Are you familiar with using MshEx to export your ModTool-created models to .msh? You have more options than having to use a limited trial.

Also, since it looks like you had a sideview texture, you might try importing that as a rotoscope when you're creating your model next time. What you have right there is pretty blocky (which is a fine first try), but even for a beginner, having a rotoscope as a reference can make it very easy to get correct proportions.

Quote from: Napseeker on April 22, 2010, 03:56:27 PMThat R2 does have a skeleton... it has bones for head, middle leg, legs, etc.  I've actually implemented this so I know this as fact.  Take a look at all_droid_r2d2.msh for yourself, but I'm 100% certain about it.

You're right that it does have a null hierarchy, but none of them are bones per se - they are just nulls like you might find in any animated mesh (e.g. animated doors). There is also no envelope data in the mesh. It's likely that this was a scrapped model for a special kind of non-player unit (it shares the mostly-defunct "droid" classlabel with the probe droid) that would be animated irrelevant of its movement.

However as far as those things that are germane to the issue above - since none of the nulls use the same names as any of the bones in the default unit animations, they are not relevant to those animations and any pieces of that model will default to the null root (dummyroot) of the animation's skeleton.

Quote from: Napseeker on April 22, 2010, 11:22:36 AMImplementing R2 is like implementing Yoda or the Jawa... it's a short-height character so any solutions to problems with R2 are going to come from analyzing say the existing Jawa or ewok ODFs.

It's not like using either of the abovementioned, because it doesn't have a skeleton. It only has its parent null (dummyroot, I'd assume) and as a result it's only "enveloped" to a single bone (it doesn't really have an envelope but a parent null acts as a single weight point). You won't see any animation issues when adding static meshes as replacements for meshes with a skeleton.

Quote from: Nikoli on April 21, 2010, 10:24:16 AM
have you tried setting it with initial salvo delay?

Quote from: Snake on April 21, 2010, 10:36:48 AM
Yes make the salvo 1 and do the salvo delays like 3.0 or 4.0 and it ill look like you are having to hold it.

That won't do what he said he wanted it to do in the original post.

Quote from: ag on April 20, 2010, 08:58:41 PM
Not solved, I'm still having trouble with this. I've tried making a dummy ordance but it keeps on crashing. I'll work on it when I have time.

No one can help you without a little more information. Posting the .odf would be helpful.

Quote from: Snake on April 20, 2010, 03:44:15 PM
Yeah, well usually when things are told the easy way people have questions on more advanced aspects of the simple thing.

I don't see any problem with helping, but the reason I posted what I posted is because your explanation makes a simple process more complicated and more intimidating than it needs to be. It's not so much that it touches on anything "more advanced;" it's a bit extraneous and obfuscatory. A great rule of thumb for giving instructions - only expand on your instructions when they need to be.

Maybe it will help someone - I don't know. My only concern is that what your explanation gives is analogous to disassembling a car to get a person outside rather than the person using the car door to get outside.

You are overcomplicating a simple process, and "conversion" is a bit of a misnomer.

1) Open SWBF1 .odf
2) Replace geometry with SWBF2 geometry

Done.

There's nothing "hardwired" about classparents, it's just a shortcut the devs made for SWBF2 to make things cleaner. Any classparent is just another .odf file, and all you have to do - if you really want to do it the backwards way you describe - is merge the data from any parent .odfs into the child .odf.

Not all weapons are going to work, your sounds are going to reference different things, and there will be extraneous parameters (e.g. awards), so like I said it's really a waste of time to do it the way you mention above. It's far simpler to make your unit and then just copy the geometry. If you want to use the same weapons you would just change the references in your .odfs to those weapon .odfs. I don't know why you would - you're asking for a huge hassle because the common effects/textures used in either game have different names - but if you did, that's the simplest way.

Fred's .odf guide says that any weapon supports charging parameters.

Quote from: kaching335 on April 18, 2010, 07:15:41 AM
Just so you know theres already an Arc Gunship, its in the conversion pack vehicles assets, and no offence but i think its better.

That's no reason not to make your own. I'd much rather see someone do their own work than simply download someone else's and use that - the only way anyone gets better is by learning how to do things for themselves.

P.S. That was the texture I posted earlier in the thread for comparison.

All you want to do is make a dummy ordnance, that has no effects and does no damage, for your first-charge ordnance. Then make your second-charge ordnance as usual.

Quote from: Snake on April 15, 2010, 06:31:02 PMsaying " i think flat colors are the extent of your skill" then saying "not that your bad" is like me saying "i want to rip your guts out" then saying " not that i dont like you "

Don't hyperbolically read in a personal attack on someone's judging of your skill level (incidentally I never said either of the two things you just quoted). If that represents the extent of your skill, all I was saying was not to be satisfied. I never said anything about your person or attempted to invalidate your work. No one's perfect, but that doesn't mean you have to be satisfied with where you are.

It's incredibly demoralizing when any time I try to post constructive criticism (or offer feedback, or answers, etc.) it's met as a personal attack. I'm trying to help you and if you simply don't want my help, please at least do me the service of just saying so (and believe me, there would be no hard feelings - I'd much rather just be asked not to help instead of trying and feeling like I'm beating my head against a wall) instead of acting hurt. I understand that I can be brusque, but there are more than enough cheerleaders here and not enough who give actual feedback.

 
Well shucks, I didn't know I had it in the first place. Not that I should have to give my reasons, but half the assets in that were made by other people, and I have no desire to see those people get left out of accreditation if I released them all in one big pack (they would). I told anyone that contributed to it that they were free to release their own assets on their own (and some did), but I'm not releasing it all in one big download because to do so would be irresponsible.

But hey that's fine if your mindset is "everyone owes me everything they make." Don't expect a lot of people to agree, though.

If there's an issue of getting a non-MSPaint tool; there are two very powerful free tools available in the GIMP and Paint.NET. I use and prefer Paint.NET (it supports lots of neat plugins and the UI I like better), but lots of people will swear by GIMP, too. Either one is a great step up and a necessity for working with any sort of image-editing for a game, because you'll need an app that can work in layers.

I haven't released any of the KotOR source (nor will it be released), but the heroes side is here:
http://www.filefront.com/8153031/heroes_side.rar
(In the future, just use the "search" on GT to go through our Released Assets thread, you will almost always find what you need that way.)

Quote from: Snake on April 15, 2010, 03:27:03 PM
I didn't say I only wanted praise....This is exactly how I wanted it though. I'm not copying the exact ship from tcw.

I'm glad it turned out like you wanted, but if it is the case - and I suspect it is - don't hide behind "it's how I want it" when someone says that it should be better. Just because something represents the extent of your skill level does not mean that you have to be satisfied with it. To be perfectly honest, I have a hard time understanding how you could truly want it as it is, since right now it very clearly looks like it just has solid colors brushed on. It's low-quality and can easily be better.

That's not a statement against you or your work, but please don't be satisfied with something so basic. It's so easy to do much better with just a little practice.

Quote from: Snake on April 15, 2010, 03:10:30 PM
Actually it looks very awesome and yes it looks just how I wanted it to. I didn't use brush strokes larger than 20 pixels. 

Did you want criticism or praise?

Here is an example of a fairly decent version of the same texture:

[No spoiler tags apparently, sorry about page width]
It's not perfect, but it's probably closer to the idea you were looking for.

If you're not looking for criticism, then fine, nice job on your retexture. Criticism is the only way you're going to get better, though.