Posted by: ZylonBane
« on: 30. March 2025, 04:52:26 »Tested in game, both look great!
Posted by: Olfred
« on: 29. March 2025, 23:11:50 »Did the lockerb the same way now.
(I included the locker.bin for completeness/archiving sake, no need to copy it again)
(I included the locker.bin for completeness/archiving sake, no need to copy it again)
Posted by: ZylonBane
« on: 29. March 2025, 18:34:16 »The one before the most recent one. Uh, this one: https://www.systemshock.org/index.php?topic=5970.msg158107#msg158107So should I do the thing I did with the last, or with the previous one?
Posted by: eldrone
« on: 29. March 2025, 11:03:05 »An example:
The light trying to hit that vertex will have a normal that is essentially perpendicular to the light, the angle is not correct for it to be lit up, so it wont.
But by splitting the edges suddenly this vertex has a normal that makes more sense to be lit up, and will be lit up more correctly.
The light trying to hit that vertex will have a normal that is essentially perpendicular to the light, the angle is not correct for it to be lit up, so it wont.
But by splitting the edges suddenly this vertex has a normal that makes more sense to be lit up, and will be lit up more correctly.
Posted by: eldrone
« on: 29. March 2025, 10:57:39 »It's essentially a falloff and vertex lighting issue when it comes to very small lights.
some vertices are outside the range of influence of that light, or might have their normal pointing out in the wrong direction.
Meanwhile the center of the surface has no vertex, so there's nothing to be lit, but this is for example while the nubbin' gets lit up, it has a bunch of vertices small enough to be inside the center of the thing.
Another case where per pixel lighting would've solved the issue.
But like with everything in original ss2, the other issue that the object is essentially a rounded box, not a perfectly cubic shape, which by splitting up edges and making every side its own polygon makes the normals be flat instead of gourad.
some vertices are outside the range of influence of that light, or might have their normal pointing out in the wrong direction.
Meanwhile the center of the surface has no vertex, so there's nothing to be lit, but this is for example while the nubbin' gets lit up, it has a bunch of vertices small enough to be inside the center of the thing.
Another case where per pixel lighting would've solved the issue.
But like with everything in original ss2, the other issue that the object is essentially a rounded box, not a perfectly cubic shape, which by splitting up edges and making every side its own polygon makes the normals be flat instead of gourad.
Posted by: Olfred
« on: 29. March 2025, 04:17:07 »So should I do the thing I did with the last, or with the previous one?
And if I only need to do that, and not all the other (complicated) stuff, I can squeeze it in there.
Good eye with spotting it was a shading issue
And if I only need to do that, and not all the other (complicated) stuff, I can squeeze it in there.
Good eye with spotting it was a shading issue
Posted by: ZylonBane
« on: 29. March 2025, 01:30:06 »Hold, up, frick, I messed something up with testing the previous model. What you did DID fix it!
If you could do what you did to this model to your lockerb model, that should be enough for now.
If you could do what you did to this model to your lockerb model, that should be enough for now.
Posted by: Olfred
« on: 29. March 2025, 00:41:18 »With the exporter I can't control if it's flat or gouraud. At least as far as I know. So I created sharp edges which should in theory behave like flat shaded. But this is the Dark engine we're talking about.
I set the front plate and the grey box to flat in Blender. Maybe it will export differently.
I set the front plate and the grey box to flat in Blender. Maybe it will export differently.
Posted by: ZylonBane
« on: 28. March 2025, 22:21:12 »On the left is the model you just posted. On the right is the vanilla locker model, converted to E, all materials except LOKER changed to flat-shaded, then converted back to BSP. That version lights correctly, but isn't usable for SCP because it's missing the custom bounding box.
If I had to guess I'd say the Gouraud-shaded sides on your revision are somehow still clawing away brightness from the front even though there's a hard crease, but I don't really know.
If I had to guess I'd say the Gouraud-shaded sides on your revision are somehow still clawing away brightness from the front even though there's a hard crease, but I don't really know.
Posted by: Olfred
« on: 28. March 2025, 19:40:38 »I made the box itself with sharp edges, and where the front thing meets the faceplate there is a sharp edge as well.
Posted by: ZylonBane
« on: 28. March 2025, 00:52:03 »Aaaaahhhh it's the damn smoothing groups. Since the default smoothing threshold is 120 degrees, even the perfectly boxy shape of this thing doesn't force a smoothing crease, so the unlit sides drag down the illumination of the front. Changing the side material to flat shaded fixes it.
@Olfred if you haven't left yet, please re-export your original 2014 locker.bin and lockerb.bin with the "grey" material set to flat shaded and nothing else changed.
@Olfred if you haven't left yet, please re-export your original 2014 locker.bin and lockerb.bin with the "grey" material set to flat shaded and nothing else changed.
Posted by: eldrone
« on: 27. March 2025, 16:45:04 »Have you tried testing with the primary light source directly in front of it? For some reason it lights fine with distant sources, but at 6 units away the face abruptly becomes darker than the nub, and gets even darker as the light is moved closer.
I am bearing in mind that low-poly vertex-lit surfaces can have this problem when light sources get too close to them, but this model is lighting much darker than other boxy models.
This usually isn't a problem since most lights are far away from the lockers, but on some levels like command2 the mapper specifically put small brush lights in front of the lockers to help make them more visible, and they just don't work. At least, not in a visually coherent manner.
I think I know what's going on here: and it can be solved with adding more polygons.
Basically the vertices being lit up are not within reach or influenced by the light, while the nub, being smaller will be lit up by that light because those vertices are being influenced enough.
Posted by: ZylonBane
« on: 27. March 2025, 15:03:33 »Have you tried testing with the primary light source directly in front of it? For some reason it lights fine with distant sources, but at 6 units away the face abruptly becomes darker than the nub, and gets even darker as the light is moved closer.
I am bearing in mind that low-poly vertex-lit surfaces can have this problem when light sources get too close to them, but this model is lighting much darker than other boxy models.
This usually isn't a problem since most lights are far away from the lockers, but on some levels like command2 the mapper specifically put small brush lights in front of the lockers to help make them more visible, and they just don't work. At least, not in a visually coherent manner.
I am bearing in mind that low-poly vertex-lit surfaces can have this problem when light sources get too close to them, but this model is lighting much darker than other boxy models.
This usually isn't a problem since most lights are far away from the lockers, but on some levels like command2 the mapper specifically put small brush lights in front of the lockers to help make them more visible, and they just don't work. At least, not in a visually coherent manner.
Posted by: eldrone
« on: 27. March 2025, 12:06:37 »With that said, I almost always exclusively use these settings:
sort: by vertex group
origin: object origin
export only: selected
sort: by vertex group
origin: object origin
export only: selected
Posted by: eldrone
« on: 27. March 2025, 12:01:03 »ZylonBane
Was playing around with this because the rendering issue had me confused too, so I imported the previously posted locker.bin and re-exported it, and I'm not having much issues.
This is with the old nemyax blender script and newdark.
( forgot to set emission on the green, so ignore that)
Was playing around with this because the rendering issue had me confused too, so I imported the previously posted locker.bin and re-exported it, and I'm not having much issues.
This is with the old nemyax blender script and newdark.
( forgot to set emission on the green, so ignore that)
Posted by: ZylonBane
« on: 27. March 2025, 03:43:30 »That's fine. I've been playing around with this and even the original model has the weird lighting issue. Still has it after running the model through bintoe/bsp. Something is cursed about this model.
Posted by: Olfred
« on: 26. March 2025, 23:56:34 »I can take a look at it, but probably will be in like 2-3 weeks as I'm away soon and still need to take care of some things.
Posted by: ZylonBane
« on: 26. March 2025, 23:52:03 »Didn't help much. Here's a screenshot of the locker and a vanilla object with an omnilight equidistant between them.
I suspect this lighting issue might be caused by the nonstandard export configuration imposed on this and the broken locker model, with the bounding box being very different from the actual size of the model. It also negatively affects visibility calculations, with the model sometimes disappearing before it's completely off-screen.
Well, these models were created back in the early days of SCP when we were trying to come up with drop-in replacements that wouldn't require moving the original models (much). These days we're fine with moving things around to accommodate new models.
I propose creating new (well, based on the originals) locker and broken locker models.
- The locker and broken locker models should be identical other than the light color.
- They should be exported with no weirdness-- centered and with bounding box same as actual size.
- They should have the back chopped off so the "locker" part is only deep enough to bring the total model depth to 0.5. This will be shallow enough so the frob brackets won't be huge (the original reason the small bounding box was hacked in), provide just enough locker depth to have them sticking out of the wall a bit, and by keeping the centerpoint in front of the model (since the stick-out part is 0.313 units deep) would allow embedding nearly flush in walls without disappearing.
SCP displays a static bitmap when searching lockers, so players would never see how shallow the model really is.
I'm tempted to also ask for recessing the "grill" part of the model if that's not too much trouble, but I'm not sure how deep it should be (not very, I'd think) or if it would even look good.
Anyway, does that all seem like a sensible course of action?
I suspect this lighting issue might be caused by the nonstandard export configuration imposed on this and the broken locker model, with the bounding box being very different from the actual size of the model. It also negatively affects visibility calculations, with the model sometimes disappearing before it's completely off-screen.
Well, these models were created back in the early days of SCP when we were trying to come up with drop-in replacements that wouldn't require moving the original models (much). These days we're fine with moving things around to accommodate new models.
I propose creating new (well, based on the originals) locker and broken locker models.
- The locker and broken locker models should be identical other than the light color.
- They should be exported with no weirdness-- centered and with bounding box same as actual size.
- They should have the back chopped off so the "locker" part is only deep enough to bring the total model depth to 0.5. This will be shallow enough so the frob brackets won't be huge (the original reason the small bounding box was hacked in), provide just enough locker depth to have them sticking out of the wall a bit, and by keeping the centerpoint in front of the model (since the stick-out part is 0.313 units deep) would allow embedding nearly flush in walls without disappearing.
SCP displays a static bitmap when searching lockers, so players would never see how shallow the model really is.
I'm tempted to also ask for recessing the "grill" part of the model if that's not too much trouble, but I'm not sure how deep it should be (not very, I'd think) or if it would even look good.
Anyway, does that all seem like a sensible course of action?
Posted by: Olfred
« on: 26. March 2025, 11:07:31 »I see. Then the change came from the changed position and not me moving it slightly out of the recess.
Well, just check the new model and tell me if it improved anything.
Well, just check the new model and tell me if it improved anything.
Posted by: ZylonBane
« on: 25. March 2025, 19:06:39 »Dark lighting doesn't care about level geometry beyond whether it blocks raycast from a light source to the model's center point.
Posted by: Olfred
« on: 25. March 2025, 18:59:10 »I see. So I played around that area a bit and it seems to be better with the new model. But better check for yourself if this is the desired result.
Them being recessed in there seems to be also a factor.
Them being recessed in there seems to be also a factor.
Posted by: ZylonBane
« on: 25. March 2025, 18:36:42 »Whoops, I meant command2, not command1. My bad.
But yes, they light weird even when out in the middle of a room.
But yes, they light weird even when out in the middle of a room.
Posted by: Olfred
« on: 25. March 2025, 18:13:52 »Could it be that the numbers are different on the scp maps? On the vanilla maps I use for testing I get an elevator path. As I don't know the maps inside out like you guys I have no idea anymore where these lockers are located. Been some years since I played the game the last time.
About the lighting issue. IIRC the lighting behaves wonky if an object is sticking inside the map geometry, which these lockers usually do. Can you confirm they behave the same when they are "standalone"?
Also I included a model where I merged the front part to the door. Then added a few extra cuts to compensate for the vertex lighting. It should give a much better lighting.
About the lighting issue. IIRC the lighting behaves wonky if an object is sticking inside the map geometry, which these lockers usually do. Can you confirm they behave the same when they are "standalone"?
Also I included a model where I merged the front part to the door. Then added a few extra cuts to compensate for the vertex lighting. It should give a much better lighting.
Posted by: ZylonBane
« on: 25. March 2025, 15:08:50 »Rise from your grave!
Just noticed that there's something screwy with the normals on the updated wall lockers. They don't light up from lights placed in front of them, unless the light is far away. Doesn't matter whether the light is centered on the locker face or off by the edges. Strangely, the original models appear to have the same issue.
You can see this in command1, object 462 (and most other lockers in the area).
Another original issue with this model is that the front face and the sticking-out part often don't light consistently, since their polygons aren't actually joined. If there was some way to fix this, without inflicting shifting-gradient hell on them when partially off-screen, that would be a nice bonus.
Just noticed that there's something screwy with the normals on the updated wall lockers. They don't light up from lights placed in front of them, unless the light is far away. Doesn't matter whether the light is centered on the locker face or off by the edges. Strangely, the original models appear to have the same issue.
You can see this in command1, object 462 (and most other lockers in the area).
Another original issue with this model is that the front face and the sticking-out part often don't light consistently, since their polygons aren't actually joined. If there was some way to fix this, without inflicting shifting-gradient hell on them when partially off-screen, that would be a nice bonus.
Posted by: voodoo47
« on: 22. March 2025, 08:41:01 »oooh, look what I have completely forgotten about.the plant for thief
Posted by: eldrone
« on: 22. March 2025, 08:25:59 »I don't think so. At this point most of our work is about to be rendered obsolete by SS2EE25AR, so...
Not a replacement for vanilla mode, it's still very much needed.
Posted by: ZylonBane
« on: 22. March 2025, 06:11:11 »I don't think so. At this point most of our work is about to be rendered obsolete by SS2EE25AR, so... 
Posted by: Olfred
« on: 22. March 2025, 05:37:25 »Great.
Is there anything that I missed and is still on the agenda?
(besides the plant for thief)
Is there anything that I missed and is still on the agenda?
(besides the plant for thief)
Posted by: ZylonBane
« on: 22. March 2025, 05:33:18 »Tested it out, everything looks good. Thanks!
Posted by: Olfred
« on: 21. March 2025, 17:18:45 »Like previously mentioned, you need the LASER2 texture from the previous laser pistol edit I did, there would be nothing to fix there.laspistol shape good to go as far as I'm concerned, now the question becomes, is it worth trying to fix the texture if ZB is against this being included in (one of) the big three? not worth the hassle if this ends up just a minimod of some sort.
Thanks for packing the textures up, they were a big help as the screen and light placement are different from the original texture.Another SHTUP request ...
I went ahead and created two versions, one that can be used for the general fixed objects, and the other one edited to work with the shtup textures.
Posted by: ZylonBane
« on: 03. March 2025, 22:01:14 »The TNG era was known for terrible weapon designs.
Posted by: unn_atropos
« on: 03. March 2025, 20:50:53 »Is it possible that the vanilla version is inspired by a Bajoran phaser ?
Posted by: voodoo47
« on: 02. March 2025, 21:14:11 »yes, this is the first time we are (not) doing it on a weapon. buuut.. the pipe flanges have been added, the duct connectors have been added, the air ducts have been hollowed out, the grates and small crates have been given depth.
so if it's we are not allowed to add/modify/remove bits from objects because we haven't done that before, then yes, we did do that in the past, to objects that logically should have had those bits added/modified/removed, because the original objects were too simple, or not realistic enough. I don't see why the laspistol grip would be any different.
to make it short, I see no difference between a grate should not be paper thin because realistically, the metal would have some thickness, and the laspistol should not have an inverted grip, because realistically, nobody would be able to hold it.
but again, if it's still a no, then I won't pursue this.
so if it's we are not allowed to add/modify/remove bits from objects because we haven't done that before, then yes, we did do that in the past, to objects that logically should have had those bits added/modified/removed, because the original objects were too simple, or not realistic enough. I don't see why the laspistol grip would be any different.
to make it short, I see no difference between a grate should not be paper thin because realistically, the metal would have some thickness, and the laspistol should not have an inverted grip, because realistically, nobody would be able to hold it.
but again, if it's still a no, then I won't pursue this.
Posted by: ZylonBane
« on: 02. March 2025, 18:47:28 »Protobot crates did not include redesigned droid parts, they copied the existing droid model.
Air ducts were not redesigned, we just made versions with the ends knocked out.
Pipes were not redesigned, they've just been made more rounded.
This business with the laser pistol is a blatant "That's not how I would have designed it, I think it should be designed like this instead," which is way, way over previous lines.
Air ducts were not redesigned, we just made versions with the ends knocked out.
Pipes were not redesigned, they've just been made more rounded.
This business with the laser pistol is a blatant "That's not how I would have designed it, I think it should be designed like this instead," which is way, way over previous lines.
Posted by: voodoo47
« on: 02. March 2025, 17:37:45 »yes, I realize this one is a bit on the edge, but that's how things sometimes are. I would compare it to the protodroid shipping crate model - some bits were simply missing, "eeh nobody is going to notice anyway". so reconstructed to look proper. the air ducts were redesigned to be actual air ducts, not just blocks of metal. pipes too. plenty of precedent there.
anyway, if your no is final, then I'm not going to push this any further.
anyway, if your no is final, then I'm not going to push this any further.
Posted by: ZylonBane
« on: 02. March 2025, 17:29:29 »Another SHTUP request for @Olfred ...
torpedo.bin - Torpedo (-2289)
This is the Rickenbacker torpedo. It has a few issues:
- Missing blue light on one side.
- Tech screen on side without blue light not aligned with texture.
- Yellow stripes at front and end don't join seamlessly.
- One side needs swapped to different texture so hi-res text won't be backwards.
I suppose all of the above except the last item would also qualify this as a Fixed Object addition.
I've already created some replacement assets for this, so I just packed everything up.
torpedo.bin - Torpedo (-2289)
This is the Rickenbacker torpedo. It has a few issues:
- Missing blue light on one side.
- Tech screen on side without blue light not aligned with texture.
- Yellow stripes at front and end don't join seamlessly.
- One side needs swapped to different texture so hi-res text won't be backwards.
I suppose all of the above except the last item would also qualify this as a Fixed Object addition.
I've already created some replacement assets for this, so I just packed everything up.
Posted by: ZylonBane
« on: 02. March 2025, 17:03:20 »As I see it, it's important for mods to stay in their lane, so people who download them can reasonably predict what they're getting. When it comes to models...
- SCP: New models only as needed to support new or repaired functionality.
- Fixed Objects: Corrected technical issues. Z-fighting, missing faces, floating decals, sloppy UVs, etc.
- SHTUP: Enhanced models. Higher poly, more detail, etc.
None of the above include redesigning the guns. That's always been left to standalone gun mods.
Anyway, when SS2EE25AR comes out it'll have all-new weapon models, so this especially isn't worth the hassle.
- SCP: New models only as needed to support new or repaired functionality.
- Fixed Objects: Corrected technical issues. Z-fighting, missing faces, floating decals, sloppy UVs, etc.
- SHTUP: Enhanced models. Higher poly, more detail, etc.
None of the above include redesigning the guns. That's always been left to standalone gun mods.
Anyway, when SS2EE25AR comes out it'll have all-new weapon models, so this especially isn't worth the hassle.
Posted by: voodoo47
« on: 02. March 2025, 13:48:46 »laspistol shape good to go as far as I'm concerned, now the question becomes, is it worth trying to fix the texture if ZB is against this being included in (one of) the big three? not worth the hassle if this ends up just a minimod of some sort.
btw this should be fixed as far as I'm concerned, yes, the concept art may show the current model (also confirms the top texture is messed up on it), but sometimes you have to admit they just did a dumb thing that should be corrected. the current vanilla laspistol is not an object that could be held by a human being, they probably just didn't realize or something, and as mentioned, if we take a look at the mesh/hand model which is held properly/realistically, then we have no choice but to admit the world model is wrong, and probably should be fixed.
btw this should be fixed as far as I'm concerned, yes, the concept art may show the current model (also confirms the top texture is messed up on it), but sometimes you have to admit they just did a dumb thing that should be corrected. the current vanilla laspistol is not an object that could be held by a human being, they probably just didn't realize or something, and as mentioned, if we take a look at the mesh/hand model which is held properly/realistically, then we have no choice but to admit the world model is wrong, and probably should be fixed.
Posted by: Olfred
« on: 02. March 2025, 13:03:02 »I really need to test the position of models compared to the original. With the updated exporter script it changed a bit and I'm still figuring out which is the correct setting.Something off with the security crate export. It's floating several inches above the floor when replacing the original model.
This one should be good now.
That's from the previous work I did on the laser pistol. When I work on something I tend to use the "latest revision".also watch out, one side of the gun is now untextured.
I agree with you, but I just do as you guys tell me for most of the time.I am not comfortable with fan-fic'ing alternate weapon models into SCP, or SHTUP, and especially not Fixed Objects. The hand grip on the vanilla model may be weird and impractical, but it's as depicted in the concept art.
[hackcrat new pos.zip expired]
[laser triggered mid.zip expired]
Posted by: ZylonBane
« on: 01. March 2025, 23:06:28 »I am not comfortable with fan-fic'ing alternate weapon models into SCP, or SHTUP, and especially not Fixed Objects. The hand grip on the vanilla model may be weird and impractical, but it's as depicted in the concept art.
Shield generator and conduit leg models look good to go.
Shield generator and conduit leg models look good to go.
Posted by: voodoo47
« on: 01. March 2025, 22:21:54 »ooh, forgot to comment on the laspitol - yeah, this is close to what I had in mind, but the grip probably should be moved more forward, no reason to have so much empty space there. Tacticool had a pretty good idea there (also nicely shows just how much messed up the top texture is on vanilla, though it takes it too far with the grip, imho). also watch out, one side of the gun is now untextured.
[notex.JPG expired]
[shorten.JPG expired]
[notex.JPG expired]
[shorten.JPG expired]
Posted by: ZylonBane
« on: 01. March 2025, 21:27:19 »Something off with the security crate export. It's floating several inches above the floor when replacing the original model.
Posted by: Olfred
« on: 26. February 2025, 15:53:17 »Conduit needs legs.
I made them so they overlay with the original legs of the conduit when you put them at the same position. I thought that might make it easier for you. I could also change it so they will align above the original legs if put on the same position, but as you might want to stack multiple, how it's currently set up might be simpler for you. It's up to you, I can make the change if wanted.
EDIT: Here's an edited laser pistol. The timer on the mock image ran out so I just did something from memory. I tried to keep the aesthetic of the overall model so the trigger is quite simple in geometry.
[laser_triggered.zip expired]
[conduit_legs.zip expired]
I made them so they overlay with the original legs of the conduit when you put them at the same position. I thought that might make it easier for you. I could also change it so they will align above the original legs if put on the same position, but as you might want to stack multiple, how it's currently set up might be simpler for you. It's up to you, I can make the change if wanted.
EDIT: Here's an edited laser pistol. The timer on the mock image ran out so I just did something from memory. I tried to keep the aesthetic of the overall model so the trigger is quite simple in geometry.
[laser_triggered.zip expired]
[conduit_legs.zip expired]
Posted by: Olfred
« on: 25. February 2025, 04:16:12 »Generators were a freaking hassle to find the right color. I was looking for the textures but couldn't find anything that matches. Turns out, the material for the lights were no textures at all but an RGB value defined as material. It's the first time I saw this and the importer/exporter I use also doesn't seem to be able to handle it. So I had to take the route on creating .e files and then manually edit them, which also didn't went as easy as bsp.exe was a bit finicky to accepting my edits. It seems that if you use RGB materials, they have to be at the bottom of the material list, somewhere in between and the model doesn't get created properly. Oh the wonders of the dark engine and its tools.
I seem to have properly working models now. Use both new models as I adjusted the lights position.
There are also the adjusted light positions for the hackcrate.
I seem to have properly working models now. Use both new models as I adjusted the lights position.
There are also the adjusted light positions for the hackcrate.
Posted by: ZylonBane
« on: 20. January 2025, 23:46:04 »Also we've got a good-enough-for-now overloaded shield generator model that eliminates the jump when it's swapped in.
@Olfred new request: noticed that the red stripes on the security crate have a serious floating issue:
Model is hackcrat.bin, "Hackable Crate" (-1886) in the hierarchy. You've worked on this model before to add the missing bottom, so hopefully you still have your files from that.
@Olfred new request: noticed that the red stripes on the security crate have a serious floating issue:
Model is hackcrat.bin, "Hackable Crate" (-1886) in the hierarchy. You've worked on this model before to add the missing bottom, so hopefully you still have your files from that.
Posted by: voodoo47
« on: 16. January 2025, 10:42:57 »@Olfred slight bump into the generator models, and maybe the laspistol. perhaps even the T2 eyeball plant. thanks as always.
//scratch the laspistol, looking at everything again, I think we'll open this can of worms later.
//scratch the laspistol, looking at everything again, I think we'll open this can of worms later.
Posted by: voodoo47
« on: 24. December 2024, 07:26:53 »did I miss that? yes, I did.
yeah, the first model seems to be unnecessary, actually, so not sure what was fixed there (was thinking the selection brackets, but doesn't seem like it //actually, yes). the second model actually is almost ok, just missing the small yellow light (vanilla sgen1 in the corner).
[gen.jpg expired]
yeah, the first model seems to be unnecessary, actually, so not sure what was fixed there (was thinking the selection brackets, but doesn't seem like it //actually, yes). the second model actually is almost ok, just missing the small yellow light (vanilla sgen1 in the corner).
[gen.jpg expired]
Posted by: ZylonBane
« on: 24. December 2024, 06:39:23 »command1.mis, object 285. In the SCP version of the map there's an editor-only Sympathetic Resonator floating next it that you can grab and plug into it to switch to the other model.
Posted by: Olfred
« on: 24. December 2024, 06:18:43 »Can you give me a map name and a pointer so I can test it out? And maybe the code for the item that is needed to activate it so I can test it out.
There's a lot going on for me right now so it could be that I only can get to it in the next year.
There's a lot going on for me right now so it could be that I only can get to it in the next year.
Posted by: ZylonBane
« on: 24. December 2024, 05:50:07 »Olfred I just took a look at these. Unfortunately they're not usable in their current state since both models turn the lights on the shield generator grey.
Also why are there two models? Only sgen2 should need updating so it doesn't jump in relation to sgen1.
Also why are there two models? Only sgen2 should need updating so it doesn't jump in relation to sgen1.
Loading...