MoH:AA one looks just fine to me. And I think I'd prefer the gun closer to my eye so I could actually hit something, firing from the hip like in DoD is sorta off putting and a tad unrealistic. Both guns are viewed from different view points, so you cant really say one is longer than the other. I'm usre 2015 are doing everything they can to make sure the weapons in this game are modelled as close to real thing as possible.

My opinion is that... MOH:AA Garand model is messed up or just plane out disorted. Check out the screenshots. One is from MOH:AA and the other is from DoD. This is my opinion... just wanted to show you. I think that they should make the barrel a little longer and have that aim thingy (red box) a little smaller or something. It looks really wierd.

http://3rdInfantry.homestead.com/fil...jg/Garand1.jpg


If you would look at the side of this model... it would look like the aim thingy is 3 or 4 inches tall, which is not accuratly correct. I think? Heh http://www.pcgamers.net/ubb/smile.gif

http://3rdInfantry.homestead.com/fil...jg/Garand2.jpg


------------------
http://www.3rdInfantry.homestead.com/files/bladesig.jpg


[This message has been edited by blade (edited June 30, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by blade (edited June 30, 2001).]

I've been thinking about this for a while and will now share it with the world..

Want accurate weapon models ? FINE !

The modeling program you should be using SHOULD have a "metric" system. Meaning, you could measure the weapon in "real" life and input the correct polygonal measures (in whatever measuring system, be it centimeters or whatever) in the program...

The only thing left for you to do afterwards is "skin" it.

Any thoughts on my outrageous idea? http://www.pcgamers.net/ubb/smile.gif

/me thinks

------------------
http://www.3rdInfantry.homestead.com/files/bladesig.jpg

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SoLiDUS:
I've been thinking about this for a while and will now share it with the world..

Want accurate weapon models ? FINE !

The modeling program you should be using SHOULD have a "metric" system. Meaning, you could measure the weapon in "real" life and input the correct polygonal measures (in whatever measuring system, be it centimeters or whatever) in the program...

The only thing left for you to do afterwards is "skin" it.

Any thoughts on my outrageous idea? http://www.pcgamers.net/ubb/smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wow sounds splended! I wish I had that type of magical program. But all I know is that Gabriel is retarded.



------------------
http://www.matrixturkey.homestead.co...gmohSMALL3.jpg

I think that the gun looks weird in MOH because the gun is closer to your eye.

------------------
http://www.matrixturkey.homestead.co...gmohSMALL3.jpg

Stupid question :

Just WHO is Gabriel ?


/me is confused

I don't know, but Stonewall Jackson doesn't really like him.

------------------
http://www.matrixturkey.homestead.co...gmohSMALL3.jpg

Ya, the MOH one is closer, in the DOD one you can see his hand, in the MOH one it's closer and you cant see it.

[This message has been edited by Hans (edited June 30, 2001).]

Actually, I've watched Justin as he's modelled some of the weapons, and in 3DSMAX, they are proporionally to scale :).

See proportionally is what really counts (making sure it's to scale with its self). You can make it completely accurate to scale in the modelling package, but unless your game goes off of the same actual world scale, it doesn't matter. The quake engine doesn't use inches, or meters, it has it's own set of units (that all us Quake mappers have come to know and love, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512..... ;)p. So it's a matter of the model exporting program getting it to the proper scale so it looks right in the engine. :). Plus, there are a TON of tricks and techniques that you need to do to get a view model to look right in your view (Justin and Boon and Ken could really explain them much better than I could, so I won't even try :).

------------------
-----------------------
Latuh fuh U,
Benson
benson@2015.com

"We don't introduce or cause bugs in the game, we merely find and bring to light the inadequacies within the code."
-regarding level designers

Psst... elmagoo... in all the quake games, 1 unit = 1 inch.

Anyway, our artists used a real garand as reference, so I'm sure that it is modelled accurately.

Pssst.....Coriolis.......that's why in most of the quake engine games scale is screwed up. I'm pretty sure SoF didn't use that scale, neither did FAKK2. Plus we don't use that scale :).

------------------
-----------------------
Latuh fuh U,
Benson
benson@2015.com

"We don't introduce or cause bugs in the game, we merely find and bring to light the inadequacies within the code."
-regarding level designers

fight fight fight!!!

http://www.pcgamers.net/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.pcgamers.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

The MOH M1 Garand pictured IS accurate. It is, in fact, more accurate than the DOD M1. The "thingy" you're referring to is the rear sight on the receiver. I own a WWII M1 and enjoy shooting it on weekends...
Trust me, I'd be the first to speak up if it didn't look awfully close to the real thing.
I was pretty thrilled when I saw that serial number stamped on the receiver; I knew then that a *lot* of detail was being put into this simulation by 2015.
2015 - if you wanted to *really* go into detail, the WWII era M1s had the locking bar rear sight and the "ears" are just a bit higher than pictured. There's also a "U" shaped area that the peep sight rides in.. :-p Now I'm being anal. :-)

Stamped on my M1's receiver:

U.S. RIFLE
CAL. .30 M1
SPRINGFIELD
ARMORY
1550XXX

(April, 1943 receiver matched with an April, '43 barrel). Yes, I'm proud. :-)

Dave T

------------------
Thank you U.S. WWII combat veterans

i think the Moh model of the garand looks fine