[Taristin]

...Raptor? If you were capable of this, why on earth did you settle for the really (sorry) crappy low poly version?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Do you guys have any good ideas for a Vasudan Warship?.

Yep.

[SadisticSid]

The new model's nicer but all that lovely detail on the engines is going to be occluded by the thruster glows, surely.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Raa Tor'h
...Raptor? If you were capable of this, why on earth did you settle for the really (sorry) crappy low poly version?

Cause he started this before HTL was in the code Like me he obviously takes ages to finish anything

Originally posted by SadisticSid
The new model's nicer but all that lovely detail on the engines is going to be occluded by the thruster glows, surely.

Except when they are turned off If he's planning any missions around the ship being disabled it makes sense to make the engines look good

[Raptor]

Ah good, that got a responce!:D

In order of post;

Tin Can:  Yes it's true people tend to do Terran ships, mainly since Vasudan ships are based around lots of organic curves, which are a (BEEP) to do right.  But don't worry, at some point I have serval Vasudan Projects planed:
-New cruiser, simular role to Aeolus (I've posted a early version here before...)
-Carrier vessel, about Iceni size, poorly armed
-Possible remodelling of the Satis and Isis craft (complete redesign:nervous: )

Karajorma: Thanks, I think your my biggest fan!:D

The Hera will be a sort of 'heavy' destroyer, on the large side at 2.5km long (Orion/Hecate ~2km).  It will be more powerful than any other destroyer, but a true super destroyer would have a small advantage in hull strength (because of their extra size).  Those it can out run though.

What it can't outfight, it will out run.


Magatsu1 + Janos: The spars will stay the same length.  I could say its all about balanced thrust and turning moments (I am studing engineering:D ), but my must admit I do tend to prefer balanced, symetric craft, particularly when it comes to firepower.  If you look closely, you might notice that the weapons coverage is the same dorsal/ventral, and port/starboard...

Raa Tor'h: As Karajorma stated, I started this ages before HTL was in the code.  Hell, I started the intail models (in a CAD system) before the SCPers even thought of including HTL.  When I finished the mesh last time, HTL was still in it's early days, and buggy.  I always intended to do a overhaul however....

Also, I'd best point out that I work on something when I'm in the mood.  I didn't touch anything to do with this ship for a couple of months.  doing other stuff.  Once I focus on something however...

SadisticSid: There will a quite a few missions were the ship will be
a) disabled
b) still under construction and in the ship yards
c) a bug has developed and needs to be fixed.  It's still an experimental vessel, brand new, and no ship performs perfectly straight out of the docks.  Needless to say, those faults will happen at the worst possible time!;)

[magatsu1]

Originally posted by Raptor
Also, I'd best point out that I work on something when I'm in the mood.  I didn't touch anything to do with this ship for a couple of months.  doing other stuff.  Once I focus on something however...

Hehheh, me too:p

[Raptor]

need opinons...


As you can see, I've recessed the faces of the engine spars.  But should I model in the bracing 'rings' (like on the underside/topside of the spars), or should I just use the textures to show them?

I ask cause adding those bars to the mesh is going to be very difficult, multiple angles need to be juggled, postions and sizes need to constant, etc...

[Taristin]

Textures...

Actually, of the greebling you're doing could be done convincingly with textures, as it'll be hard to map most of it.

[Raptor]

I know Raa, and most of the detail will come from the textures.  By recessing parts of those areas, I add depth

New Sscreenies. Test fit with some of the new turrets.



Also added a little bit more work around the bow.  More deck lights on the back face of it, while that square ridge in front of the forward cannons will surrond the ships name.

BTW, would anyone object if I started posting in this colour text?

[Taristin]

Not if you don't mind me posting in this color.

[karajorma]

Now that's a big gun!

[Raptor]

Not at all Raa.

yep it is Kara, though really it's just a BBlue beam, simular to the BGreen Beam , but more advanced. Has better range, bit more damage, faster rate of fire, things like that.  Most of the time you only see the forward element.

Though both it and the cannon alongside it can only hit capships, so you in your fighter are safe (from THOSE guns anyway...)

[Raptor]

Had an intresting idea the other day...

It concerns the mounting points for the weapons along the the main flank.  Up till now they would have been part of the main hull subobject.  Given that they would be difficult to do a proper texture job on using any of the main textures on the hull, I was thinking about texturing them seperately.

Now, I was also planing on adding in 'Destroyed' versions of each Turret the main hull, to avoid excessive submodel use.

But my thought was this:  Why not use collective submodels for each type of turret? As I currently have 28 submodels spare, including all turrets, barrels and LODs, but no debris (working to a limit of 110), I can afford to shell a few out for this sort of thing.

Screenies speak better than words.

This is what you see normally (need to texture base part).


When turret destroyed, you see the destroyed version:nod:

I might expand the area covered by the turret, but that would require remaping and texturing...

Tell me what you think.

[karajorma]

Now that's an interesting idea

I don't know if it would work so well with rotating objects but it may work here.

[Raptor]

Originally posted by karajorma
Now that's an interesting idea

I don't know if it would work so well with rotating objects but it may work here.

Destroyed versions of rotating stuff is stationary right? If the destroyed model completely covers the destroyed object, no matter what angle it is at, then it should work.

Done the flak gun version as well.  The domes for the muzzles are modelled in (the guns are mounted in ball and socket joints).

Here is the sort of thing I was implying when I mentioned expanding the 'turret' submodel.  The pair to the right would replace the lefthand pair, and cover the central ones.  These two could then have modelled damage (gapping holes, broken pipes, etc).

Good, Bad?

[karajorma]

If I were you I'd stick one of these on a cube and do some in game testing cause I've never seen anyone do damage models this way before.

 It may just be that it wasn't worth the polys before HT&L though

The turrets themselves are pretty nice

[.::Tin Can::.]

Yes they are.

I would have to say this is a big step from the standard "destroyed" turret, where it would just make it a black lump and disfigure it. This is an awesome idea of actually adding some type of variaty to your "destroyed" objects. Paired with the decal damages though, this might prove to be out of date if Bobbau ever gets the bugs fixed.

[karajorma]

I don't think decals won't replace this sort of thing. Decals are temporary and only a certain number can exist on a ship. This is more permanent.

[Raptor]

Well, I acted on your advice Kara, and created a test .pof

PCS refused to convert:hopping:, but cob2pof did.

After much headaches (my copy of FS2 seems to like crashing recently.. Really been causing me trouble while I'm trying to play the Inferno release...)  I managed to get these.


Intial status.  I haven't a clue what going on within the yellow circle:confused:


Another view.  Again something werid is happening.


Turret destroyed.

I'd say this was a successful test.  But I think I'll partly remake the 'base' sections to try and avoid the problems metioned before (and hopefully to get PCS to convert the model!:mad2: )

[.::Tin Can::.]

Looking very good. Nice work indeed.