WC:T Dralti mk2

Dyret said:
Unlike the rest of the WCU team, Cybrion is somewhat intelligent. Just look at his shuttle model. No AMG's there.
Click to expand...

My comment wasn't referring to the level of intelligence of the WCU crew...it was merely a statement that, on one hand you have Howard Day's fantastically detailed Dralthi that is quite honestly probably the absolute best the WC community has ever put forth and the other hand you have Chevieblazer's model which although is quite good it falls far from the level of accuracy provided by Howard's model. So my statement was really sarcastic in that I would have been shocked if anyone would have actually tried to argue that Blazer's model was better than Howard's.

No offense to Chevieblazer, you've done a decent model but clearly we can see the difference between your model and howard's. Don't let it discourage you...I'd say the same thing about any of my model's and Howard's. :)
 
Wow - I'm not trying to turn this into a my vs his model debate - they've got completely different intentions - Mine's a high-res model (Hitting well over 80K polys) intended solely for cinematic work and to be as accurate as possible. His is an in game model designed to probably use no more than 3000 polys, and isn't meant to be particularly accurate. (At least that's what I gather from what Chevie has said previously).
Let's not compare them.
I am curious as to what the texture size is, and how many of them there are?
 
agreed again with Howard. These are the models of diferent fields of implementation. Model for game and model for cinematics.


Chevie made a good model, he textured it nicely. The debate was about the accuracy to the original.

Do you know that when i was working on that Rapier Mk2 I spent about a week to make it look like the original. It's not 100% accurate, but at least 99%. I had some sound critisism from BradMick, this helped me to move on, cause i wanted to kick his ass. heheehhe So finaly using his references and the whole week of work i managed to make this model pretty much accurate. Still textures requare some better work, but hey... i have enough time ahead.

What Howard tried to say that if Chevie aims for accurate modeling, his model requires alot of additions, corrections and adjustments. If not.. well than it serves its purpose ;)


Continue to work and model Chevie. In the end the quantity will lead to the quality ;)
 
texture sizes depend. the lowest is 256*256, it can theoretically move up to 2048*2048.
realistically, most ships use 512² textures. one for fighters and several for cap ships. some smaller parts also use 256² textures, such as the turrets, smaller hnagars and such
 
i should point out that the 'dralthi 2' that you have, it is in no way 'canon'. that was a fan design, which...well, not so great.

go with howards deal, it's actually good.
 
Eh, IMHO the nexus model of the Dralthi2 doesn't look much different from the actual one. A Dralthi's a Dralthi anyhow, it's hard to get something completely different looking when you're working with so little polys.
 
i know it isn't official, but you have to get some detail from somewere. i meran, the source art the use for the sprites in what '85? '90? propably had less polies than my ingame models.
i mean take these as an example:
 

Attachments

  • bengal_front.jpg
    bengal_front.jpg
    30.9 KB · Views: 139
  • wc1bengal.jpg
    wc1bengal.jpg
    7 KB · Views: 124
Also WC2 intro, and a few of the cutscenes from WC1. I have no idea where people get the idea that it's hard to make accurate models.

The hip thing nowadays seems to be making up your own model with the excuse that there aren't any references larger than 20 pixels... instead of checking out all the references larger than 20 pixels that do exist.
 
hmmm...and clearly you weren't paying to much attention to howards dralthi...that suckers nice and detailed, and it was all dreived from that 20 pixel sprite. i've done a low poly salthi that is very nicely detailed. my honest opinion of folks who don't do things accurately with the excuse of 'well, you can't really tell from the sprites' is that they're just being lazy. Using claw marks in addition to the sprites will yield VERY positive results, without having to make things up. if it's established, do it right. that's generally how i see it. now, things like the wildcat and hurricane, that's where a little creative license can come to play.
 
I guess this is as good a time as any to point out that your Bengal's a bit off. It's not visible in-game or Claw Marks, but she has six launch tubes, three in each wing.
 
Every Bengal is a bit off, on account of each of the Bengal sources having a different number of engines :p.
 
i know klawmarks, thank you. the point about claw mark is, that while it definately offers reference pics bigger than 20 picels, they're not any more detailed than the 20 pixel ones. they are simply outline drawings
 
Well, if you're going for any sort of accuracy, those outline drawings contradict your design in a number of ways.
 
The fact that it's "just outlines" (as opposed to something with colored filling?) doesn't really mean anything to me. When modelling you only have to worry about the outlines, not about the flat surfaces in between. :)

The fact that even some of the smallest details are outlined in Claw Marks makes it a pretty good reference.
 
Even if you have some kind of crazy Claw Marks aversion, the launch tubes clearly appear in the game -- what do you think the tube you launch out of is?

(Of course, there seems to be more than six of them -- the sign you run by in the 'running' sequence reads "TUBES 6-9".)
 
AFAIK, they were on the front of the wings(big boxy areas) not on the side of the ship. I might be wrong about this, though.
 
well, in the cartoons, the fighters start from the smaller wing(grey one in the pic) and the lauch tubes i put where they were on maj. strikers high poly model. that might or might not be accurate, but since they're not on the CM drawing or the sprite,i guess it doesn't matter, really
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top