Helen Weales

1 hour ago, Andrew said:

Sorry to go back on this subject again, but I don't think we cant get people to stop asking for things, we have tried for years, and it has got us no where, the best thing I think we need to do is just ditch the syp thread, if you have a project you're working on, and you want to share it, just show it to you're friends, and people you trust, otherwise sitting here arguing isn't going to get anyone anywhere, some people are just hard headed , and won't listen, and if that's the case they don't deserve to see our work, or maybe make the syp thread only accessible by a password.

If I may, here's my two cents -- a lot of these people are young, probably with little to no online forum experience, and even though common sense should prevent the sort of poor behavior we've been seeing, unfortunately it doesn't because they simply do not know any better. No one is born ignorant -- it's all in what you are taught, or maybe more importantly, what you are not taught that causes ignorance. I remember joining the MTM2 community when I was about 15 and doing some pretty cringe-worthy things because I simply did not know any better, but I eventually learned what good behavior is and how to properly interact with people. I've noticed a lot of forums now require passing a short quiz which I assume also cuts down on immature BS  -- this might be something to consider. I also think if there was a warning system and eventual bans (temporary and permanent) given out for begging, name calling, trolling, even repeatedly reposting images in quotes, etc it might clean this place up if strictly enforced. It's possible to still have a fun forum with tighter rules. As is, it's kind of a free-for-all, and as anyone has probably noticed in the real world (depending on where you live), this doesn't work so well. This should be a place that provides a creative outlet for people, and sharing is an important part of the process because it allows for feedback and constructive criticism which improves skills (and content for all of us to enjoy). Who knows, some of the broad work that people are doing here could eventually lead to them becoming future automobile/industrial designers, racing engineers, programmers etc -- sky's the limit.

Edit: I also think more tutorials might inspire new members to start creating content rather than begging. For me, jumping into RoR blindly was a very daunting task, I had a difficult time finding decent tutorials and it took me a long time to figure out certain things on my own, which I assume most people do not have the patience to do.

1 minute ago, Garrett Hanson said:

why not?

2 minutes ago, Double.D said:

That's neither blue nor looks thunderous.

I was just reading about how someone recently acquired the source code for MTM2 from a former member of Terminal Reality and is updating the game. Apparently TR owns/owned the source code (they are no longer in business), while Microsoft own the naming rights. So who knows, maybe MTD was made from the MTM source code after all.

A rather strange situation, not sure what to make of it. I remember this game was originally developed for the PC. The company always seemed questionable to me as they kept delaying the release for the PC version, and only ended up releasing mobile versions (until the recent PC version on Steam which was apparently unplayable). I had a very early beta that seemed a lot like a revamped MTM2, or (what would have been) MTM3. I've always wondered if it was based on the MTM2/3 engine and the legality of it if so. (Back in 1999/2000, I was told by someone close to BIGFOOT that a number of teams had already signed contracts for MTM3, which if true then it must have been in development and someone must have beta copies somewhere. I don't remember why it was never finished.)

I did play MTD on an Android tablet recently and there were a ton of ads -- a very frustrating experience. I don't recall the iOS version being quite so bad a few years ago.

Awesome! I think the light blue on Bear Foot could use some adjusting, though. Less saturation, slightly more green.

5 hours ago, RockCrwlr said:

That is if he uses flexbodywheels. Meshwheels do not allow that option

I was referring to the actual mesh model rather than the .truck file settings. The issue with most of the tires I've seen is they have an inside diameter that is smaller than the outside diameter of the wheels (image below), which is why the tires poke through in-game. Inserting the wheel into the tire in Blender (as a temp guide), and sizing the inside tire diameter to be larger than the wheel generally fixes this.

To be honest, the tire/rim issue is avoidable by changing the inside diameter of the tire. But the truck looks amazing regardless.

I believe that is the first GD that ran in TNT, no?

7 hours ago, rockgod88 said:

 

Finally got this NB working!! it has some flaws but its still pretty cool!

Is this the IS n/b?

11 minutes ago, Mark Colineri said:

Again, why do you insist on baking your chassis? It doesn't produce any sort of depth, and when the chassis isn't black, you see solid black at every single joint that looks really sloppy.

+1. The only way to end up with a nicely baked chassis (or any similar part involving tubing) is to make sure none of the joints protrude each other to avoid black lines, which would take a TON of time to do. You could also manually edit the lines out in PS, but that also takes a ton of time. And even then, it hardly looks any different than a nice, plain spec job.

5 hours ago, mrgravedigger23 said:

names messed up it didnt go onto the fender 

Yes it did, but not quite the same way:

(Oh how sweet it still is to see Goldberg being defeated by BIGFOOT... haha)

On 5/18/2016 at 6:41 PM, Garrett Hanson said:

I can't make the word pad a .tobj, help?

You need to rename the .txt extension to .tobj.

Just uploaded a beta sample/preview of the POWERTRAX series, pending approval. ?

I think it looks fairly accurate, although lightening it by a tiny amount probably wouldn't hurt. But with the dodgy lighting in RoR, it probably wouldn't matter.

Wow DiggerFan, everything looks incredible!

It's been a while since I've used .38 so my memory is a bit foggy, but I seem to remember having issues in single player with more than four trucks spawned -- RoR would often crash unless I was using a terrain with little to no models/textures. I also remember issues with RoR crashing when removing trucks and trying to add new ones..39 and up seems to have fixed whatever the issue was because I can remove and add as many as I want with no crashes. As far as lag, I think it's down to your hardware although I suspect RoR (at least older versions) does not utilize hardware very efficiently, so I wonder even top-level hardware performs lag-free?

12 hours ago, Outlawed said:

Over the years I have found that teams are less then open about providing stuff like that (I ran into massive backlash years back with Western Renegade). Your observation is not unfounded or incorrect, like I said I know that a majority of my work is not 100% accurate (the only chassis I can say for sure is the CRD's as I have the original CAD drawings that I was given) I will look into it tomorrow or the next and see exactly how much off it is. Apologizes if the driver model comment came across as snarky, I do not use other models or props when I make my stuff as previous content was never accurately scaled (engines, bodies, etc).

No need to apologize, I didn't think you were being snarky. When I get a chance, I will double check my driver models again to see if they are off. What I had intended to do was create models that were as accurate as possible in size, so  new frames could be built around them -- I think that is a good way to gauge chassis size when basing models solely on photos.

I definitely need to fix the male arms as they are too thin. At some point I want to make new drivers entirely which I might do when I step my electric trucks up to "stage 4" designs.

I agree about chassis baking not being necessary -- out of all of the experiments I've done, baking has made little to no difference in-game. Plus, with a solid color you can literally use a 1x1 pixel image or share an image with another part of the truck (both of which saves on loading time and reduces lag).

Sorry, I was not implying the quality of the work isn't good (it is), and the driver could be too small; but judging solely by the image of the actual truck from an angle, I think the bottom portion is larger than the midsection. This is what it would look like with the midsection height shortened:

I could be entirely wrong, just an observation. I wonder if the team could provide you with a side shot of the frame if you messaged them on Facebook page or something?

It could be the angle of the photos I've seen of Fluffy, but it appears as if the midsection of your frame (shock mount to shock mount) is too tall which might be why the driver's head is not closer to the top of the roll cage. On the actual truck, the bottom section seems to be much taller than the midsection. It's hard to be sure without a better side shot than below, but you could take a screen shot of your chassis from the same angle and do a transparent overlay in Photoshop.

When I made the driver & seat, I recall it being more proportionally correct than this (with the frames we use & when compared to the old driver model), but it does seem rather small in this photo. At the same time, the roll cage seems unusually tall. Which truck is this?

Did you ever figure this out? Usually issues like this are related to material files not being properly associated with meshes, or even missing materials.

The Jeep looks great! Love the tires, too!