ATTN: M1913 RAILS - Do it right, use refs

Please take a good, hard look at these before you try and model Picatinny rails on anything, or you will be told to go back and do it again. There is one way and one way only to model the 1913 rail. It has a very distinctive cross-section and there are reasons for this.

http://www.biggerhammer.net/picatinny/rail_profile.gif
http://www.biggerhammer.net/picatinny/recoilgroove.gif

Thanks to Snaf for the links, might be an idea to sticky this or something so people don't have to be told constantly. It seems rails are the worst-done thing when it comes to modelling modern weapons, I don't see why we shouldn't have good refs readily available for people to look at before they get halfway through their models and are told they're wrong.

Stickied.

Now people such as myself don't have to make fools of themselves posting inferior ref :mech:

The weapon I am modeling uses those rails.. but I have to actually follow that stuff? D:

Same design.. eh, I guess I do. :(

Maybe post a 3d representation of the rails?

You have enough info there to model them correctly.

pardon the huegpic

Here, I'll post more refs from my library.

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/3271/picatinny.jpg
http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/2662/...nnydrawing.gif
http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/2949/...nysideview.gif

this is the rail cover that is put over rails to aid in grip. this is a cross section.

good thread. Usually when I see rails on weapon models, I think that theres no way it could physically hold an attachment on. This makes much more sense though.

http://files.filefront.com/Rail+Ref3.../fileinfo.html

Hope its all correct. I guess this can also be used for modeling rails for ref? :o

Why make a new thread when we have a thread for modeling resources already. Just stick it in there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corndogman

Why make a new thread when we have a thread for modeling resources already. Just stick it in there.

---

^^.

No offense ross, your advice is good, but really, does this need a sticky?

Maybe make a thread that houses alot of different modelling standards/techniques for doing the most common tasks. Then sticky that.

Nobody will read it. They'll just assume they know how to do them, then fuck them up.

Is there a reason that those parts are not the same?
http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t...nnydrawing.png

They are the same. You just don't know how to read blueprint measurements and tolerances.

I am pretty sure they are not the same, there is a 90 degree angle in the other pics, there is not detailed breakdown of that area that i can see and no explaination of a 90 either.

They're the same, the flat of the underside got lost in the image resolution and line thickness. Damn, dude, they're the same. They're fucking MIL SPEC. Do you know what that means?

I presume it means military specs.
And if the image was lost in resolution then they are not the same.
Was just wondering is all.

I can just make out the flats, it's pretty obvious that it's the image's fault. The rail is the same regardless of whether the image lost the flat section there in resolution, or if it suddenly grew hot pink bloody polka dots all over it instead. Mil spec is mil spec, they're exactly the same.

It was a simple fucking question.

And it was answered, don't have a whinge about it just because you thought you knew best.

Ross (and Snaf), no offense, but I'll be honest here. Your guys' last couple of post just come off sounding like "I know shit about military shit, your wrong, I'm always right and your fucking stupid. etc. etc."

Your post always sound like this and it gets pretty fucking annoying. You don't realize it, but what if someone started telling you the same thing about a different subject, telling you that your an idiot and that they know everything about such and such. You would be annoyed.

Maniacs question was simple and completely valid. You could have just answered "the decreased resolution fuxed it a little, its the same" This little argument would have never happened, but you guys always have to make a big deal out of it and always be the one who's right all of the time. Just chill the fuck out.

awaiting -rep, but hell, this is my honest opinion so who cares.

Too fucking bad.

It's just funny, because personally I think it would come across as annoying to them (and me) that someone who didn't know what he was talking about brought up moot points and insisted that he was right. Especially considering they know so much more about guns and rails than he does.

I am never against saying i was wrong, and i was, to post my 2nd post after it was answered already.
But i really just had a question about the 2 pics (that looked so different to me).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flyinrooster

It's just funny, because personally I think it would come across as annoying to them (and me) that someone who didn't know what he was talking about brought up moot points and insisted that he was right. Especially considering they know so much more about guns and rails than he does.

---

mutual annoyance

a terrible, terrible thing

STANAG 2324 and Weaver are both 20mm, right?

stanag 2324 and m1913 are the same exact thing. Spacing on a weaver is different than on an m1913 rail. 20mm in what regards?

Hey I'm an asshole to ya know :(

Also this shouldn't be a sticky for just rail refs, but refs in general and knowing how to properly study the refs to make an accurate model, not half assing it.

Hate to poke my dick into an already resolved argument buuuut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnaFuBAR

They are the same. You just don't know how to read blueprint measurements and tolerances.

---

He gave you as clear an answer as possible

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maniac

I am pretty sure they are not the same, there is a 90 degree angle in the other pics, there is not detailed breakdown of that area that i can see and no explaination of a 90 either.

---

and you continued to argue

So you got shot down. No excuse for the hissy fit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnaFuBAR

stanag 2324 and m1913 are the same exact thing. Spacing on a weaver is different than on an m1913 rail. 20mm in what regards?

---

The width of the rail from edge to edge.

Me = not well versed in modern Western weapons.

~21 mm

So, when I hear people talking about their gun having 20mm rails, are they referring to 1913/Weaver or something else entirely?

i believe they're just rounding off. vOv

I decided to be a write whore again.

For many people, their approach to modeling a M1913 rail starts with something like this:



This is actually rather inaccurate, but lets go ahead and assume you are giving up accuracy for an extra bit of performance. Right now there are only 22 triangles per section, but that is a lot when you think about how many of these sections are in a full rail. Worst case, let’s assume there are 50 of these (around that for something like this) and you haven’t optimized put much effort into optimizing it.



1104 triangles; ouch, that’s probably a good percentage of your total triangle count. Now, we could remove some of those triangles that aren’t affecting the shape of the model. That would make things a little better, but we can do better than this. If we were to separate the mesh into two objects; one with all of the “teeth” of the rail and the other with the cleaned up base of the rail itself, we could shave off a bunch of triangles.



Wow, that’s almost half as many triangles as we originally had! We haven’t lost a bit of detail either and we can go ahead and add more detail into other areas or even into the rail itself:



(In this example I went ahead and made the “teeth” elements of the base’s mesh)

I've gone ahead and attached an example mesh so you can see what I did.

Have fun :3.

that post was a graet post