lorddarthvik
Spaceman
Thanx Kilrah, I will.. 
Victory (modificaton)
- Thread starter lorddarthvik
- Start date
BrynS
Mr Kat says...
Thanks for the info lorddarthvik!
Personally, I think it makes sense for the turrets to be on engine "fins" as you originally rendered them, but it seems that if you want to be 100% accurate, they need to be placed slightly differently as shown in the screenshots.
If you have the time once you're finished, a wallpaper and/or another flyby animation would be great.
Keep up the good work!
Cheers,
BrynS
Personally, I think it makes sense for the turrets to be on engine "fins" as you originally rendered them, but it seems that if you want to be 100% accurate, they need to be placed slightly differently as shown in the screenshots.
If you have the time once you're finished, a wallpaper and/or another flyby animation would be great.
Keep up the good work!
Cheers,
BrynS
BrynS
Mr Kat says...
However, saying the above on continuity, it appears that mods like Saga have not stuck to the reference images (from WC3) on turret placement either. Perhaps you should ask Loaf for his views -- I'll see if I can get a few screenshots later tonight from in-game WC3 to confirm the turret placement "underneath" the rear structure.
Cheers,
BrynS
Cheers,
BrynS
lorddarthvik
Spaceman
thanx again ByrnS! I got no reply from the team, so i'll leave it for now and concentrate on other parts remodelling and textureing.
And of cours, I'll make a wallpaper when finished.
And of cours, I'll make a wallpaper when finished.
Bob McDob
Better Health Through Less Flavor
All right, serious critique time from a modeler's perspective.
First of all, Steele's model isn't really a very good starting point ... it was designed years ago for X-Wing Alliance, and the model has some issues in a number of areas, notably the rear and, as has been noted, the position of the conning tower. Playing around with existing models can be fun and instructive, but in the end you'll usually find that if you have to make major changes, that remaking the design from scratch is a better bargain.
The textures, frankly, need work. The centerline 'exposed superstructure' bit is all right, but the hull looks pretty messy, an almost fabric-like texture. In my opinion, you'd do well to go for a cleaner look in the final version.
Windows, I think, should be smaller and sparser, and look better - more of a qualitive than quantitive approach. As of now they look fairly similar to the WCIII model - however, and I may be in the minority here, but I believe that, as it's been eleven years since Heart of the Tiger, there should be a graphical improvement in that department as well. The same goes for the model - it could benefit a great deal from more aggresive use of polys and a smoother overall look. I'm not saying you should turn the Victory or Relentless or whatever into a space-rocket - but even boxy designs like a carrier can benefit from such, and the difference is quite noticable.
First of all, Steele's model isn't really a very good starting point ... it was designed years ago for X-Wing Alliance, and the model has some issues in a number of areas, notably the rear and, as has been noted, the position of the conning tower. Playing around with existing models can be fun and instructive, but in the end you'll usually find that if you have to make major changes, that remaking the design from scratch is a better bargain.
The textures, frankly, need work. The centerline 'exposed superstructure' bit is all right, but the hull looks pretty messy, an almost fabric-like texture. In my opinion, you'd do well to go for a cleaner look in the final version.
Windows, I think, should be smaller and sparser, and look better - more of a qualitive than quantitive approach. As of now they look fairly similar to the WCIII model - however, and I may be in the minority here, but I believe that, as it's been eleven years since Heart of the Tiger, there should be a graphical improvement in that department as well. The same goes for the model - it could benefit a great deal from more aggresive use of polys and a smoother overall look. I'm not saying you should turn the Victory or Relentless or whatever into a space-rocket - but even boxy designs like a carrier can benefit from such, and the difference is quite noticable.
lorddarthvik
Spaceman
Thanx Bob, I try to improve on those. The texture is baad, I know. It's about the 4th texture I ever made by hand 
I thought about the windows, and will try your idea. I thought about making holes on the hull and making rooms behind em and putting the lights there, maybe it would turn out nice. THe only reason why I don't want to add more polys/smoother look is, that this is gonna be animated, and I don't have a renderfarm at home... ya knwo what I mean. Time is money is time.... And I don't have excess of either.
I thought about the windows, and will try your idea. I thought about making holes on the hull and making rooms behind em and putting the lights there, maybe it would turn out nice. THe only reason why I don't want to add more polys/smoother look is, that this is gonna be animated, and I don't have a renderfarm at home... ya knwo what I mean. Time is money is time.... And I don't have excess of either.
gevatter Lars
Vice Admiral
@BrynS
About the Pics you where refering to...their are outdated. We have a newer version intern.
About the turrets...well their is still the problem that the FS engine dosn't allow every positioning of multipart turrets that would be needed for the ship.
So its not so that we ignore what is given but have to make a compromise with what the engine allows us to do.
If we could do it differently we surely would have done it allready.
@lorddarthvik
The idea of having a real room behind the windows is interesting but I agree it would be time consuming when done for an animation. Maybe you could do something else like creating one model (room) with windows and render the windows-room to make a texture out of it. That texture could then be applied to the ship without the rooms.
It wouldn't look perfect but could give you an illusion of having rooms.
Problem is the camera view. When you are doing a shot directly from the side and you have rendered the room as a perspective view from lets say the top-right corner it would surely look strange.
So you should first ask yourself what camera movements you would like to have and from what angle you are seeing the windows.
About the Pics you where refering to...their are outdated. We have a newer version intern.
About the turrets...well their is still the problem that the FS engine dosn't allow every positioning of multipart turrets that would be needed for the ship.
So its not so that we ignore what is given but have to make a compromise with what the engine allows us to do.
If we could do it differently we surely would have done it allready.
@lorddarthvik
The idea of having a real room behind the windows is interesting but I agree it would be time consuming when done for an animation. Maybe you could do something else like creating one model (room) with windows and render the windows-room to make a texture out of it. That texture could then be applied to the ship without the rooms.
It wouldn't look perfect but could give you an illusion of having rooms.
Problem is the camera view. When you are doing a shot directly from the side and you have rendered the room as a perspective view from lets say the top-right corner it would surely look strange.
So you should first ask yourself what camera movements you would like to have and from what angle you are seeing the windows.
lorddarthvik
Spaceman
Thanx Lars, your right about that! I'm not sure i'f I'll have the time to do that though. I'M currently writing form the programming lesson from school, and dureing the next weeks we will have lots of tests. I'm learning C.
lorddarthvik
Spaceman
Of cours! If thats needed
lorddarthvik
Spaceman
so, heres the jump modell I could came up with in such short time. The most important bit is the textureing of the cone. Well, I'm bad at 2d, so it turned out bad. I made a "bit" of post work on this one. Will work on it later, now I gotta finish some other stuff first.
It's amazing how much depends on How you look at pictures. Downloading this one and displaying it in full screen (1024*768) will make it look much better. I think. For me it works. I'll try to do some wallpaer quality later! Thanx for the interest all!
It's amazing how much depends on How you look at pictures. Downloading this one and displaying it in full screen (1024*768) will make it look much better. I think. For me it works.
I'll try to do some wallpaer quality later! Thanx for the interest all!
Bob McDob
Better Health Through Less Flavor
lorddarthvik said:Thanx Bob, I try to improve on those. The texture is baad, I know. It's about the 4th texture I ever made by hand
Well, I know how that is ... I've been trying to get a spaceship texture I can live with for forever
To build on what Lars said, you want to "cheat" as much as possible... in the same way that most stage sets have an open plan, you want to use your polys only where they'll be seen, so that you can throw the savings into detail. I don't think I've ever seen a model where a large number of rooms are modeled to be viewed externally - not even professional productions do this (I'm sure there are a number of those here to correct me if I'm wrong, you know who you are
). If you do want to have a large number of rooms, you have to start thinking of it as a set, only to be used from certain angles, and not a perfect, 360-degree model.lorddarthvik
Spaceman
the stars are there, but the motion blur kills em while the camera is moveing 
whatch out for óem at the end of the vid. and it 1024*! use fullsreen, or there won't be any stars either
whatch out for óem at the end of the vid. and it 1024*! use fullsreen, or there won't be any stars either