vingrjoe
Aug 13, 2004, 05:41 PM
New version 1.7, follow this link:[url]
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=140053
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=140053
|
View Full Version : Modern Iowa Class Battleship Revision 1.1 vingrjoe Aug 13, 2004, 05:41 PM New version 1.7, follow this link:[url] http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=140053 vingrjoe Aug 13, 2004, 05:41 PM Preview removed to clear up space. vingrjoe Aug 13, 2004, 05:51 PM Here's a pic I based the model on. John Falkner Aug 14, 2004, 03:46 AM Wow!!! I like it :goodjob: When do you come to your first russian modern ship ??? BeBro Aug 14, 2004, 04:22 AM Cool. Love the explosion! :goodjob: Panzer_Blitz Aug 14, 2004, 09:47 AM Wow, thats a nice unit. Didn't know battleships were being reto-fitted with new weapon systems... vingrjoe Aug 14, 2004, 12:23 PM Wow, thats a nice unit. Didn't know battleships were being reto-fitted with new weapon systems... In the 1980s, the US brought back all four Iowa class battleships out of mothballs. They were upgraded with modern electronics, computers, tomahawk and harpoon missiles. Then, in the early nineties (90-92), they were again decommissoned. The Missouri BB63 and New Jersey BB62 are now museums and the Iowa BB61 and Wisconsin BB64 are on the US Navy's inactive reserve list just in case duty calls again. John Falkner, I still have that Kirov model sitting on my shelf, just have to get around to it. I just bought a North Carolina BB a few weeks a go. I can't give any ETA's, epsecially since my wife and I had a 'spirited' discussion about my computer time, and it looks like, for my own good, I have to reprioritize my time and how it's spent. John Falkner Aug 14, 2004, 01:53 PM I can't give any ETA's, epsecially since my wife and I had a 'spirited' discussion about my computer time, and it looks like, for my own good, I have to reprioritize my time and how it's spent. Wife, which wife :mischief: I havenīt seen my own one for a couple of days I think, only because I have begun a new Civ game ;) (hope she doesnīt read this :blush: ) Steph Aug 14, 2004, 02:55 PM Ah... They are the same everywhere in the world... But what could we do without them? John Falkner Aug 14, 2004, 03:07 PM Ah... They are the same everywhere in the world... But what could we do without them? Playing Civ every time we want ???!!! :D valamas Aug 20, 2004, 01:51 AM Hi All This looks fantasic. I have nver installed a mod. How do install this Mod and does it on appear for the American Civ or all civs. thanks! 10lire Aug 20, 2004, 06:46 AM Hi All This looks fantasic. I have nver installed a mod. How do install this Mod and does it on appear for the American Civ or all civs. thanks! It's too long to explain how to do in a thread.. You can refer to the thread: Civilization Fanatics' Forums > CIVILIZATION III > Civ3 - Creation & Customization > Unit Graphics > How to Add/Use These New Units Here is the link: How to Add/Use These New Units (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=31576) Please feel free to send me PM for any question ;) and have fun modifying your CIV3! 10lire Aug 20, 2004, 06:49 AM Yes, the explotion in the Death animation is great, but the ship appears almost unharmed after the explotion and before sinking; look at the attached picture (it losts only the radar tower) ... I think the ship has more damages after a so big explotion... however very nice unit! :goodjob: grant2004 Aug 20, 2004, 06:54 AM I think it looks great, it would be better if that stern deck plate was a little lighter, looks like asphault to me.... but it still looks great vingrjoe Aug 20, 2004, 09:09 AM The whole death animation pushed my computer to it's limits. I was mainly concerned with the explosion more than the damage inflicted. I figured the ship sinks pretty quickly after the explosion, so adding in alot of damage wouldn't be worth the labor. The current damage includes the forward mast destruction, the forward funnel cap destruction and the aft funnel destruction. The stern deck plating was metal coated with a skid-proof material, (close to what's used on carrier flight decks), so that's why it looks like asphalt. 10lire Aug 20, 2004, 09:53 AM critism is most beneficial in the preview forum when the unit is a work in progress, not a finished unit. I'm sorry if you are annoyed with my observation; the problem is that I visit these forums rarely (look at my posts stat!) and I have seen your Battleships from "This Week's New Civ3 Downloads"; however the sense of my post is: "This unit is great (and I add it to my mod :) ), but, if you in the future will create a modern Iowa Battleship revision 1.2 , why don't you etc. etc."; nobody wants you discard your work and restart! :) :) :) :) :) :) vingrjoe Aug 20, 2004, 09:58 AM 10lire, I apologize for being somewhat irritable. I'm glad you and others, overall enjoy my unit(s). You brought up a good point there about future revisions. If there is a revision 1.2, I will keep your suggestion in mind. Wyrmshadow Aug 20, 2004, 10:54 AM Yes, the explotion in the Death animation is great, but the ship appears almost unharmed after the explotion and before sinking; look at the attached picture (it losts only the radar tower) ... I think the ship has more damages after a so big explotion... however very nice unit! :goodjob: In defence of VJ, what you asked is easier said than done. It depends on the program being used. And most of the time it is a lot of extra trouble for sometimes few rewards. vingrjoe Aug 25, 2004, 04:34 PM I didn't think I'd be making a new revision for quite a while, but it was brought to my attention that my ships had a grainy, fuzzy look to them. I personally didn't notice fuzziness, but I did notice my units have jagged edges. Now I don't really like post-release critism, but even I will, from time to time, agree with it. So, starting with the newest revised Iowas, I'm making new renderings using new settings in 3DMax. So now units should be smoother and more clear. The Kirov is on hold until I get both new Iowa revisions done, then I will finish the Kirov, and then proceed to cleanup my other ships. So here is revision 1.1a of the modern Iowa. Thanks to Wyrmshadow for referring me to Ripptide and thanks to Ripptide for the helpful info on Max filters. Updated file links and preview in post #1 of this thread. The file is in two parts. Halidon55 Aug 26, 2004, 07:40 AM A wonderful work of art vingrjoe, I really enjoy the death scene too. It's good to see a wide spread. By the way, would you happen to have a PT boat in the works? I haven't found one that launches torpedoes yet. Once again, great job as always. vingrjoe Aug 26, 2004, 07:56 AM I don't have any PT boats planned at the moment. I may do one in the future, but it wouldn't be for a while. Check with Wyrmshadow, he has made alot of ships, but I'm not sure whether he has made a PT boat or not. vingrjoe Aug 31, 2004, 09:53 PM Here are some new attack sounds for the guns. Attack01 is for AttackA and Attack02 is for AttackB. Attack01 has the sound of the turrets traversing and then firing. Attack02 is gunfire only. There is a bug when you select autobombard, it skips the sound every other salvo. I don't know if the soundclip is too long or what. vingrjoe Mar 15, 2005, 01:02 PM Removed information no longer useful. vingrjoe Mar 15, 2005, 01:48 PM I made up a wav file to go with the new Attack animation. El Justo Mar 15, 2005, 02:08 PM awesome! awesome! awesome! truly awesome! W.i.n.t.e.r Mar 15, 2005, 04:49 PM Cool stuff!!! Errr, how come this great unit, with its 5 or 6 times revised (and truelly perfected) animation graphics and now even superb sounds still lacks its Ini file :D ??? vingrjoe Mar 15, 2005, 05:10 PM The ini file can be found in post #1. Drivebymaster Mar 15, 2005, 05:29 PM So whats next on the ship list vingrjoe? Please tell me there are some japanese ships on it? W.i.n.t.e.r Mar 15, 2005, 06:00 PM So whats next on the ship list vingrjoe? Please tell me there are some japanese ships on it? hmm, Japanese wwii vessels....... or a modern German 123/124 Class Frigate.... also British and Franco-Italian Cruisers and destroyers were plentiful and diverse during wwii... (I even got an "inspiration listing" of unusual cruisers flying around somewhere, including such interesting vessels such as Dutch De Ruyter, Spanish Baleares, Danish Niels Juel, and Swedish Drottning Victoria)... Yet for the moment I think Vingrjoe needs a rest :) vingrjoe Mar 15, 2005, 06:40 PM I had my eye on some Cold War era US and Soviet ships..... All I can think of that Japan needs for WWII era is a cruiser and destroyer. Drivebymaster Mar 15, 2005, 08:25 PM Thats bout it for Japan :lol: Cold does need newer ships so I see where your going with this. Snorken Mar 16, 2005, 12:23 PM I even got an "inspiration listing" of unusual cruisers flying around somewhere, including such interesting vessels such as Dutch De Ruyter, Spanish Baleares, Danish Niels Juel, and Swedish Drottning Victoria... Yet for the moment I think Vingrjoe needs a rest :)Drottning Victoria wasn't a cruiser... It was an armoured ship (pansarskepp in Swedish)... It had two pairs of 28cm guns, so you really can't call it a cruiser... I don't think Niels Juel was a cruiser either... I'm not sure about that one, though... I'm sorry for the nit-picking, but as a Swede I just had to say this... :) W.i.n.t.e.r Mar 16, 2005, 10:11 PM Ahaaa, somewhat biased, aren't we ??? :D LoL- yes, I know the Drottning Victoria and its two sister ships were Coastal Defence Ships- i.e. a heavy armor, gun turreted artillery vessel with short range and unsubstantial seagoing ability. Niels Juel unfortunately was also a vessel that wore the same type of tag, while not being at all comparable to the former: In fact the Juel was more of a Heavy Gunboat, while quite seaworthy also a rather short range craft, with only secondary armament. While neither of the two are what I called them, you must agree that by calling them both "coastal defence ships" (as their blueprints original denominations suggest) it wouldn't have made it easier. The closest to any mainstream international denomination of these would lead Juel to become something close to a "light Cruiser" while D.Victoria would be something between an Armored Heavy Coastal Cruiser and an Artillery Plattform Vessel. The term Pansarkepp should be as unique as the entire class in itself. An extremely nice craft for cruiser purposes (and since you are a patriot you'll surely agree with me ;) ) would be the Gotland Class (though again the Swedes managed to turn it into something very different to a cruiser, by converting it into a 3-fold hybrid; part carrier, part tender, part cruiser (and keeping the rear turret by repositioning it just aft the citadel :confused: - how on earth did that work out with the magazine??) Always wanna stick out, huh ?? :lol: http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads9/gotland_plan.jpg Drottning Victoria would have been comparable to what the Deutschland Class had initially been planned as, although the Germans would then, during the preparations for a confrontation with the British empire opt for a high speed sea-going raider vessel instead of a sluggish coastal juggernought that would have merely allowed a limited patrol range. @Vingroe: Actualy Japan already has one (wwii) destroyer, by Wyrmshadow (I am deeply sorry but I forgot the class name) and I know for sure he has another escort destroyer model (by Erik) on his PC, vegetating its life away waiting to be animated. Cruisers are in need though. Mogami et al. Drivebymaster Mar 16, 2005, 10:16 PM Ohh well if Vingrjoe makes a japanese sea unit by god let him...cuz if he does end up doing the same class it wont matter...because that means more of a selection. But anyways let Vingrjoe do the cold war era cuz there are some sweet ships in that era. Snorken Mar 17, 2005, 12:12 PM Ahaaa, somewhat biased, aren't we ??? :D LoL- yes, I know the Drottning Victoria and its two sister ships were Coastal Defence Ships- i.e. a heavy armor, gun turreted artillery vessel with short range and unsubstantial seagoing ability. Niels Juel unfortunately was also a vessel that wore the same type of tag, while not being at all comparable to the former: In fact the Juel was more of a Heavy Gunboat, while quite seaworthy also a rather short range craft, with only secondary armament. While neither of the two are what I called them, you must agree that by calling them both "coastal defence ships" (as their blueprints original denominations suggest) it wouldn't have made it easier. The closest to any mainstream international denomination of these would lead Juel to become something close to a "light Cruiser" while D.Victoria would be something between an Armored Heavy Coastal Cruiser and an Artillery Plattform Vessel. The term Pansarkepp should be as unique as the entire class in itself. An extremely nice craft for cruiser purposes (and since you are a patriot you'll surely agree with me ;) ) would be the Gotland Class (though again the Swedes managed to turn it into something very different to a cruiser, by converting it into a 3-fold hybrid; part carrier, part tender, part cruiser (and keeping the rear turret by repositioning it just aft the citadel :confused: - how on earth did that work out with the magazine??) Always wanna stick out, huh ?? :lol: http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads9/gotland_plan.jpg Drottning Victoria would have been comparable to what the Deutschland Class had initially been planned as, although the Germans would then, during the preparations for a confrontation with the British empire opt for a high speed sea-going raider vessel instead of a sluggish coastal juggernought that would have merely allowed a limited patrol range. @Vingroe: Actualy Japan already has one (wwii) destroyer, by Wyrmshadow (I am deeply sorry but I forgot the class name) and I know for sure he has another escort destroyer model (by Erik) on his PC, vegetating its life away waiting to be animated. Cruisers are in need though. Mogami et al.I couldn't figure out a good answer to your post, so I'll just post some other stuff... :) I read in a book about the Swedish Navy that one of the reasons the Germans didn't invade Sweden was because they feared the Swedish Navy... :) The Aircraft-Cruiser (Flygplanskryssare) Gotland was rebuilt to a AA-Cruiser in 1943... 57mm, 40mm and 25mm Bofors guns were mounted on the former flightdeck and the 152mm guns in the barbettes on the sides of the command tower were removed... The Japanese destroyer Wyrshadow made is the Akizuki-class... Edit: If I ever learn how to make units the Swedish Navy of WW2 will be at the top of my to do-list... ;) W.i.n.t.e.r Mar 17, 2005, 01:14 PM Cheers, Akizuki it is (I think the other one was a escort of the Matsu Class, the Sakura) :) Hmm, I won't say much about the archaic fears of Germans towards Swedes here- just that once landed in Norway they'd have gotten to ya overland while on the other hand not having needed battling the Swedish vessels (who in effect would have proven that one bit too much to tackle IMO. After all the German sea campaign against British, French, Norwegian (and yes: Danish) naval forces was brutal carnage, there are a few webpages about the maritime losses on both sides- its a very long and gruesome list. While Sweden wouldn't have stood a chance it was much better kept out of the war than drwn into it: It was no real threat to German interest in the region, and also did not maintain ties to Britain and France (here the Norwegian support of those two while being itself neutral proved deadly) and it was happily trading with Germany- and got military hardware as a reward for it. Bjornlo Mar 17, 2005, 01:58 PM I read in a book about the Swedish Navy that one of the reasons the Germans didn't invade Sweden was because they feared the Swedish Navy... :) Sweden is a great nation with a great history, its behavior during WW2 is not what made it great. It reduced Sweden in almost everyone's eyes. The Germans were not afraid of the Swedish Navy. Once Germany completed the conquest of Norway and Denmark, the Swedish navy was a complete non issue. The Germans could have quite easily conquered Sweden, they simply choose not to. They got everything they ever wanted from Sweden with out having to conquer it. Sweden was a tool of Nazi Germany. They refused England and France the right to transport troops to help Finland. Sweden helped the Nazis conquer Norway. Sweden allowed Nazi Germany to transport 2,14million troops on Swedish rail. It was the source of much of the iron needed for the German war machine. In this iron ore was one of the key reasons the Germans invaded Norway, since this Ore was shipped out of Narvik, Norway and the Norwegians were not trying to help the Nazis. Germany was completely dependent on this ore. Most experts think that the Swedish ore, by itself, lengthen the war by two years. There were other things the Swedes did as well, such as the worlds highest grade ball bearings and ball bearing machines, and so on. The Swedes warmed themselves with coal stolen from the poles in exchange. I could go on, but my point is made. History is what it is. Don't pretend what happened was something else. For example, Germany has learned and moved forward without bothering with trying to pretend that what they did was proper. W.i.n.t.e.r Mar 17, 2005, 02:42 PM ... well, must have been some Swedish book anyways... :P I preferr good ol' English historians for this period, and contemporary American/Hebrew econo-political entities for the present outlook (Horray to S. P. Huntington btw.) vingrjoe Mar 17, 2005, 03:13 PM Ladies and gentlemen, remain calm, this is a thread-jacking. As long as no one tries any funny stuff, no one will get hurt. Bjornlo Mar 17, 2005, 03:18 PM You're right. Sorry for my part in it. Nice update on your ship. The changing flight path of the missles is very realistic, but will probably look strange in game. vingrjoe Mar 17, 2005, 04:12 PM Heh heh, no problem. All of us are guilty of it at some time or another. Just trying to keep it from straying too far. "... but will probably look strange in game." I see no basis for your early assumption. I have made a few units with missiles in game and they look fine. Snorken Mar 18, 2005, 09:14 AM Sorry for the thread-jacking, vingrjoe... I won't post more in this thread... vingrjoe Mar 18, 2005, 10:24 AM Hey P.S.Y.C.H.O. , don't worry about it, I've done it myself. I just wanted to keep it from getting to far off course. Drivebymaster Mar 18, 2005, 11:36 PM Man with those tomahawks firing the in-game is PRETTY SWEET especially when you bombard targets :D El Justo Mar 19, 2005, 09:13 AM yeah, vingrjoe, you've outdone yourself w/ that anim. i don't think i've ever seen such a thing w/ other civ units. :goodjob: Nate1976 Mar 19, 2005, 02:47 PM Vingrjoe, this unit looks sweet. The Tomahawks look sweet, but couldn't you have them arc up and come down, going off the square, liek it him them. It would look sweet. Either way you go, it still looks sweet. vingrjoe Mar 19, 2005, 11:20 PM "..but couldn't you have them arc up and come down, going off the square, liek it him them." I don't quite understand that last part. Yes, I could make them fly different, but I didn't. The animation is exactly how I intended it to be. Drivebymaster Mar 20, 2005, 12:53 AM I just assumed they were tomohawks headed inland to destroy victims or over seas to destroy another enemy unit at a distant Nate1976 Mar 20, 2005, 08:01 AM Yes, I could make them fly different, but I didn't. The animation is exactly how I intended it to be. I'm sorry for the typos. I type messed up sometimes. I was just making a suggestion for a Tomahawk missile going up in an arc and coming down as it doest out of the square, so it's like it slams into the other ship, or terrain. However, the animation you haveis very good, if only you would put at least the unit 32 in it. Not everyone can make unit 32 pics. vingrjoe Mar 20, 2005, 08:21 AM The units32 file can be found in post #1. vingrjoe Jun 11, 2005, 06:13 PM New pediacons in post #1. El Justo Jun 12, 2005, 08:49 AM vingrjoe, you've made one of the best ever units even better! :goodjob: |
vBulletin® v3.8.2, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.