Issue #91 of 3D World magazine includes on the CD a free Vanishing Point model fo an M1 Abrams tank, competing with the model available from DAZ 3D. This is a short comparison. The Vanishing Point model includes the commander's M2 Browning and the animatable track system. The model appears to be an Army M1A1. The two turret hatches open, as do two hatches on the engine deck and the shutters on the gunner's sight. The driver's hatch does not open, and only a simple desert paint scheme is supplied. The DAZ 3D model lacks an M2 Browning, although the mount is present, and appears to be an M1A2 with the independent thermo-optical system for the commander. Smoke-grenade launchers are fitted This model does have an opening driver's hatch, and lacked the engine-deck hatches. Also, the tracks don't move. MAT poses for several different paint schemes are provided, but they may not be one actually used. The DAZ model has a longer gun barrel, and the turret itself is longer in a way that suggests a published measurement has been misinterpreted. Comparing the model shows that the extra turret length, without storage basket, matches the shorter model with storage boasket. Gun depression on both seems excessive, appearing to risk the recoilling gun breech bursting through the turret roof. Neither has the M240 machinegun mounted at the loader's hatch. The DAZ 3D model has turret rotation and gun elevation parameters calibrated in degrees, while the Vanishing Point model uses the 0 - 1.000 scaling on the dials. The most obvious difference is in the length of the main armanent barrel. The VP model is definitely too short, compared with photographs and plans, while the DAZ model seems a little too long, but the turret length problem may be a factor. The VP model would look good if the gun were firing--full recoil and the muzzle blast. It's easy to fix with a morph, or magnets, moving the fume extractor and outer barrel forward. In the end, if you want animated tracks, go to Vanishing Point. If you want an M1A2, go to DAZ 3D. And be prepared to work over either model to get the right look.

Don't forget to compare file formats:
 
The model from Vanishing Point should include various formats: Poser, Vue, 3D Studio Max, Lightwave, etc. Though please check your 3D World CD to make sure the 3D World people put all the models on the CD.
From the looks of the description page at DAZ, their model only includes the Poser version, though it's probably safe to assume that it also works in DAZ|Studio.
 
If all other factors are comparable (turret length, hatches, treads, size, etc), then the next comparison would have to be price:
The tank from Vanishing Point is free with the purchase of 3D World magazine.
The tank at DAZ is $29.95, though it may be cheaper for Platinum Club members.

Hi,

I made the Poser conversion of the M1 Abrams tank on the 3D World magazine.

I don't own the DAZ version, so I am not qualified to make a comparison, but I would like to point out a few things.

The model is a joint project with Gunpoint3D, who are widely recognised as the leaders in military modelling, and they made the Lightwave, Cinema4D and 3DMax versions. They also textured those.

I made the Poser conversion, using their original mesh. I didn't change any of the measurements on the model, the only scaling I did was to make the tank the correct size for Poser. I trust Gunpoint as far as their measurements go, they have been doing military modelling for years.

The dials on my version do indeed go from 0-1, as do the dials on all my models. So the user never has to turn a dial and wonder how far it goes. He/she knows all my dials go from 0-1.

The biggest difference between my version and the DAZ one is the fact that the tracks on mine can be animated. here is a quick low quality animation of the tracks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gczxUE-XIq4

Making these tracks turn is about three days work, and as far as I know, there are only three people in the Poser universe that know how to do this. This makes this tank animatable, which the DAZ one in my opinion is not.

We did not make the model to compete with DAZ, that was the model that Gunpoint sent us for the joint project, and as far as I know, they do not even know that a company like DAZ exists, they work in a total different marketplace.

And as John says, our model is free.

(How I long for the days when people used to thank us for making free models)

Well - I'd like to say a big thanks all those folks that make freebies for 3dworld and other magazines like ImagineFX, and obviously all the freestuff creators out in Poserdom.    

Along with daz stuff theres been stuff from Predatron, Dark Anvil and Pretty 3d in those mags as well.   

I wasn't involved in this model - but I've been lucky enough to have my stuff in those mags before and I know the work involved and also the satisfaction of seeing your work out there, and great feedback from happy people.  

These mags do a great job in promoting poser - moreso when much of the 3d industry treats poser like a disease you'd catch from a Pompey slapper :) 

So no offence but  I think it's a little unfair to critique the work and those actually that make freebies.

If someone who ACTUALLY served with an actual M1A1 notices something missing on a model done by any one, they shouldn't say anything?  If they didn't give a rat's ass, they wouldn't say anything!  If something is wrong, or inaccurate with any model, it should be addressed!

In my opinion--Antonia did a real service here and is getting slammed for it.  Myself--It is obvious from the first post, that the Vanishing Point M1 Abrams Tanks is CLEARLY superior to the high priced,lower quality product by DAZ.

Guys--don't get all torked up and defensive when someone who actually knows their stuff with the REAL article comes along and comments.  You MUST realize that people who are Military model collectors are amongst the most given to revelling in the ultra-fine details of Military models!

Whether something is a freebie, or something paid for does NOT enter into whether one is more accurate or not!  WHich ever is more accurate is simply more accurate because unlike fantasy or scifi models--you have replicated REALITY.  THAT is the standard of measure.

I really REALLY appreciate the hard work and dedication to the craft that ALL of the Vanishing Point crew do!  You guys make some of the MOST useful and well done models in the Poser universe.

Just remember that when dealing with duplications of reality, there are hundreds of thousands of people out there that know better than any number of modellers, and some of them actually use poser.  I know two Poser users in Iraq, and one of them IS a Tanker and loves his M1A2!

Just take it with a grain of salt. ^__^ V,,  You guys at VP kick ass, so don't worry so much!

OK, there's several different points here. But the big one is that I may have misidentified the M1 subtype represented by the Vanishing Point model. This page shows where I went wrong. If you scroll down through the page you will find 4-view plans of the three main variants, the M1, the M1A1, and the M1A2. It looks as though I assumed the VP model was an M1A1 when it appears to be an M1. The difference is a shorter 105mm gun, which has the fume extractor closer to the breech. The M1A1 and M1A2 have a smoothbore 120mm gun. Yeah, some of us care about the details. If you're modelling current US forces, the DAZ model is the one to go for. Of course, it's not hard to composite the two models, making the DAZ hull and VP turret/gun invisible.

If there are differences between models and differences between the real thing, has anyone considered trademark or copyright laws as being the reason?

If there are differences between models and differences between the real thing, has anyone considered trademark or copyright laws as being the reason? 

Nope. It's held that making a model be a plastic one or 3d - of current miliatry hardware is 'OK' because taxpayers have paid for it. Thats the approach plastic model companys have used sucessfully to argue over c/right and licencing issues. *Source: Finescale Modeller. 
*Good points there Joe - though 1 thing collectors forget is in the real world army stuff gets modifed all the time so very often theres no single defination of whats or wrong.

While painting a bailey bridge 2 crews started at each end to see who could finish first. 
Finished and having a brewup we noticed there where two very distinsticve shades of olive green paint! 

**JOELGLAINE, sorry if my post looked like I was slamming AntoniaTiger, that was not my intention. My intention was just to show where the model comes from, and why I do things in a particular way, like making my dials go from 0-1, instead of using degrees.

As far as detail goes, I am ex-military myself, and according to my girlfriend I "live in a military museum". I have hundreds of books, reference models (the plastic kind), etc, so I do try to make things as realistic as possible (when my skills allow, lol). 

Sometimes, unfortunately, we have to sacrifice realism for ease of use, or for practical reasons. After all, 3D is the illusion of reality, not an exact virtual copy of reality. But we will keep striving till we get it right. And as the saying goes, if at first you don't succeed, cheat. :-)**

"**if at first you don't succeed, cheat"--**Well, there is that,too. :lol:

It IS a whatever works, works  world out there. ^__^ V,,

There are certain names in the world of 3D modeling that carry a cachet of dependable quality. JHoagland is among that select group. If it bears the Hoagland signature, you can be sure it's excellent. I have never seen an exception.

Don't know about the accuracy (don't have one of the models, can't remember which). I do have a son in Iraq that was a Tanker (he drives Strykers [sp?] now), and I did get in the 'kiddy line' to see the insides of one, so I've been in one..;)

The point is probably a mix between those who are interested in detail, and those who are just using them as props. I knew about the cannon change between models. Unless you're doing a series of pictures about the tank itself (someone did one on tankers as mice, which cracked my son up...;), you're focusing on something else. I've done hundreds of models (and, in confirmation of Sturgeons' law, 90% of them are crap..;), as long as you render the recognizable details fairly accurately, most folks will be happy with it.

I'm just glad people make good models for us to use.

Quote - There are certain names in the world of 3D modeling that carry a cachet of dependable quality. JHoagland is among that select group. If it bears the Hoagland signature, you can be sure it's excellent. I have never seen an exception.

Thanks for the compliment.
 
The M-1 Abrams was made by Gunpoint-3D and converted to Poser format by Helgard, so I can't take any of the credit for making it.
But, I do give it my seal of approval and I think it's an excellent model. :)
Then again, both Gunpoint-3D and Helgard always make excellent models. After all, it was Helgard who added accurately-moving treads to the tank models.

I have a great deal of interest in military armor. I also spent nine years on M1-series tanks the first time I was in the Army. I have the DAZ M1A2, and it's pretty darn accurate. BTW, if you look under its props, you'll find the M48 Turret-Type Cal .50 Machine Gun to add to it. I have not seen the one converted by Helgard, and would greatly appreciate a link to any pics if availabe.

FYI, the page referenced above has some innacuracies and is lacking on some points (such as the M1A1D was never fielded, but it was improved upon and fielded as the M1A1E Heavy Common in 1992. The appliqué system was field-tested by the 2nd Armored Division at Fort Hood, Texas (1-66 AR and 3-66 AR, iirc) in the early 90's, and even went to the National Training Center in Fort Irwin, CA; but it was never operationally fielded on an M1A1 system in a line unit).

motoko, the base model is available at http://gunpoint-3d.com/ in various formats.

..or free if you buy this months issue of 3dworld magazine - why pay :)

Edited to add - if you can't get the mag give any of the VP team a shout - we're alway happy to help.  

The Gunpoint 3D version is a free download. It just isn't Poser-ready. But if you want to know what the mesh is like for detail, there it is. You don't have to seek out the magazine or anything. Since it's the original M1 version, with the 105mm gun, a European theatre tecture would be appropriate. Either the standard NATO-style, or that earlier US Army system. I've turned up pictures of M1 tanks in both schemes. (The guy who did the DAZ M1A2 has produced a few other military vehicles. I'm not impressed by his UV mapping or the faked camouflage he uses.)

Quote - ..or free if you buy this months issue of 3dworld magazine - why pay :)

Edited to add - if you can't get the mag give any of the VP team a shout - we're alway happy to help.  

have a Shout... there's chocolate or cherry

Thanks for the link! The M1 at gunpoint-3D is technically an M1A1. The bore evacuator on the guntube is the type that is on the 120mm smoothbore. The M1 version is smaller and more can-like. The forward guntube cooling tube that is forward of the bore evacuator should be one smooth piece with no 'stepping', as well. The turret stowage box (on the side of the turret) should be half the size it is (for an M1). The M1A1~A2 has a longer stowage box (like the gunpoint one), but the lid is the entire length of the box.

The gunpoint version has a much better MRS (Muzzle Reference Sensor) at the end of the guntube. The front of the turret (the glacius) is MUCH more accurate on the gunpoint version (I just noticed that). Heh...now that I'm picking it apart...the gunner's sight (what we call the doghouse) on the DAZ version is much too short in height. And...the gunpoint one even has the turret lifting point bolts in front of the mounting area for the CITV (Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer, which also indicates that it is an M1A1 series vehicle; the CITV is only on the M1A2, but it was conceived for the M1A1 but never fielded, hence the mounting area on the ~A1's) which is just forward of the loader's hatch.

As far as paint schemes, any of the M1-series tanks can be found with any of the 'authorized' CARC paint schemes. Desert Tan, OD Green, Green Camo, and Desert Camo (NTC primarily) being the primary ones.

Hmm...didn't mean to pick either apart so badly. I could add more, but I'll leave it at that. This is coming from a 'purist' who has operational experience on all of the M1-series tanks.

If you want accuracy, the gunpoint version is much better, but it is an M1A1 series, not an M1.

Yes, but the positioning of the bore evacuator, anf the shorter barrel length, look more like the M1. Still, with all the other evidence it starts to look as though the DAX model has too ling a gun. Has anyone seen the de espona model?

You're right about the barrel length/size, but it is an M1A1~A2 bore evacuator on it.

You're also right about the DAZ one. Just opened it up to look (you've really got me interested here). I haven't looked at it in a long time, but now I remember why I never used it. I'm going to have to retract my statement from above about it being 'pretty darn accurate'. The guntube is way too long and the bore evacuator is...incorrect...I'll leave it at that. The whole top of the turret has size/scale issues, as well.

The hull IS pretty good, though. I like how both modelers got the track types correct, too. The M1 and M1A1 both had the T-156 style track, which the gunpoint one has. The M1A1 and M1A2 both had the T-158 style track, which the DAZ one has. (The M1A1 had both and we transitioned from T-156 to T-158 in about '92 or so.)

Geez, you guys make me afraid to model tanks. :-)

I was working on a Willy's jeep, but I think I should rather make some underwear for Vicky, at least no-one is going to bother how accurate it is, lol.

Anyway, for those people who can't get the model off the 3D World magazine, we will have permission to release it as a freebie on Vanishing Point in 3 months time. The Poser version has been remapped from the Gunpoint one, and the texturing is more accurate, and allows easier changing of the textures to the other paint schemes. I also optimised the Gunpoint mesh slightly and lowered the polygon count, so it renders slightly faster.

Helgard

If anybody wants to get really geeky about tanks, a long time ago my kid brother had me paying for MAFVA membership as a birthday present. Lingerie for Vicky? And there I was all ready to mention long-rod penetrators. Or, as Doctor Who fans started saying after last Christmas, "Eat depleted uranium death, you repulsive alien weirdo!" So, if you model a Challenger tank, are you going to catalogue it as military or Doctor Who?

I'd vote "Doctor Who" because then everyone might be more forgiving about minor details being a bit off! :lol:  At a certain point it becomes prohibitive to make freebies, so a certain amount of forgiveness should be built in!

A direct inverse proportion of expectation per price should be applied! ANYTHING you get for free should be appreciated most because you didn't pay for it!  If I pay out the ying-yang for something--I expect it to be perfect!  Any mistakes in a freebie should be forgiven quickly and more completely.  ^__^ V,,

I was pretty happy when my copy of 3D World arrived and it had the VP tank in it.  Even though I have the Daz one also, you can never have too many different models, and I love VP products and have the credit card receipts to prove it.  To be honest it never occurred to me to care if it was very accurate or not.  I just wished it came with a half-naked tank gunner outfit for Vicky.  Very disappointing. :-)

No problem....

Tank Vixen and Tank Vixens Be careful what you ask for.

"I just wished it came with a half-naked tank gunner outfit for Vicky."
EDW's BDU with Pankos V3 Vietnam and Berets/Wings sets can give this rather nicely :) 

*"if you model a Challenger tank".*I have a better idea - why don't you ? 

Straight up- you obviously know about this stuff - so show everyone how to do it properly.

Research is not the same skill.

*Research is not the same skill.
*Obviously :) 

Though if the issue here is the level of accuracy, then shouldn't you model something that is 100% accurate ?