made a long-production-run main battle tank with the armament in the hull.

[matbes30]

[QUOTE=RedReaper;38714580]Yup. :>

It does, on one hand, take far more to kill an enemy tank than real systems. This is compounded not by acf balance but just by building methods--we, as a community, are getting much more efficient and skilled. I think that yes, sloping is overpowered--while the deflection properties are correct, the way acf converts slope into damage effectiveness is NOT realistic. On the other hand, one-shot fights is not practical. They should be long, drawn out slugfests more than "who shoots first". Though, I do find it ridiculous that some of my tanks can take fifty shots and keep on chugging with no fucks given (though I'm an armor [B]WIZARD[/B]).

May I counterpropose a modification of ACF's damage system, wherein damage to a prop affected is Damage = (Damage as sloped + Damage if it was flat)/2? Right now damage and slope are directly linked, and it makes it retarded that paperthin armor at trollslopes can last forever. I think it would shorten tank fights (but not decisively), while not nullifying the effects of slope. It'd also be a lot less intrusive and keep the learning curve shorter for ACF building.

Stop bitching about the turrets. If someone wants to throw away a chunk of their tank's weight to keep a gun upright with no other purpose, let 'em. Only really [URL="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fa/Gary_the_Snail_SBSP.png/200px-Gary_the_Snail_SBSP.png"]one country[/URL] ever made a long-production-run main battle tank with the armament in the hull.[/QUOTE]

Hi, i'm snail.

[Bubbus]

Could add shell normalization (WoT style) instead of fiddling with damage ratios. Feels a bit cleaner and would be easier to turn into a convar. For different shell types you can change the normalization amount too (some shells are smooth, some "bite into" the armour etc blah)
It'd also nerf the trollslopes you're seeing more than well-angled armour because of the nature of a cosine curve.

Good sources:
[url]http://wiki.worldoftanks.com/Battle_Mechanics#Shell_Normalization[/url]
[url]http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/50512-shell-normalization/[/url]

(fuck it, at this rate i should probably just make an acf extension - don't care about it being "official" anymore and acf devs seem dead)

[sentrygunman]

[QUOTE=VODKAH;38655055]Guess what car

[IMG]http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/902107446065982475/FE9EFFD5F19338F4D72AEB599104A33C7FB6B5F5/[/IMG][/QUOTE]

camaro iroc-z?

[RedReaper]

normalization isn't right in WOT though. It's actually pretty blatantly wrong.
While yes, shells "bite" into armor, this action also diffuses the penetrative capabilities of the shell, changes the impact point and hence kinetic energy transfer, is dependent upon shell shape and density relative to the material it's striking, etc., etc. Not to mention shells striking at extreme angles and sharper than the tip geometry tend to just bounce off harmlessly. Terminal ballistics is complicated, and WOT fucks it up.
ACF needs coders desperately. It's not dead.

[VODKAH]

[QUOTE=sentrygunman;38717245]camaro iroc-z?[/QUOTE]

Deluxo from vice city.

[Bubbus]

WoT norm seemed plain wrong just by the fact that shells have a constant normalization angle, thanks for the confirm :v:
Gonna check the feasibility of an ACF extension with the stuff you guys mentioned on this page. If you give me a more realistic normalization model I'll be sure to implement it - I wasn't able to find any real-world documentation about it because of all the WoT crap. The effects would need to be exaggerated to make it worthwhile though, otherwise there's no point in adding it.

[m1cr0man]

I was about to compile a greenlaning video on vehicleconstuct_v2, but I got bored, browsed some random servers and discovered that carconstruct was out for 13!
[URL=http://imgur.com/v4mfF][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/v4mfFl.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

Also, is it normal for gmod to lag after spawning a model with that many sprops? I normally don't complain, but gmod is only using 40% GPU and 55% CPU and im getting around 20 frames while recording and driving. I know its caused by my lanie, but my machine is clearly able to handle it. Why wont GMOD utilise my whole machine? (im not running out of space, ram or vram either, and GPU DRIVERS ARE UP TO DATE!)

[Munkywrench]

[QUOTE=m1cr0man;38727387]I was about to compile a greenlaning video on vehicleconstuct_v2, but I got bored, browsed some random servers and discovered that carconstruct was out for 13!
[URL=http://imgur.com/v4mfF][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/v4mfFl.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

Also, is it normal for gmod to lag after spawning a model with that many sprops? I normally don't complain, but gmod is only using 40% GPU and 55% CPU and im getting around 20 frames while recording and driving. I know its caused by my lanie, but my machine is clearly able to handle it. Why wont GMOD utilise my whole machine? (im not running out of space, ram or vram either, and GPU DRIVERS ARE UP TO DATE!)[/QUOTE]
o.O Gmod is using 55% of your cpu? Either you have a problem, or your cpu is pretty crappy. I wouldn't be at all surprised if your lag problem was a result of your cpu was bottle necking your whole rig. What cpu and gpu do you have?

[Cinnamon]

YAY Garry readded "gm_snapdegrees" as a clientside var "gm_snapangles"!

[m1cr0man]

[QUOTE=Munkywrench;38727694]o.O Gmod is using 55% of your cpu? Either you have a problem, or your cpu is pretty crappy. I wouldn't be at all surprised if your lag problem was a result of your cpu was bottle necking your whole rig. What cpu and gpu do you have?[/QUOTE]
My CPU does bottleneck my rig, along with the old motherboard and ram ive got:
Abit IX38-QuadGT
8GB (4x2GB) Kingston HyperX 1066mhz DDR2 (fastest DDR2)
EVGA GTX460 FTW edition
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400 @2.7ghz
7 Pro 64 bit

When I say 55%, i mean the average of the 4 cores. It seems core 1 is higher than the rest though, so maybe threaded optimization in nvcpl will help. But still, it should use more than 55% anyway, I know my machine is capable (and does achieve when the landie isnt spawned) of around 150fps on GMod. Any ideas?

[TweaK2007]

[img]http://i46.tinypic.com/2m4y3xc.jpg[/img]

[Falcqn]

[QUOTE=MrWhite;38727780]YAY Garry readded "gm_snapdegrees" as a clientside var "gm_snapangles"![/QUOTE]

And gm_snapgrid, which is also clientside! Soon we won't need PGBM at all :P

[RedReaper]

I can't even start a fucking sp game now. It auto-dc's me at like 99% loaded. THANKS GARRY.

[TweaK2007]

[img]http://i45.tinypic.com/293vu6u.jpg[/img]

it works! :v:

edit: [url]http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=111929524[/url] if anyone is interested

[iwancoppa]

WoT shell normalisation is fucking retarded, period.

It completely violates the laws of reflection...'

Also, say you are relying on a plate having a wtfslope on an area, 10 deg of normalisation can half the effective thickness.

[Bubbus]

I think the argument here is against relying on wtfslopes. I can see how using crazy slopes can create some curiously tough tanks within weight classes. I'll let you and red duke it out. I'm not the expert, I'm just a programmer :v:

oh shit pageking. gotta find content!

edit; have a missile tank. missile launcher holo model is by Mort;

[img_thumb]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/902553/Pictures/Screens/2012-12-06_00001.jpg[/img_thumb]

edit; also patrol boat

[img_thumb]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/902553/Pictures/Screens/gm_longrun_v30002.jpg[/img_thumb]

edit; also tank battols

[img_thumb]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/902553/Pictures/Screens/Contraptions/2012-12-07/gm_bluehills_test30003.jpg[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/902553/Pictures/Screens/Contraptions/2012-12-07/gm_bluehills_test30006.jpg[/img_thumb]
[img_thumb]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/902553/Pictures/Screens/Contraptions/2012-12-07/gm_bluehills_test30008.jpg[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/902553/Pictures/Screens/Contraptions/2012-12-07/gm_bluehills_test30016.jpg[/img_thumb]

[Blachnick90]

Everybody is talking about Stiffplate Suspension at the moment. Can somebody please tell me how it´s done ?

[Jackpody]

I remember blowing up your patrol boat, bobos.

[editline]edit[/editline]

it was fun.

[Labrasones]

[QUOTE=Blachnick90;38738313]Everybody is talking about Stiffplate Suspension at the moment. Can somebody please tell me how it´s done ?[/QUOTE]

I believe that this -> [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFPna9JQLt0[/url] is what they are talking about. I use it on my vehicles, and as long as your suspension doesn't have too much travel, it's great. More than a foot of travel or so and I'd say it's much to springy no matter what you set the weight to.