View Full Version : 'Falcon 2' for PDark:Source mod (USP .45 compact)

11 November 2005, 02:23 AM
Hello all!

I have just recently got a position on the mod of Perfect Dark for the Source engine and this is my latest model for it. We decided to make the Falcon 2 a USP .45 Compact for a number of reasons and I was wondering if anyone had any crits :)

P.S.~The poly count is below my budget, so that is of absolutely no problem :). I is Source!!

11 November 2005, 02:32 AM
It looks like you could use about 2x the little vent/stripe thingies above the handle, at the rear of the slide there. Otherwise, I think they look really good! I hope the project goes well, PD holds a very special place in my heart!

11 November 2005, 02:36 AM
Oh the slide grip is actually like that :)

11 November 2005, 02:38 AM
Sexy loooking.

11 November 2005, 02:41 AM
Thanks :). I forgot to put this in my first post, but for those who care here is the site:

You can change the language on the left side there (little flags ;))

11 November 2005, 03:30 AM
Oh the slide grip is actually like that :)

Wow, there are a lot less than I thought! My bad dude. I think there are one or two more than you have still though, it just looks a tad sparse. No complaints otherwise!

11 November 2005, 05:12 AM
looking good dude

11 November 2005, 11:19 AM
nice model but i realy want to ask for the multi-sided polys you got on your model ? (

11 November 2005, 01:12 PM
Do you mean you want to see it triangulated?

11 November 2005, 01:50 PM
well, probably it is so.. its okay :))

when you export it to the engine, it will get triangulated. but the engine will make that, its prefered you to maKE it. if its not, its not reccommended to have multisided polygons.
!!! ;)

11 November 2005, 04:26 PM
it would need to be triangulated for a game. I have seen engines reak havoc on that kind of stuff.

11 November 2005, 05:34 PM
How does the scoped mod eject a casing? The USP slide won't come far enough back to clear the scope, and the barrel will also swing up and hit said scope. Do you have a render of the slide locked out?

11 November 2005, 05:30 PM
Well I am not at my computer ATM but if you look at some pictures of a USP you will see that the ejection port is quite large on the right side of the you don't really see that side of the gun ingame anyway :p

11 November 2005, 02:57 AM
Looks very nice, but owch, lookit that polycount. I know you're under your budget, but with triangulation I can see the one on the right going to like 6-7k easily. I'm working on Source too and that seems pretty dang high for a weapon model that's going to be covered by a hand.

11 November 2005, 11:12 AM
No...that is the count of the tris...not polys :p.

11 November 2005, 04:45 PM
delete the backside faces not shown in the animations = around 2k tri's gone
Problem solved.

11 November 2005, 07:55 PM
It hasn't been animated yet. And 10:1 most of the model will be shown at some point in the anims. Even the right side is most likely going to be shown in the idle anim. I refuse to delete the backfaces before animation as it limits the animators.

But I mean c'mon space, you are from know this is a low PC :p hehe.

11 November 2005, 04:29 AM
Yeah, but CDG work is designed as high detail stuff for use with awesome rendering engines.
Seriously, you try one of those in Renderware (playstation software) you'll crash. Those things have more polys than the average playstation game level.
It's still a lot of polys *cough cough*60thousand*cough*

11 November 2005, 05:20 AM
Well I know that...but I am not working with an engine built for 4 year old crappy console hardware :p. I am making it for Source and a mod that is going to be pretty demanding. It is a new generation...5k is the new low poly ;).

11 November 2005, 04:21 PM
I don't think 5000 tris is the new low-poly. Next-gen means more demanding AI and physics, as well as bigger environments and high resolution textures. You should normal map the guns, too much details have been modeled.

This is next-gen low poly:

Good use of normal mapping (5,287 tris, not polygons)

11 November 2005, 07:11 PM
Well UE3 and Source are two very different engines. Normal maps do not work the way they do in UE3. Source has proven to be quite the poly powerhouse. People have gotten 24k tri models ingame with only a 5 fps loss on medium system specs.

So honestly 4k is not a problem. Games are not as weak as they used to be. Granted if I was making this from some middleware such as BF2 or something then I would be pushing it. But this is Source. :)

11 November 2005, 07:14 PM
Actually next-gen means nothing of the sort. It is simply a term for a new generation of engine software. In actual fact the main focus of this new generation of games technology is focused on smart content creation and giving the tools to the people that need them. Not AI nor physics.

And I really would like to say that there is a slight difference between a 5k tri pistol pure geometry model, and a 5k tri character model with two 2048^2 normal maps applied, which were generated from a 5 million tri detail mesh.
I'm afraid there are things you can't really compare.

11 November 2005, 08:26 PM
Yeah except that if the main enemies are 5000 tris and so are the guns, there is a lack of balance. What I showed with the Gears of War screenshots was that people nowadays think they can just triple the tri count since this is "next gen" when it fact they can use less than before thanks to normal maps and more.

11 November 2005, 08:44 PM
If I were to use normal maps on a gun it would just end up looking like something from Doom. I think that people don't understand that I am able to use triple the polys because there is no consequences since the engine can handle it with no problem. Just because there are normal maps doesn't mean I should use them. Now if Valve had included Paralax mapping like they had originally planned then I could use less polys and be guilt free.

But like said before, you cannot compare player models to weapon models. Weapon models are rigid where player models are smooth. Weapon models are also in close view for extended periods of time where player models are constantly moving and allowing players less time to focus on their details. So with all of that a gun would require more detail, for a better gaming experience.

11 November 2005, 09:19 PM
I think tonedef is right
there is a big difference between realistic looking games like ravenshield hl2 and such a things and doom quake4 ....

normalmaps are cool but i think not for all kind of games
for example swat 4 used normals on the clothing and it looks like plastic or something

The usp is very styleish ;)

11 November 2005, 07:39 PM
for example swat 4 used normals on the clothing and it looks like plastic or something

But that's the spec, not the normal at all.

11 November 2005, 08:08 PM
to me it seems like thats a beefy amount of polys for a gun... bottom line why would you drop so many tris into a gun if you dont need to because it could be faked.. even if the engine can handle it im sure there are better ways to spend the polys... so many better ways...(sweet sweet vehicle explosions) druels..

dont get me wrong the model is lookin hot ! .. but i think that some of it could be turned to normal or bump and you will get away with it..

you do make a noted point with it being viewd close to the screen for extended periods of time.. perhaps the best results would be two versions of the gun mesh ,one for the closeup fps gun in hand view and one for when its on other character models infront of you..

thats probably how i would try and solve the problem

btw mesh is lookin totaly awsome !

11 November 2005, 09:25 PM
That is how it works :p. There is the vee model (1st person) and the wee model (world model), which is comprised of extremely few 200-300. Same as HL1 :)...though they got rid of the p_ models. So that is why it is easy to be so lenient with the PC. Also if I was going to use normal maps it would be pointless...All those are good for is to show scratches and engravings (small details) so anything I modeled would not translate well at all with a normal map. But if we had relief or parallax maps it would be a whole new story.

11 November 2005, 09:48 PM
Love the models man. I'm a big fan of the first perfect dark for the N64 and the one for the XBOX360 looks pretty cool. Good luck with getting it done and out for Steam, that'll kick ass!!

CGTalk Moderation
11 November 2005, 09:48 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.