Progression of ships

[Dran]

Have a question then about the ITTS target tracking. How come on the Tiger claw, none of ships have ITTS including the Rator. In WC II all of the ships that I can remember at least (Been a few years) have ITTS with exception of the raptor, and maybe the ferret. If the military at that time is willing to upgrade all the other WC I craft i.e. broadswords, Hell cat's then how come they would have updated the newest ship in the arsenal (of course this "New" ship is 10 years older). Any thoughts?

 

[Edfilho]

Well, howard, As cool as Brad's 500 Poly model is, it just proves the it is possible to make a 500 poly Ferret. It says nothing about the technical limitations of both the 3d tools used back then and the game engine, the amount of time the 3d artists had to make the original models... This theory might be wrong, and it is not worthy to push it, but it is not completely disproved, unless we try to recreat the above mentioned conditions or someone who worked on the game tells us so. AFAIK, we never got that particular official info.

but whatever. My example of the american airplanes in the pacific and in europe was used by loaf, ehehehe

 

[Howard Day]

Well, howard, As cool as Brad's 500 Poly model is, it just proves the it is possible to make a 500 poly Ferret. It says nothing about the technical limitations of both the 3d tools used back then and the game engine, the amount of time the 3d artists had to make the original models... This theory might be wrong, and it is not worthy to push it, but it is not completely disproved, unless we try to recreat the above mentioned conditions or someone who worked on the game tells us so. AFAIK, we never got that particular official info.

That doesn't matter. The model was created to the specifications of the WC3 engine - and polygons are polygons. The tool used to create them doesn't matter a single bit. The model Brad created could just as easily have been created in 3D Studio 2 (Which is what I believe they used. It may have been version 3). It could have been created by hand-typing the polygon vertices into a text editor. (not as hard as it sounds) Believe it or not, there's nothing complex about the model he made. It is proof that the theory you put forth is false. The were no technical limitations on the engine or art side precluding the Origin team from making WC2 models in the WC3 engine. They changed them because they wanted to. Good for them. I would have felt ripped off if I had seen all the old fighters in a new game. That's one of the reasons people bought each new game - not only was it a contiuation of the storyline, but also you got to fly new fighters and use new weapons. New toys are always a selling point.
Anyhow.

 

[Eder]

Well, howard, As cool as Brad's 500 Poly model is, it just proves the it is possible to make a 500 poly Ferret. It says nothing about the technical limitations of both the 3d tools used back then and the game engine, the amount of time the 3d artists had to make the original models...

If you look at the 3D models that were used to render the WC2 sprites, you'll see that most of them have over 20 thousand polygons, and I'm sure the models used in WC3's pre-rendered cutscenes were even more complex than that.

That means technology at the time WC3 came out allowed for infinitely more complex models than the ones that were used in-game. The artist's time is not an issue either, since high-detail versions of the same ships needed to be made for the pre-rendered cutscenes, anyway.

So, yes, it's safe to say the sole technical limitation was the amount of complexity the game's engine (not the artist or the 3d modelling tool) could handle... they needed models that would work in real-time, so the models needed to be simple.

Brad's already proven that WC2's designs could be effectively turned into simple enough models, so the "WC3 doesn't look like WC2 because they went polygonal" conspiracy theory can indeed be ruled out.

 

[ChrisReid]

Have a question then about the ITTS target tracking. How come on the Tiger claw, none of ships have ITTS including the Rator. In WC II all of the ships that I can remember at least (Been a few years) have ITTS with exception of the raptor, and maybe the ferret. If the military at that time is willing to upgrade all the other WC I craft i.e. broadswords, Hell cat's then how come they would have updated the newest ship in the arsenal (of course this "New" ship is 10 years older). Any thoughts?

Ships are continually upgraded and newer models are produced. The Broadsword is an older design than the Rapier II, but the versions of the Broadswords that we fly are not necessarily older than the versions of the Rapier that we fly in WC2. In fact it makes a lot of sense that the older ships get upgraded first since they're the most technologically in need.

 

[Edfilho]

That doesn't matter. The model was created to the specifications of the WC3 engine - and polygons are polygons. The tool used to create them doesn't matter a single bit. The model Brad created could just as easily have been created in 3D Studio 2 (Which is what I believe they used. It may have been version 3). It could have been created by hand-typing the polygon vertices into a text editor. (not as hard as it sounds) Believe it or not, there's nothing complex about the model he made. It is proof that the theory you put forth is false. The were no technical limitations on the engine or art side precluding the Origin team from making WC2 models in the WC3 engine. They changed them because they wanted to. Good for them. I would have felt ripped off if I had seen all the old fighters in a new game. That's one of the reasons people bought each new game - not only was it a contiuation of the storyline, but also you got to fly new fighters and use new weapons. New toys are always a selling point.
Anyhow.

Alrighty then, the subject is settled.