Bluehawk said:You gotta get some smoothing groups on those sleeves, man. Almost every torso armour I've seen from this mod has awkward seams along the arms that shouldn't be so obvious. This has to be done in your modelling program when editing vertexes, edges etc.
I tried recomputing normals but I saw no differenceThe Archduke of Hell said:Yeah, the issue is to do with the way the normals have been configured in the BRF, it should be very easy to fix fortunately.
You can use the "recompute normals" function in OpenBRF to fix the seems on the models, in fact there's a few other OpenBRF functions you might want to get used to, such as the ability to compute tangent directions.
Will you make a Slattery's mounted fut?Dangerdude said:Captain Blackadders Troop of Dragoons
Dangerdude said:-- by "seams on sleeves" you mean this?
Mamlaz said:Nice stuff, but I believe at least some infantry and cavalry could have more armor.
Soldier's Accidence, Gervase Markham, 1625, England;
"These shall have strong, straight, yet nimble pikes of Ash-wood, well headed Steele, and armed with plates downward from the head, at least foure foote, and the full size or length of every Pike shall be fifteene foote, beside his head. "
Of course, not all men would have access to properly advised equipment, but there should be an option.
This is a depiction of a contemporary English pikeman;
As for officers, an example of high end stuff would be colonel Francis Hammond, who had a full suit of armor;
Also, hats.
Definitely more hats and fluffy stuff on said hats
Black Watch 1745 said:Actually
Mamlaz said:Black Watch 1745 said:Actually
The truth, is, actually, in the middle.
While at certain specific moments certain specific units absolutely did suffer from a lack of equipment and supply, a lot of other primary sources of the Civil War state a different picture, even advising commanders not to supply their pikemen with pauldrons(!) and vambraces(!) to aleviate weight;
"... cuiraces for their bodies of nimble and good mould, being high pike proof;
large and well compact gordgetts for their neckes, fayre and close joyned taches,
to arm to the mid-thigh; as for the pouldron or the vantbrace, they may be spared,
because they are but cumbersome. All this armour is to be russet, sanguine, or
blacke colour, than white or milled, for it will keeps the longer from rust." - Markham, Souldier's Accidence, 1630s
Note how not only does he mention pauldrons and braces for ordinary pikemen, but he states not that they should be spared, but merely "may" be spared, not for the expense, but because of their additional weight.
Also, note that gorgets and leg armor are also mentioned as a requirement.
Of course, your own source also matters, but combined with my own, a middle ground can be reached in terms of imagining the availability of equipment at the time.
Erm, no the sources go all the way up to late 1644 with the refit after the disaster at Lostwithiel. As the sources clearly state Essex's men did not order armour after early 1643. I do not know what sources you used referring to 'heaps' of armour but England did not have a professional army before the war and no 'heaps' of armour. It had the Trayned Bandes but they were very poorly equipped:Mamlaz said:Firstly, a decade or two away from Civil War is not enough of a timeframe to diminish the importance of the sources, especially considering they are specifically English.
Secondly, your sources are boggled at the outbreak of the war and mass recruitment, of course there were supply issues in 1642 and early 1643, the amount of active men jumped from 5-6000 to 30-40 000.
The war did not end in 1643.
Or do you mean to tell me that all that heap of armor mentioned in the previous decades vanished into thin air?
Black Watch 1745 said:Erm, no the sources go all the way up to late 1644 with the refit after the disaster at Lostwithiel.
Black Watch 1745 said:As the sources clearly state Essex's men did not order armour after early 1643. I do not know what sources you used referring to 'heaps' of armour but England did not have a professional army before the war and no 'heaps' of armour. It had the Trayned Bandes but they were very poorly equipped:
"Often stored within the church, parish arms were often ill-kept and ancient. In 1613, for example, the armour in Durham had been bought in 1569 and 1588, and by the Civil War much armour of this type was more than a century old." Phillip Haythornthwaite, "The English Civil War, An An illustrated Military History", p.69.
Your sources though read more like guides of what they wanted them to be wearing, not what they actually wore. Stuart Peachey is one of the foremost historians on the Civil War so I would take that up with him if you think his research into the era is all wrong.
Black Watch 1745 said:No, you are arguing that it was more prevalent than it actually was
Mamlaz said:Nice stuff, but I believe at least some infantry and cavalry could have more armor.
Mamlaz said:Of course, not all men would have access to properly advised equipment, but there should be an option.
Mamlaz said:As for officers, an example of high end stuff would be colonel Francis Hammond, who had a full suit of armor;
Mamlaz said:Black Watch 1745 said:No, you are arguing that it was more prevalent than it actually was
?
Mamlaz said:Nice stuff, but I believe at least some infantry and cavalry could have more armor.Mamlaz said:Of course, not all men would have access to properly advised equipment, but there should be an option.Mamlaz said:As for officers, an example of high end stuff would be colonel Francis Hammond, who had a full suit of armor;
...yeah.
Nothing more than equipment option ideas, which were answered in the top post of this page.
The other source I clearly specified it was from the 1630s, never did I even claim anything about prevalence.
Mamlaz said:Or do you mean to tell me that all that heap of armor mentioned in the previous decades vanished into thin air?