Author Topic: Arcadia extensions (Read 17198 times)

Mobius · **Reply #40 on:** May 25, 2008, 02:09:27 pm

Quote from: blowfish on May 25, 2008, 02:02:06 pm

If you say so

Seriously, they can give a LOT of ideas.

Snail · **Reply #41 on:** May 25, 2008, 02:40:25 pm

Quote from: Droid803 on May 25, 2008, 02:04:32 pm

Its it the GTExD or GTExE?

GTExD

Quote from: blowfish on May 25, 2008, 01:20:32 pm

They're sort of meh to me, but that's just my opinion ...

Why?

Droid803 · **Reply #42 on:** May 25, 2008, 03:31:53 pm

Quote from: Snail on May 25, 2008, 02:40:25 pm

Quote from: Droid803 on May 25, 2008, 02:04:32 pm
Its it the GTExD or GTExE?
GTExD

So...there are two different looking GTExD'? ince the ones at the top have a panel around the end thruster, while the other ones don't.

Snail · **Reply #43 on:** May 25, 2008, 03:34:32 pm

Sorry, I meant GTExE.

blowfish · **Reply #44 on:** May 25, 2008, 03:35:35 pm

Quote from: Snail on May 25, 2008, 02:40:25 pm

Quote from: blowfish on May 25, 2008, 01:20:32 pm
They're sort of meh to me, but that's just my opinion ...
Why?

Low-polyness mostly. Also the fact that they are weird shapes, but as I said, just my opinion.

Snail · **Reply #45 on:** May 25, 2008, 03:37:47 pm

Quote from: blowfish on May 25, 2008, 03:35:35 pm

Low-polyness mostly.

So everything which is low-poly is ugly?

Mobius · **Reply #46 on:** May 25, 2008, 03:42:14 pm

The number of polys and their shape? They're not ships, they're extensions...I expect them to be useful, not to look good.

That kind of approach to models is, forgive me, a bit n00bish...

Snail · **Reply #47 on:** May 25, 2008, 03:42:59 pm

Number of polies is relevant, but shape isn't.

blowfish · **Reply #48 on:** May 25, 2008, 03:43:44 pm

Quote from: Snail on May 25, 2008, 03:37:47 pm

Quote from: blowfish on May 25, 2008, 03:35:35 pm
Low-polyness mostly.
So everything which is low-poly is ugly?

No, but in order for something low-poly to be not ugly, it has to be created very carefully and precisely and also textured carefully.

did a very good job of these things IMO.

EDIT: and for the record, I am really talking about detail, rather than polycount (sorry for the confusion

)

Snail · **Reply #49 on:** May 25, 2008, 03:44:24 pm

Quote from: blowfish on May 25, 2008, 03:43:44 pm

No, but in order for something low-poly to be not ugly, it has to be created very carefully and precisely and also textured carefully. did a very good job of these things IMO.

So they're badly textured? And badly created?

Mobius · **Reply #50 on:** May 25, 2008, 03:46:54 pm

But these are extensions...

I tend to admire the complexity of a large installation without focusing on the extensions...

blowfish · **Reply #51 on:** May 25, 2008, 03:47:56 pm

Quote from: Snail on May 25, 2008, 03:44:24 pm

Quote from: blowfish on May 25, 2008, 03:43:44 pm
No, but in order for something low-poly to be not ugly, it has to be created very carefully and precisely and also textured carefully. did a very good job of these things IMO.
So they're badly textured? And badly created?

Well, not bad, just mediocre. It doesn't look like a large amount of time was devoted to the models (though I can sort of understand considering how much stuff goes into Inferno, though I usually prefer quality over quantity).

Snail · **Reply #52 on:** May 25, 2008, 03:48:23 pm

I'm really surprised people can think that things aren't pretty just because they're low-poly.

Mobius · **Reply #53 on:** May 25, 2008, 03:50:57 pm

Don't forget that these are EXTENSIONS, they're not separate ships. Their number of polys isn't important.

blowfish · **Reply #54 on:** May 25, 2008, 03:51:52 pm

I'm not saying they aren't pretty just because they are low-poly. I'm saying they look like average models and that time wasn't devoted to them. Low-polyness is just a side-effect of that.

Snail · **Reply #55 on:** May 25, 2008, 03:52:41 pm

Actually, it is. Just because they're extensions doesn't mean that they can't be good looking; I see where blowfish is coming from, but seriously, they're not bad IMO.

blowfish · **Reply #56 on:** May 25, 2008, 03:53:58 pm

Quote from: Snail on May 25, 2008, 03:52:41 pm

they're not bad IMO.

No, they're not. I've probably just been spoiled by mediavps etc.

Mobius · **Reply #57 on:** May 25, 2008, 03:54:52 pm

I have never stopped appreciating them.

Maybe you say that because you never had the opportunity of flying near a complex.

Woomeister · **Reply #58 on:** May 26, 2008, 04:18:36 am

Quote from: blowfish on May 25, 2008, 03:51:52 pm

I'm saying they look like average models and that time wasn't devoted to them. Low-polyness is just a side-effect of that.

You haven't developed models for the last 7 or 8 years then

Titan · **Reply #59 on:** May 26, 2008, 07:56:39 pm

So, can ANYONE give us ones besides the extension and comm ones, or are they all in INF lockdown?

News:

Author Topic: Arcadia extensions (Read 17198 times)

Re: Arcadia extensions

Re: Arcadia extensions

Re: Arcadia extensions

Re: Arcadia extensions

Re: Arcadia extensions

Re: Arcadia extensions

Re: Arcadia extensions

Re: Arcadia extensions

Re: Arcadia extensions

Re: Arcadia extensions

Re: Arcadia extensions

Re: Arcadia extensions

Re: Arcadia extensions

Re: Arcadia extensions

Re: Arcadia extensions

Re: Arcadia extensions

Re: Arcadia extensions

Re: Arcadia extensions

Re: Arcadia extensions

Re: Arcadia extensions