Team Fortress Wiki talk:3D Models

Talk archives
	Archive 1

3d models of cosmetics

Maybe doing 3d images of cosmetic items would be a good idea. Slimyboi500 (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

 Nope, discussed before. Too much effort, way too many cosmetics, too many technical issues such as certain parts of the cosmetic being invisible. We'll consider doing taunts, however.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 18:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

If we do taunts, then maybe we can make them GIFs to show what they look like. ----Slimyboi500 (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

That's what the demonstrations are for. We can't have GIFs on 3D models as they're not actually 3D models, but rather just a bunch of images that it cycles between.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 18:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

3d models of buildings

I think that adding 3d images of Sentries, Dispensers, and Teleporters would be a good idea.

---

Slimyboi500 (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Could work, but there is no infobox for buildings.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 18:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Yea, we don't just want to "leave them out in the open." I'd say we also add an infobox for the buildings as well.

----Slimyboi500 (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Easier said than done, plus it would only really be the 3D model viewer. It might look awkward.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 18:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Recompiled Model Link

Ace here, looking to update all dead and working links to not be redirects although bit hard since all of them does so, but managed to do this: Link Acceptable? Acceonit (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not necessary to replace dead ones, simply remove them. Working links are just fine. Please don't use Discord links to host anything as they expire after a while.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 08:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

3d models of bosses

I feel like we should add 3d models of Halloween bosses, since:

1. They are in an infobox
2. They could use a 3d model

I'm all in for it, what do you say? :D

---

Slimyboi500 Talk Contribs

Steam 17:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, the infobox would need to be edited for that. Before we start doing any non-weapon renders some stuff needs to be figured out first.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 18:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Is it ok to just copy-and-paste the code on other templates?

----Slimyboi500 Talk Contribs Steam 18:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Infoboxes are much more complicated than most other templates, copy-pasting won't always work. I would leave it to more experienced users.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 19:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

3d models of robots

We have been discussing this topic a little bit on the IRC, and everyone seems to agree. We must need robot 3d images, and I already created one for the Tank Robot. Please say yes!
----Slimyboi500 Talk Contribs Steam 19:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The issue is more of which ones we're going to create. The idea itself is good and can pass, but the specifics of which robots we're going to create (obviously default and romevision ones). Are we going to add ones with different cosmetics? Are we going to add bosses? Are we going to add Gatebot variants? Are we going to add ÜberCharged versions? Are we going to add the unused RED textures?
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 19:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Here's what I'm thinking:

• Have a separate infobox template
• Have the variants robots be:
  • Normal
  • Romevision
  • Ubercharged
  • Ubercharged Romevision
• All variants must be BLU
• The Tank's final wave skin will be included, but not the variants of it breaking, because it will take up too much space.

----Slimyboi500 Talk Contribs Steam 19:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

No point in a separate infobox, that would take up even more space and it defeats the whole point.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The infobox that the robots already use ({{Class infobox}}) does not have the right views. The point would be that the Robot infobox would be less complicated.

----Slimyboi500 Talk Contribs Steam 20:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm a tad late, but I'd advocate for showing at least all of the models you'd encounter while playing the vanilla missions -- especially Gatebots, which are actively a different mechanic, the same as UberCharging is.

Giants are mostly just larger robot models, (except for having a different head,) but they do have their own model -- and the frequency at which you see a Giant shouldn't be ignored, in terms of showcasing its model, I think. They're not entirely just scaled up regular robots, and if we already go into details for the 3D Model Project such as showcasing different components of weapons like the Buff Banner, or the several different variants of stock weapons that exist now, like the Minigun, I don't think the amount of toggleable buttons, nor the space they take up, is an issue here. I agree that we should focus on BLU skin models, since that's what the official game mode uses, the RED skin can stay as a gallery image, or something similar, if preferred -- but I think if we're going to showcase every reasonable thing, it should be:

• Normal
• Giant
• Gatebot (there are only five types of Giant Gatebot in official missions, so we can have only regular robot Gatebot models, if we need to)
• Romevision (we could include Giants here, Romevision cosmetics are just scaled up on Giants to match their body size, up to consensus)
• UberCharged variants of the above
• Normal Tank + 3 damaged states + final variants
• Romevision Tank + 3 damaged states + final variants

That would equal out to somewhere around eight on each of the robots' pages, and sixteen boxes on the Tank page, if we wanted to include them all on one article. It's a fair bit of work, but not unreasonable in terms of real estate. We already have eight boxes on the Buff Banner page, and eighteen on the Minigun page. It sounds like a lot as a number, but it isn't that much infobox clutter. We don't need to have different ones for robot types that wear cosmetics; just like the base class models, I think we should focus on showcasing the default models.

— 01:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

All of those variants may take up space, but i'm down for it.

----Slimyboi500 Talk Contribs Steam 01:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It sounds like it would take up a lot of space, but visually, it isn't that much of an issue, at least as far as character models go; so long as each of the boxes serve a distinct purpose (which these ones would,) I think it's valid to show them all. — 02:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I would say we ignore the unused Red versions of the robots, with the giant variants they're all the same just scaled up with different animations, Romevision bots would be pretty solid though same for gatebots, but when it comes to the unique bots like the ones that wear certain cosmetics, I don't think it would be worth adding those since it would most likely add over 20 3D buttons for the page. However, unique bosses like Sergeant Crits wouldn't be a bad idea to put on their respective page as they're a major boss in the mission. Though each robot has its page so much like with the current 3D views on other class pages we can just add the 3D views on their page rather than have it clutter up all on the Mann Vs Machine page.
Cheddar • Talk 10:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Just the base, "normal" model and Romevision variants are enough. We don't need every single possible model (including bosses), nor would the page have enough space for them. — Tark 15:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Swood and I were talking about putting in Base, Gatebot, Romevision and bosses (not Giants, but specifically named bosses), and it's not too much space. This is the worst it would possibly be, as Soldier Robots have three types of boss that wear different cosmetics or use different weapons. Plus, general consensus in the discussion so far is that we should include Gatebots somewhere. If not here, Swood and I have discussed putting them on the Gatebot hat page as an alternative, though all it would really save is one row. Insofar as tanks go, we could split Normal and Romevision designs as half-buttons, and show undamaged, the three damaged states, and the Final Wave tanks. — 02:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

3D models of hazards

There hasn't been a discussion started on these, but one for the ghost and sawblade have already been made. I personally think that not every hazard needs a 3D model. Sure it's nice, but the Sawblade has nothing interesting about it and the Train is simply too large to notice any detail on it. I think it should be judged on a case-by-case basis rather than just making 3D models for the few separate hazard pages we have.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 09:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Daft question but do skeletons count as map hazards or bosses?
Cheddar • Talk 09:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Map hazards if they're the regular ones, bosses if it's the Skeleton King. Either way, the skeletons are notable enough for 3D images imo.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 09:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

If someone wants to do it, then I don't really see a reason not to. There aren't that many hazards with individual pages. — Tark 15:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

This also includes Pumpkin Bombs btw, which would be an ever-increasing list, which would eventually look just like Scattergun or even more.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 15:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

If it were up to me, weapon pages wouldn't be as huge as they are now.

Just like I replied to the robot one, I don't think we need to make 3D views for each and every possible variant of something. The default one is fine - and there isn't much value in dedicating so much space for a prop used in only one map. — Tark 16:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)