Changing Unit Weapon Model

**Aegis** · 08-18-2005, 18:46

I've been playing around a bit with the units in the game, and decided to try creating a new unit (more specifically, an Egyptian Pharao's Guard unit wielding a falx). Said and done, I added a new entry to the descr_unit file with the appropriate stats, and an entry to the model_battle file with the 2-handed skeleton.

As far as I can tell, the unit works. It's using the right soldier model, the correct attack animation and, to my great surprise, without any crashes. There is just one problem; it's still holding a spear. I've done my best to find some kind of referrence to the weapon model used, but I simply can't find it.
I also tried making the Triarii phalanx-capable and give it a secondary attack using the swordsman skeleton. That works fine as well, except that the soldier is not holding a sword.

**Abokasee** · 08-18-2005, 19:03

post a screen shot please

**conon394** · 08-18-2005, 19:04

You will need to edit the Triarii .cas file and its associated texture. In the .cas file the soldier needs a secondary weapon, and a sword needs to be added to the texture file.

**Aegis** · 08-18-2005, 19:22

...And I have no idea how to do that... Bugger.

**conon394** · 08-19-2005, 02:29

There are a number of tutorials here and at the TWC that will get you started.
The real kicker is the fact you are going to need to get either 3dfx or Gmax to edit the .cas file (and the .cas file import script as well). But CA was cheap and they did not release a Gmax plug-in (so much for claims about mod-ability), if you edit the model with Gmax you will need to find someone willing to load your work into 3dfx and export it in the proper format. As for the texture file you can use Photoshop (or something similar) and the dds plug-in from NVIDIA to produce it. Good luck.

**Aegis** · 08-19-2005, 02:50

Thanks, but considering my complete lack of both necessary tools and skill, I think I'll leave this be.

**Bwian** · 08-19-2005, 14:22

But CA was cheap and they did not release a Gmax plug-in (so much for claims about mod-ability)

When I was part of another mod team working on something for another game, the possibility of a GMax plugin was investigated. Discreet were looking for a 6 figure sum ( £'s ... not $ too ) to develop a plugin. When you look at the amount of extra units that would get sold as a result, the returns just don't justify the cost. I am not at all surprised that CA didn't pay up.

Additionally...the script that DOES allow Max users to import and export RTW models was written by Vercingetorix NOT Creative Assembly. If someone out there has the skill to make an importer for another bit of 3D software, there is nothing stopping them. The Max Script Verc. wrote should contain enough data about the file format to make it possible.

Anyway...as far as modding goes, the bulk of the unit stats are in un-encrypted text files, and the textures etc. are not hidden away in locked archives either. CA have really not put up any of the barriers that most game designers do to prevent modding.

Not that ANY of this helps the original poster....he doesn't know how to model ( I guess from his response ) A GMax plugin STILL wouldn't have helped.

**conon394** · 08-19-2005, 16:07

I don’t doubt that it would entail a cost to CA, but that cost was effectively going to be spread over RTW, and at least one more major title and what 2 to 4 expansion titles. Also I don’t know that the risk was that great, CA already knew there was a strong base interested in moding RTW. You may be right on the unit costs, but given CA parsimonious stance toward patches, I personally doubt they even explored the economics.

**Sundjata Keita** · 08-19-2005, 20:07

Don't forget that CA also did not encrypt the pak files or 3d files which they could easily of done. The game itself was made very moddable, the reason people think the game is not moddable is because no nice and easy mod tools were released. But we can blame the publishers (activision) for that one.

**Aegis** · 08-20-2005, 00:57

My main problem is that I've never learned how to use 3D modelling software. Drawing lines to form closed planes over and over again is not difficult per se, it's just that all those planes will have have to look like something too and I simply lack that kind of artistic ability (don't even get me started on drawing and creating textures). Hence I've never had a reason to use the programs.

Anyway, anyone know why you have to modify the model to let it hold another weapon? Is there any technical reason why you simply can't make the model unarmed, make a bunch of weapon models, then simply attach whatever weapon you want the soldier to have to his hand regardless of what model the soldier is?

**Bwian** · 08-20-2005, 08:10

There is no technical reason as such, but it would make things a LOT more complex. Games like Unreal Tournament, and in fact, just about every shooting game since Doom have done it that way. The model has no weapon, and the models for the weapons are attached to the hand when the weapon is selected. This is done to allow multiple weapons to be chosen in game.

Now...for RTW, you have a different problem. Quantity.

In order to make a weapon act like it is in the models hand, it needs to be synchronised to the skeletal animation. This means tracking EVERY weapon as a seperate entity, effectively doubling the number of items that have to be tracked during a battle. You also would have to do the same for the shields. Now...we are starting to slow the game down bigtime here.

What CA have done is to make things as simple as possible. By attaching the weapon DIRECTLY to the models skeletal animation, it always moves with the model, and is effectively just a few extra polygons. Swapping weapons around is very simple with the correct tools, and I am sure it really didn't cause CA any hardship to do it that way.

Also...since the models are controlled by pre-programmed skeletal animations, you would still need to make a load of different animation sets for each type of weapon. The model has to move as if it was in the players hand. So...for each WEAPON you would need to design a complete set of animations so they would track the players movements. Most games that allow multiple weapons are just using guns.... one firing animation suits all weapons.

So..in simple terms...it is FAR simpler just to attach the weapon to the model. Less stress on the processor, less problems with animations, and overall simplification of the modelling pipeline. Doesn't help people who can't model to make new units..... but makes it a LOT simpler for those who can

**Ciaran** · 08-20-2005, 13:34

But Rome does have seperate animations for different weapons which are not dependant on the model. You actually can give a spear-bearing unit a swordsman animation, it looks weird, but works.
And, for example, the phalanx pike are not attached to the models, you can make any unit a phalanx, just by giving them the attribute. So, it works there. And I think, the unit class "spearman" works similar, though I´m not entirely sure there.

**Aegis** · 08-20-2005, 19:39

Aye. The falx animation worked fine with my modified Pharao's Guard, only they were holding spears. The swordsman animation worked for my triarii, but they had no weapons. My phalanx-capable legions worked fine with a long pike and javelin animation (although it did look wierd, but only because they held it like a javelin). If anything was strange, it was because I used the wrong weapon for the wrong animation, which naturally would be fixed if I actually could use the right weapon paired with its animation.