Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > FO3/FNV armor and clothing image format

Some days ago GhostAvatar, Tagaziel and myself had some discussion about FO3/FNV armor and clothing images I uploaded at the time.

I had extracted the nif-files from the GECK and was using Nifskope to create the images. Nifskope has a lot of advantages, such as higher quality compared to the GECK; but when using it for armor and clothing, some work has to be done to get it right. Some flesh has to be removed and there are no head and hands.

Those are the images I uploaded until now. You can see them on the merc outfit, wasteland outfit and pre-war outfit pages.

When I had those done, I received a post from Tagaziel, asking me to remove the flesh because it looked a bit freaky. GhostAvatar reacted on this post and uploaded the armor and clothing image format Tagaziel requested and after that another model, more of a mannequin model.

At the end of the discussion there were some preferences but I'm still not sure what's best.

Now before we start replacing all the FO3 and FNV armor and clothing images using a certain format, I'd like your opinion on the various models you see below.

To the left a plain model image, to the right the same image, but in the infobox. I have added the plain model because they are used in overview pages.

The model imagesEdit

The first one is the one currently used on the 3 pages I pointed out to earlier.

The second one is without the hands. It gives the image a better ratio (clothing larger displayed).

The third one is with head and hands and makes the clothing compared to the former image a little smaller again.

The fourth one (no skin texture) is a sort of mannequin model (advantage no race issue). Same ratio as third one.

Five: see my addition to Comments

Six and seven are 2 examples of no skin mesh or texture, so with all the flesh removed.

These are 6 models I could come up with for now. There are some more variations but I think this will give you a good idea of the possibilities.

Please join in and and give your comment/preference (below the images).

JspoelJspoel Vault Boy 21:55, April 11, 2011 (UTC)



What format do you like best?

The poll was created at 14:14 on April 15, 2011, and so far 32 people voted.


I'll sound like a broken record, but the mannequin one is best. When clicked for full screen it meshes in nicely with the white background of the zoom and in general gives a nice overview of how the armour looks. Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 21:41, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

I like the mannequin too. Ausir(talk) 21:59, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine as long as the clothes are on something rather than free floating. Although on the pages mentioned I'd prefer having at least a bit more space in between the male and female models. Great Mara 22:09, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
As previous, I like the mannequin because it gives points of reference for how the armor/clothing hangs when being worn, but also is a blank slate so readers are able to imagine there own player character in said armor/clothing. This is what I hate atm with most the current images, them being on various different models and poses etc (hell, I have even seen some carrying weapons), essentially the up-loaders have injected there own personalty into the images. On the side note, I still don't like having both male and female models in the infobox, this is purely for constancy of the image layout used across all armor/clothing pages, since some outfits are unisex and therefore only one model would be used. Personally I would prefer a single front facing model and then all variants/positions posted in a gallery (ie: Front and back of both male/female all as separate images) User avatar tagUser Avatar talk 22:26, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
Well, I, on the other hand, like having both male and female models in the infobox. I think this is how it should be for all armor/clothing, aside from the unisex ones (and I think only power armors are truly unisex, there are always some, even if minor, differences for all others). Ausir(talk) 00:20, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Because I see where this is going, I've added a variation of the mannequin model, with the hands cut off (fifth image set). It has the advantage of a better ratio compared to the one with hands (14:10 is possible again, with hands 3:2) and there's more space between male and female. JspoelJspoel Vault Boy 22:44, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

The problem with removing hands in the removal of the gloves that accompany the outfit. User avatar tagUser Avatar talk 23:40, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't see much point in removing hands. Ausir(talk) 00:22, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I see a clear difference. With the first mannequin model the arms cross each other. With the new model they don't and that's an improvement. There's of course the possiblity to put more space between male and female but then the image becomes way too wide. And like said before, the second image has a slightly better ratio. Avatar has a point with the gloves accompanying the outfit. We could add the hands if they're gloved, otherwise just leave them be. JspoelJspoel Vault Boy 00:46, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

  • And I like the combined male/female infobox image more (like with the 3 outfit pages mentioned above). It happens often enough that the outfits are quite different to each other. Combining them will give the viewer more direct info on the different appearances of the clothing, instead of having to scroll down for the rest.

I reckon "No skin texture" looks the best, the rest just give me a weird feeling. --Gully12397 04:02, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

For me it's either "deafult skin texture" or "no skin texture". The last two look creepy and the first couple look weird without the head. Mr Zurkon 05:20, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

No skin texture looks perfect to me.--BSMaker 06:54, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

I think the default skin or no skin variants are the best. No skin one is maybe slightly better but with strong IMHO. :) veryblackravenTalk 07:13, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

I kind of like the screenshot with actual, living characters that may take a pose or even wield a weapon ... it looks like an action figure, or a little diorama. The NCR Salvaged Power Armor screenshot is a good example, it looks more interesting than a plain character looking like a mannequin. Xporc

Thinking about Avatar's remark some more, I have added a no skin texture male version. Here the advantage is a significantly larger displayed image and the hands are no problem. JspoelJspoel Vault Boy 15:37, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

I've spent a lot of time in NifSkope and I have got used to seeing headless outfits with ordinary skin texture so I can't say those bother me. But as an overall opinion I like the mannequin versions the best, they represent their task as mannequins showing of the outfit. There shouldn't be any left out body parts, because it ruins the overall look of the outfit you would've wanted. --Kalalokki 16:25, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Like others stated previously, I'd say the mannequin-esque model would be the best way to go in my opinion. I feel it helps people to focus their attention on the apparel as well as aid someone to picture their character wearing that armor/clothes. As for the models gender, I'm not entirely sure. Keeping the model at one sex may be considered gender discrimination along with limiting the apparel's appearance to that one gender since not all armor/clothes are unisex (Vera's Outfit for example). On the other hand having two models (one male and female) might stretch the image too far. If I had to choose one I guess I'd go with two models with different sex. M Man 19:25, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

I have added a poll as to get a good overview on the preferences (below the images). Please cast your vote! JspoelJspoel Vault Boy 14:18, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

I think that these are great images(i prefer the skin texture as it looks more "real") but i do not think they should be used as an "avatar" in the information boxes.(Nemerian 14:41, April 15, 2011 (UTC))

Personally, I have to say that the no skin texture (with hands) looks the most "normal" to me. I guess it's just that I grew up at The Vault with images like this, so I've grown accustomed to something along those lines. The mannequin allows the viewer to see what the clothing will look like on their own player and it still has it's gloves (which can't be achieved with the "no hands "option. However reluctant I am for the switch, the mannequins seems the way to go. Best regards, Kastera (talk) 15:10, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

I like the no skin texture. I like the way it looks on a mannequin. The other textures, without a body, look weird, haha. TrailerParkApe TPA 18:30, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

Both the default skin texture and the mannequin are superior to the current system, but I'd say the mannequin is the better of the two. Hal10k (Leonard Bernstein!) 18:50, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the no skin textures full body mannequins since it's more appealing and goes well with back ground. It also shows the whole armor instead of cutting off the hands or legs like a few of the other choices. Shadowrunner(stuff) 19:30, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

Quick question: what about pieces of clothing that can't be used by the player under ordinary circumstances and are only worn by one specific person? For example, Jason Bright's outfit. I think it would be better to keep a picture of the character wearing the item on these pages instead of switching over to the mannequin or default skin. Hal10k (Leonard Bernstein!) 15:32, April 16, 2011 (UTC)

I would say no, because the page is about the item and not the character. User avatar tagUser Avatar talk 17:33, April 16, 2011 (UTC)
In this case, I'd go with Jason Bright's image, since it would likely look broken on any other character. Ausir(talk) @fandom 13:51, April 18, 2011 (UTC)

Final verdictEdit

Looks like the majority is very much in favor of the mannequin (no skin texture) variant, with both male and female version in the infobox. Ausir(talk) @fandom 13:51, April 18, 2011 (UTC)