[FfH II Art Team Blog]

[Ajidica]

Nice, although I personaly prefer a normal set of wings as it doesn't look to cluttered.

 

[Kael]

This isn't quite true. I have the civilopedia working using the deathangel.kfm, and with the nif now named seraph_v2.1.nif


The problem is that the deathangel.kfm needs a deathangel.nif in the same folder as the animation, to make it work. Now, renaming my nif to deathangel WOULD solve the problem, but it's not the only way. But a better solution is to have the animations in ploeperpengel's angel of death folder, and just point the seraph artdefine at that. Then it works, because deathangel.nif is also already in that folder, and I can have my nif with any name I like.


FFH's way of doing things like this always confused me. But now you can see it's unnecessary. Unless a unit is using custom animations made specifically for it, the nif can be named anything you want as long as you're pointing to a kfm elsewhere in the same folder as an appropriately named .nif

I love the new version, he looks awesome!

The reason we usually point to special animations in the directory (and not in another) is to minimize the dependancies. If we pointed to the AoD animations and later on we remove the AoD, or rename the unit, or change the model to something else, we have just broken the Seraph unit. Which I would undoubtably forget about until one of you nice folks pointed out that the Seraph isn't working.

Anyway, thats the reason, though either way is definitly workable. And again, awesome work on the Seraph!

 

[WarKirby]

I love the new version, he looks awesome!

The reason we usually point to special animations in the directory (and not in another) is to minimize the dependancies. If we pointed to the AoD animations and later on we remove the AoD, or rename the unit, or change the model to something else, we have just broken the Seraph unit. Which I would undoubtably forget about until one of you nice folks pointed out that the Seraph isn't working.

Well, this is understandable for the occasional units that use custom animations, but why do it for those that use firaxis animations? You're never seriously going to remove "axeman" or "swordsman" from the pack, are you ?

Those never get modified either, and are mostly referenced as placeholders. So they're in there anyway, but I think the organisational benefits of properly named nifs outweigh the tiny amount you'd shave off the download by eventually removing those models. Even if they're entirely supplanted as placeholders by unique versions, you could just keep the models, textureless. They average <100 kb apiece, which isn't much on a >400MB download

 

[Kael]

Well, this is understandable for the occasional units that use custom animations, but why do it for those that use firaxis animations? You're never seriously going to remove "axeman" or "swordsman" from the pack, are you ?

Those never get modified either, and are mostly referenced as placeholders. So they're in there anyway, but I think the organisational benefits of properly named nifs outweigh the tiny amount you'd shave off the download by eventually removing those models. Even if they're entirely supplanted as placeholders by unique versions, you could just keep the models, textureless. They average <100 kb apiece, which isn't much on a >400MB download

The reason that the Orthus nif is axeman.nif instead of Orthus.nif is simply to remind me of what animation it uses. Having the nif named after the unit doesn't gain me anything (since the directory structure already tells me that).

Sometimes its a bit of a pain trying to figure out which animations a modeler intended a model to go with. Once I get it figured out I dont want to have to go back and do it again so I name the nif after the animation. Just a reminder for me.

 

[WarKirby]

I love the new version, he looks awesome!

will you be using it ?

 

[Kael]

will you be using it ?

Im playing with it now, but I think Im going to use it. Its really cool, and I love the 6 wings just because its so distinctive.

BtW, your sword texture is pointing to a full path name on your hard drive. You will want to change that to the local dir so it works for others.

edit: Okay I played with him a bit and he's awesome. He's definitly in. Thanks WarKirby!

 

[WarKirby]

BtW, your sword texture is pointing to a full path name on your hard drive. You will want to change that to the local dir so it works for others.

Strange. I'll have a look at that. It uses the angel of death sword though, so you can just point it to that. I found there were a few odd issues with the sword the seraph already had, and the mesh was generally a bit strange. I'm also not a fan of props that are fused to the character mesh (hard for others to take apart and play with), so I just replaced it with that one. it's not too visible since it's engulfed in fire anyways.

edit: Okay I played with him a bit and he's awesome. He's definitly in. Thanks WarKirby!

Yaaay ^__^

 

[Psychic_Llamas]

WOW warkirby! absolutely fantastic!

 

[Tasunke]

The new Seraph model is definitely growing on me. One qualm I have is that the seraph is overall (except maybe the AoD) my favorite angel unit, or rather, until all the new art the Seraph was continuously my favorite.

My question is ... can the old art be used somewhere else?
If there is space for the old model I would certainly be appreciative.

// In a completely unrelated question ... the 4 wings out of 6 to be used for clothing ... that would be an interesting model to use ... having the other 4 wings textured on as a robe asthetic, with only the one pair of wings as a model addition .... Current model does look cool, just saying that having all 6 wings for flying only dips into angel lore halfway

 

[MagisterCultuum]

While I like the wings and the sword, I'm not really a fan of the parts that you just kept from the old Seraph. The old Seraph's wings may have been the worst part, but I never thought any part of that model was particularly good. The robe seems to stiff, the shoulders overdone, and the headgear a bit silly. I don't really like the robes being white either. The Burning Ones (as Seraphim is generally translated, although there is some speculation that it could instead mean serpents or dragons) might look better in gold and silver robes rather than in grayish white, or possibly with no clothing other than their wings and fire to cover their bare burnished bronze colored skin. Although Basium and most of his angels are from the precept of Life, this name seems to imply that these angels may have been those angels of fire loyal to Brigit instead of Bhall, so Brigit's color scheme might be better for them.

 

[Tasunke]

what MC said. the latter part of the paragraph.

 

[WarKirby]

While I like the wings and the sword, I'm not really a fan of the parts that you just kept from the old Seraph. The old Seraph's wings may have been the worst part, but I never thought any part of that model was particularly good. The robe seems to stiff, the shoulders overdone, and the headgear a bit silly. I don't really like the robes being white either. The Burning Ones (as Seraphim is generally translated, although there is some speculation that it could instead mean serpents or dragons) might look better in gold and silver robes rather than in grayish white, or possibly with no clothing other than their wings and fire to cover their bare burnished bronze colored skin. Although Basium and most of his angels are from the precept of Life, this name seems to imply that these angels may have been those angels of fire loyal to Brigit instead of Bhall, so Brigit's color scheme might be better for them.

If you can find me some pretty pictures on the internet of how you'd like it to look, I could attempt an improvement on it, then.

I don't really have a problem with most of the seraph as is, except from the hands. The new animation makes the robes seem a lot less stiff.

 

[cfkane]

Remember that seraph? It's obsolete already!

I present, Seraph v2.1

Now with 200% more wings, and a non-broken civilopedia

Click for image

Spoiler :

Download: http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=12446

So, with Ploeperpengel's model already being put to good use, will we start seeing several more variants on the base? A winged Gargoyle perhaps? A flying monkey? Hawkgirl from the Justice League?

 

[WarKirby]

I reckon it wouldn't be too difficult to make a Fallen Angel unit for the infernals, or other evil civs, with a little pallet swapping

i'm thinking of doing a herald with animated wings, but it would be a big change. The current herald model stands on the ground. This animation set pretty much requires that the angel fly, and change pose significantly. Luckily, he carries a spear which works well with the stabby attack animation.

Should I do it? y/n

 

[cyther]

Sure, the Mercurians would be that much better with it.

 

[Tasunke]

I like the idea of the flying herald animation. Perhaps even subtract one from his base speed and add the flying promotion

 

[Ajidica]

Do all of the angels have to be flying? I'm just thinking that with all of the angels having big flashy wings, the game will look crowded when the Mercurians enter play.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I disagree with the idea, let some angels use the Angel of Death animations, and some angels remain as they are. Diversity is good.

 

[Valkrionn]

I agree.... I love the new graphics, but that doesn't mean ALL angels have to use them.

 

[Tasunke]

ah ... ? Does the angel of Death using a flying animation akin to the thing I was suggesting with the Herald? I thought he was more the walking/floating type.

The only angels I really see as "flying" would be the Herald and the Ophanim. I wouldn't mind having the base angel having the flying promo though. And honestly I have no idea how many animations could apply to angels ... so meh.

Im pretty sure if the Herald was up in the air like WarKirby was suggesting he would be the only unit save the hawks to do so.