Martian invader

[Kyrbi0]

Solid work as always. Gooshy brain matter. Love the teleport anims.

 

[PurrsandMlems]

EEK! EEK!

 

[ZM5]

Mars needs cheerleaders!

 

[MasterHaosis]

THATS GREAT! I like this model very much! Nice death anim with head exploding like balloon and purple effects. I like stand anim where he steps on that butterfly. This is also unique model that benefits the model section and did not exist here so far.
5/5+ like!
@Archian please put this also in contest entry.

 

[tulee]

The head exploding, as well as the blink effect like it is teleporting away (in a science fiction kind of way), are fantastic! Great model.

 

[ShadowMidas]

Great!

 

[stein123]

This is just brilliant, so much character, my favorite entry

 

[Sloane Ranger]

Love this. Would love a whole alien invasion race.

 

[Hotel]

This is awesome. Love the brain twitching!

 

[Villagerino]

This guys is very thematic, amazing work with textures, love the Birth, Stand and Death especially, nothing superfluous and everything to the point, great job!

 

[Wind Rose]

Oh my god, that's hilarious, I love the model, it brings back great memories.

 

[DarknessFalls003]

add "alien" tag please

 

[RanchBurner]

Inspired by "Mars Attacks"?

 

[Archian]

Added to contest entries!

 

[A]mun]

Super useful with Ufo.

Splendid animations!

 

[Kacpa2]

Very characterful, love the animations they're hilarious especially stomping the butterfly xD

 

[All_Time_Pro]

LEGENDARY

 

[stan0033]

some of the geoset animations lack 0 alpha for start/end of 'decay alternate'

Review accepted by Footman16

 

[tillinghast]

some of the geoset animations lack 0 alpha for start/end of 'decay alternate'

because it doesn't matter, it's covered by the material visibility, i have sat there and waited for 88 seconds for decays and model did not become visible for me
geoset animation visibility is binary, visible or not, so material visibility have to be used for gutz or in this case the "beaming up" thing, model still gets removed from the game after the animation is over
it's the same exact thing as default blizzard models

 

[stan0033]

because it doesn't matter, it's covered by the material visibility, i have sat there and waited for 88 seconds for decays and model did not become visible for me
geoset animation visibility is binary, visible or not, so material visibility have to be used for gutz or in this case the "beaming up" thing, model still gets removed from the game after the animation is over
it's the same exact thing as default blizzard models

My review is about data correctness not if it works in another way or not.
Technically it works because the material visibility masks it, but the geoset animations are is still incomplete. Geoset animations should define their own intended visibility instead of relying on another visibility component to hide them.

 

[tillinghast]

My review is about data correctness not if it works in another way or not.

what another way? it's visible when it should be and invisible when it shouldn't, it works

Technically it works because the material visibility masks it

there's not "technically" about it, it works

but the geoset animations are is still incomplete.

because they don't need to be complete if the model works as intended

Geoset animations should define their own intended visibility instead of relying on another visibility component to hide them.

they did define it and it's 1 because of material visibility
there is no point in putting 0 at the last frame of geoset animation visibility because next animation immediately overwrites it, or in this case it gets deleted from the game

 

[stan0033]

We're discussing two different things. You're arguing that the model works correctly in-game, and I don't disagree with that. My review is based on the site's standards for model data. Whoever wrote sanity test is setting a standard how models should behave. The Sanity Test reports six geoset animations that do not disappear during Decay Alternate, so I mentioned it in my review.

Whether you decide to fix it is entirely your choice. I simply pointed out what the site's validation considers an issue.

 

[tillinghast]

We're discussing two different things. You're arguing that the model works correctly in-game, and I don't disagree with that. My review is based on the site's standards for model data. Whoever wrote sanity test is setting a standard how models should behave. The Sanity Test reports six geoset animations that do not disappear during Decay Alternate, so I mentioned it in my review.

it's not even proper sanity test, it's this new "/validate-model" thing that makes wild assumptions
if it has replaceable id 2 (used for portrait background) - then it's a hero, demands a dissipate animation
same bundle here, for a missile it demands a collision shape (can't even select missiles in normal game)
on some models it somehow decides that the model in question is a building and demands a boxy collision shape
why are you blindly adhering to that thing? it does have some points (it did point out that i forgot about rally point attachments for my sepulchers, they're even missing in the screenshot), but it's not a be all end all or whatever, nor is the regular sanity checker

 

[stan0033]

Wether the sanity check is flawed or not is a different topic of discussion and doesnt invalidate my review. I'm not blindly followig the sanity checks, i see inconsistencies in it that you mentioned without you telling me, I choose what to ignore, but this here I did not ignore. As I said follow the review or don't it's your choice. If you want a second opnion there are other reviewers.

 

[General Frank]

[...] If you want a second opnion there are other reviewers.

I think the model is totally fine for approval. It follows every test in sanity check (which both versions are kinda flawed and don't know what is 'fully' correct) and it works well in-game.
I test all things in-game as every model reviewer should. That should be your testing barometer and not jut sanity checker.

The only real problem I have with this model is that the body move too quickly downward during the regular Decay Flesh animation. But that's a quick fix.

 

[Kyrbi0]

It should probably be discussed (elsewhere) how much we should depend/rely on the various "sanity checkers" for reviews (I.e. can a model be approved if it has any "failures"), because tillinghast & stan are both correct here, in different ways.

 

[deepstrasz]

My review is about data correctness not if it works in another way or not.
Technically it works because the material visibility masks it, but the geoset animations are is still incomplete. Geoset animations should define their own intended visibility instead of relying on another visibility component to hide them.

What's this, the onset of new AI minded bureaucrats?

 

[tillinghast]

It should probably be discussed (elsewhere) how much we should depend/rely on the various "sanity checkers" for reviews (I.e. can a model be approved if it has any "failures"), because tillinghast & stan are both correct here, in different ways.

What's this, the onset of new AI minded bureaucrats?

look it's two people that reply to every thread because they're pillars of community
they're pillars of community because they reply to every thread
what would we do without them?

 

[General Frank]

A fine, quirky model with good animations and great use of textures.

Review accepted by Footman16

 

[MasterHaosis]

Good that you resolved this! I was watching you, and whoever make problems to models of my contestants or commissions will face my wrath.
Listen to General Frank here and you will live longer.

 

[tillinghast]

and whoever make problems to models of my contestants or commissions will face my wrath.

what are you gonna do, commission models at them?
or are you gonna post
user
name
xd
on their profile?
another pillar of community

 

[MasterHaosis]

what are you gonna do, commission models at them?
or are you gonna post
user
name
xd
on their profile?
another pillar of community

A true strategist never reveal his plans and tactics.
Maybe I will do that as you suggested, or I will use arrogance you are using regularly to see if that works, as you are also another pillar of community, maybe we should create group together ,,ALL GREAT PILLARS OF HIVE" that will skyrocket!

 

[Separatista]

I think the model is totally fine for approval. It follows every test in sanity check (which both versions are kinda flawed and don't know what is 'fully' correct) and it works well in-game.
I test all things in-game as every model reviewer should. That should be your testing barometer and not jut sanity checker.

The only real problem I have with this model is that the body move too quickly downward during the regular Decay Flesh animation. But that's a quick fix.

I find it very curious that you've returned again and the models uploaded to the models section are being hidden again. My question is, according to your logic, why are the various models that work in the game hidden?

 

[General Frank]

I find it very curious that you've returned again and the models uploaded to the models section are being hidden again. My question is, according to your logic, why are the various models that work in the game hidden?

Maybe your display settings are incorrect.
Also, I am not the only one reviewing resources. @stan0033 and @Villagerino are also doing that.

I can see all resources that are not restricted or delete with these settings:

 

[Separatista]

Maybe your display settings are incorrect.
Also, I am not the only one reviewing resources. @stan0033 and @Villagerino are also doing that.

I can see all resources that are not restricted or delete with these settings:
View attachment 597016

It's somewhat advantageous, though a bit dishonest, to see the resources that the owners of those files decided to remove for various reasons. But that's not my question: I'm interested in knowing why some models are hidden or restricted if they function correctly in the game. Who hid them if not the model's owner?

 

[General Frank]

It's somewhat advantageous, though a bit dishonest, to see the resources that the owners of those files decided to remove for various reasons. But that's not my question: I'm interested in knowing why some models are hidden or restricted if they function correctly in the game. Who hid them if not the model's owner?

I have no idea, sorry.
You have to ask the owners not me. I never deleted any resources of someone else in my stay here.

 

[Separatista]

I have no idea, sorry.
You have to ask the owners not me. I never deleted any resources of someone else in my stay here.

I'll assume you didn't set them to hidden or restricted either. That leads me to assume it was one of the two remaining people. Thanks.

 

[General Frank]

I'll assume you didn't set them to hidden or restricted either. That leads me to assume it was one of the two remaining people. Thanks.

Don't assume stuff out off the blue, just because you are either angry or you don't see things.
Maybe you made the mistake. No fault there.

 

[Villagerino]

I'll assume you didn't set them to hidden or restricted either. That leads me to assume it was one of the two remaining people. Thanks.

No idea

 

[Footman16]

I'm interested in knowing why some models are hidden or restricted if they function correctly in the game. Who hid them if not the model's owner?

I'm not sure what models you're referring to but as far as I'm aware no models have been restricted or deleted (which would hide them). Some have been set to awaiting update or Lacking I think but those can still be seen if you set the proper tags as Frank showed.

 

[Villagerino]

Look guys, Warcraft engine, according to my experience with 3D editors, especially with RMS and some other stuff discussed with Retera, has its own logic of behavior. Like, if a model has Stand Ready sequence its posture will be set as a default pose before the Death animation and it will be played before that. So, you should base your Death anim's starting frames on the Stand Ready animation if you want to escape an abrupt animation switch. But if you don't, the model will still work and cause no bugs. This also applies to some things you discussed here. Like standard Blizzard models have thing like Replaceable ID 2 for their portraits that will make Sanity Test point out as a hero unit or so but these models work flawlessly for years.

What should be done here is to tweak the Sanity Test a bit, so that modelers can go both ways without silly warnings that don't influence gameplay or cause bugs. We should discuss what could be done here like missiles could be left without collisions shapes in the test with a remark that if you use this model as a unit without recalculated extents, it could lose selectability; and put this into the Sanity Test. Who we should adress to, by the way? We can make it comfortable both for reviewers and modelers, I'm pretty much sure

 

[Kyrbi0]

look it's two people that reply to every thread because they're pillars of community
they're pillars of community because they reply to every thread
what would we do without them?

Have a much quieter community?

Anyway, I wouldn't say I'm a "pillar"; my name on the Hive T-shirt is pretty small

 

[deepstrasz]

Oh, another what if (this would be a) Site Discussion thread.

 

[Separatista]

Don't assume stuff out off the blue, just because you are either angry or you don't see things.
Maybe you made the mistake. No fault there.

No, I'm not drawing conclusions, I'm making conjectures, and they're not based on anger, they're based on logic.

No idea

Good.

I'm not sure what models you're referring to but as far as I'm aware no models have been restricted or deleted (which would hide them). Some have been set to awaiting update or Lacking I think but those can still be seen if you set the proper tags as Frank showed.

I never said they were removed, I said verbatim that they are hidden, restricted from search, and are models that meet the basic requirements; they work in the game. Well, you are the experts, you must see things that I don't see, even if they are minimal or small.

 

[vindorei]

No, I'm not drawing conclusions, I'm making conjectures, and they're not based on anger, they're based on logic.

Good.

I never said they were removed, I said verbatim that they are hidden, restricted from search, and are models that meet the basic requirements; they work in the game. Well, you are the experts, you must see things that I don't see, even if they are minimal or small.

Probably because there are many applying the reviewer role, and recent massive piloting reviews result in many old pending models being marked awaiting update, which is hidden to users by default (which I honestly don’t know why, to me personally AU is by all means better than lacking or restricted). The phenomenon is quite tricky since lots of old pending models were shared by users who might be less active these days, we might never see the day they actually update their works, it will be a shame that these works, though flawed, yet still functional in game, are hidden to people who don’t know there are search preferences. This might lead to another ultimate topic: whether reviewers are in the position to “qualify” or “disqualify” models, since there is a large middle ground in between.

I'm not sure what models you're referring to but as far as I'm aware no models have been restricted or deleted (which would hide them). Some have been set to awaiting update or Lacking I think but those can still be seen if you set the proper tags as Frank showed.

I believe the easiest way to avoid such misunderstanding is to set “awaiting update” tag visible to users by default, leaving buffer space for reviewer feedback and model exposure. This way users can both see the model and issues identified by reviewers. I know people can set their search preferences, but surprisingly, many of my friends even modelers don’t know this feature, no more to say new users.