Ritualistic Forums

Ritualistic Forums (http://www.ritualistic.com/forums/index.php)
-   Condition Zero & CS Xbox (http://www.ritualistic.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   Gun Model Scaling (http://www.ritualistic.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11097)

hksdu 02-19-2003 01:17 AM

Gun Model Scaling
Hey guys,

One of the best features of CS has been customizing, and after I purchase CS:CZ when it comes out, can I FINALLY expect to see re-scaled gun models that look properly sized in all views such as v, p and w models? And if not, is this because of the restrictions imposed by the multiplayer model consistency code?

If you watch movies or checkout reference pictures for most guns, you can see CS has improperly sized models. The AWP in real life, for instance is 1249 mm in lenght (4.09 feet roughly) and yet looks puny when held by the player model (which is said to be 6 ft tall by mappers).

I'm not asking for exact dimensions, but if you guys and the cs team can resize em a bit or update the bounding boxes for multiplay so the guns show off in all their glory, that would be great.

I would also hope you would take a look at the talent produced in the modeling community and offer an official hi-poly gun model pack for those of us who have upgraded our computers after 1998. Checkout the best modeling (ok hacking) site to see what I mean: http://www.weapon-hacks.com

After experiencing Soldiers of Fortune 2 and Ghost Recon on the net, I would hate to see CS:CZ be a simple mappack with no attention or updates paid to this popular aspect of CS and fall behind the curve.

But I have faith in Ritual and hope not to be dissapointed. After all, you guys made the fabulous (post 1.04 patch) Sin. [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

Castle 02-19-2003 02:50 AM

Re: Gun Model Scaling
The AWP might have been down scaled for game play reasons. It’s very tough for many people to play a game that creates a massive blind spot on the screen. This kind of stuff is the cause of most hard core gamers to actually just turn off the weapon view models to get an advantage over other players. I have seen this happen quite often on multiplayer games. Its one thing if you’re zoomed in but another thing entirely if you want to walk around and actually see the lower right hand side of the screen. The more screen those weapons take up the less you can see and thus can be the cause for them to have sort of scaled all weapons to be about the same size. Notice how the mac10 takes up almost the same amount of screen space as the mp5? I don’t think they are the same size in real life but this isn’t real life it’s a video game. So when you think about it as a game the only reason those gun models even exist is to let you know what gun you are holding and for the core game play could easily be replaced with an icon that does just as well. With this in mind the gun models appear, to me at least, to be generally around the same sizes even if they do vary a bit its never as dramatic as it would be in real life.

As for what Soldier of Fortune and Ghost Recon have over CZ or CS I must ask what exactly do you mean by the “popular aspect” of CS. Are you saying being able to replace models for the weapons?
What exactly is “falling behind the curve”??

MadOnion 02-19-2003 12:46 PM

Re: Gun Model Scaling
Those are some badass weapon models.

Hmm. I keep finding pubes on my desk.

hksdu 02-19-2003 05:31 PM

Re: Gun Model Scaling

Thanks for clarifying why the V (view) models are roughly of similar size. I can understand the need to maintain field of vision real-estate to see what’s going. Yet, on the other hand why are the P (player) and W (world) models scaled to the same size? I believe you can up the immersion factor by re-scaling at least those models to correspond to their real life sizes. For instance, seeing a guy around the corner carrying the AWP that’s roughly 2/3 of his height is a lot different than him carrying an AWP that is the same size of the Scout, which is actually shorter. Also, the Desert Eagle is same size as all of the other pistols except for the color of its skin. The DE is the uber pistol (or hand cannon) and is roughly 1/3 in length longer than the USP. These minute details tend to increase the immersion factor. Having every gun (player and world models) roughly the same size tends to turn CS in to a cartoony game.

Also, the popular aspect of CS I was referring too, back in the days and still is today, is the community support of modeling for CS and utilizing player add-ons. Besides modeling, there are other community support efforts such as mapping, texturing, sound editing, etc…

The current CS/HL engine has fallen behind the curve in terms of keeping up newer games which provide a better environment (read engine) to play with. Low polygon support, entity restrictions, low geometry rendering pipelines for mappers, and etc… this is not a bag on Ritual, but some of the frustrations felt by those of us who have upgraded our PCs and are subjected to play our favorite game restricted to 1998’s minimum computer specs.

I was also going to ask for different model sets for each unique scenario (eg, Navy Seals for US only operation, localized terrorists for each unique country) but the multiplayer game code would not support more than 8 models total so would have been wasted effort for you guys.

Let me also give some background to explain my requests:

There are also actually 3 distinct player groups in CS.

a) casual gamers
b) hard core clan / competitors
c) immersion players
d) gun fans

I fall into group C and have been around since the day of CS Beta 1 (not CS retail version 1) and during those days, everyone played by tactics and not competition play style (read: team DM). Completing the scenario was always the primary objective, and not attaining the top kill ratio.

It can also be said that Gooseman was group D and many of the original CS players were gun fans, thus the cultivation of a large modeling community around arsenals for CS.

After seeing CS:CZ go to Rituals team tactics model, I felt I needed to make this requests as everything falls in line with what group c players want. Players of my type have seen progression in immersion (details), atmosphere (ambience), scenario (read objective based and not deathmatch based) mapping, graphics fidelity (higher poly, high detail textures)and sound detail in SoF2, Ghost Recon, and the upcoming Raven Shield.

While CS is primarily a multiplayer game, these requests are actually most important in single player and coop type settings, which is where Ritual is hopefully heading with CS:CZ. I also understand Ritual is making some advancement to the engine to leverage the power in today’s machines and to provide a better experience, so please, IMMERSE ME.

Does it benefit CS multiplayer? Definitely. Does it hurt CS Multiplayer? For those that have not upgraded their pcs and have low specs, perhaps, but in the long run, I believe these types of changes will elevate CS back to the top, and not linger at the bottom of the tactical action sim genre.

Just an FYI, I'm a game player. Yet a lot of what I posted is felt by players and community developers. If you guys have some time, visit the official CS forums and poll for some feedback. You may be surprised by their responses when you take into account of the 3 types of players out there.

Please take your time to make a great game. We don't want to see another rushed fiasco like what EA did to Nightfire.

Castle 02-20-2003 05:11 AM

Re: Gun Model Scaling

We got more of these giant posts going on here again. MadOnion said his part with a pube remark. Id say that’s pretty creative to find ways to use the word pubes in such a short post while also having it kind of make sense in a “hey I had to think about that for a second” kind of way. I’m glad that the new weapon models create pubes on your desk man. Ill quickly send a letter to all the people responsible for the weapons that bring pubes that much closer to your desk every day to let them know that one day a whole crotch might be found.


I am Glad that we have people who seem to know CS inside and out come here quite often. One of the main things about CS is the debate on whether or not it is falling behind the times visually. This debate seems to not only go in a circle it twirls around constantly and eventually fly’s away from reality.
Here is how it goes.

Group one always starts off the debate:
Counter strike is falling behind the times visually. Newer games are using newer engines that don’t suck and I feel that the graphics are important enough for me to move over to the newer game.
“How come this game has so many people playing it anyway? It looks so freaking old! WHAT IS GOING ON HERE!?!!”
“I don’t understand it either. This game needs to DIE and it needs to DIE BADLY.”

(Now hold on for a minute here… I have seen people say this so often. But who is going to defend CS? No one group of people will ever defend CS it seems. The bottom line is the main people who post on these forums are the ones who do care and normally do upgrade their computers and even have jobs and are even found in at least one of the many mod communities out there. You have to be some what savvy to understand and thus you are able to play the newer games.)

Of course the vast majority of people who actually play the game because it runs on their computers and either don’t show don’t care or are unable to load web pages on their windows 95 install so old its with out explore on it don’t ever seem to post on the forums. Nor do they tend to give a damn 90 % of the time anyway.

So many people seem to miss the point though. The reason why CS is so big is that it delivers nearly all the stuff those other games deliver with the newer engines plus it actually RUNS. Its strongest point is its biggest weakness. I’m starting to wonder if CS will ever die. I bet it’s going to have players the next 4 years at least by the same 500k of people who never bothered to upgrade their systems.
Is it falling behind the times or merely, existing on the outer brink of the rat race to push the polygons and video cards to the next level. Maybe we should think of CS as one of the living examples that shows game play is always going to win over graphics.

Anyway sorry about that rant I think I got side tracked off of what you were talking about.
You know about all this stuff already I’m sure. I just felt like a good rant tonight.

As far as weapon scale and all that. I still feel that its far more important to make sure you can see what you are doing than to make the guns scale more realistic. thats just me.
As far as increasing the scale for guys running around.. I personaly dont like when I know a guy is standing in the next room because his weapon is clipping through the wall... Increasing the size of the weapons sounds cool but in practice simply creates more people seeing you through walls and stuff.
I like the scale the way it is personaly. The m4a1 is pretty large with the silencer on it but hey nothings perfect. *shrugs*

The_Squeeze 02-21-2003 02:20 PM

Re: Gun Model Scaling
Gameplay and Fun > video. Any day. Thats why CS is so popular.

No doubt nice eye candy helps but gameplay and Fun will always win out when it comes to games. Just ask Sid Meier or Blizzard. Not till recently have they really even focused on eye candy.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.