Hard Light Productions Forums
Community Projects => The FreeSpace Upgrade Project => Topic started by: Hades on October 02, 2011, 01:11:28 pm
-
(http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm56/HLPHades/Fenris1.png?t=1317579560)
(http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm56/HLPHades/Fenris-3.png?t=1317579560)
Still needs more work, but the middle section is getting there.
-
Just going to establish right off the bat that cury Fenriathans are blasphemy, and Blasphemy day was Friday.
-
1x1 pixel gifs For The Lose.
-
Just going to establish right off the bat that cury Fenriathans are blasphemy, and Blasphemy day was Friday.
Being close minded is a lot worse bro. Just saying.
-
I'm just going to get this in now... This thread has been warned. Keep it civil, people.
-
Chamfered boxxys are ok as long as they're still boxxy.
Actually that thing looks a lot like a TC-Meson Bomb.
-
Stop it with the image macros, morons.
-
It depends how curvy it ends up to be. The Arcadia is also FS1 era, and we were pretty happy about that one being roundish.
As long as the thing doesn't look Vasudan by the end of it, I don't think I would have a problem. (However, I still like the old, boxy look that comes with the Fenris/Leviathan, but that's just me, and I like my nostalgia glasses a lot.)
-
Not sure what all the hubbub is about, it really doesn't look all that curvy. Once the fore and aft sections are applied they will break up that egg shape. There isn't enough model yet to get your panties in a twist. Let the man work.
-
yes please, we need a new htlization of those two frikking models.
-
The Medusa was relatively "cury" and it ended up looking extremely Terran, the Valkyrie has always been curvey and looks Terran. As long as he doesn't model the Feviathan to look like a Vasudan or Shivan ship (and Hades has been demonstrating some exceptional ability lately) I think we shall all survive.
-
It was cury? I thought it was a bit too spicy...
-
My first reaction was to wonder whether or not we needed another iteration of the Fenris/Leviathan as opposed to some other model, since I think the current models still look pretty damn good all things considered. But then I realized that, with this recent super-influx of new models, there really aren't many completely-untouched ships left, so why not revisit one of the older models? If nothing else, I'd like to see Hades' own take on it. :)
-
I dont think you did yourself any favours with the angles of the shots, they make the model look more rounded that they are on first impression.
As for the chamfered edges i agree with droid that they in themselves are not a problem, the issue i can think of is that to achieve a consistent look you will have to use it for most of the hard edges and personally speaking some of the hard edges are part of the defining features of the hull so i would recommend being careful in how you apply them
-
Yeah Hades, terrible angles!
...okay fine, I made the shots.
-
It looks promising, although I'd rather see Deimos finished. Leviathan/Fenris (it'd be weird to remake only one of them) currently look good compared to the old Deimos.
-
It looks promising, although I'd rather see Deimos finished. Leviathan/Fenris (it'd be weird to remake only one of them) currently look good compared to the old Deimos.
Actually, my plan was for the Leviathan to look similar, but yet vastly different. It'd be the same basic chassis, but hugely upgraded and unarmored, which was what the Leviathan was to the Fenris.
-
The idea with the layered-armor-look is good and I like the hexagonal(ish) cutouts a lot. But IMO you should keep the at least the original side profile with the sharp angles on the tower, since it's really one of the most recognizable visual features of the original. As it is now, it looks way to much like an armored football.
-
It depends how curvy it ends up to be. The Arcadia is also FS1 era, and we were pretty happy about that one being roundish.
Imho fenris/levi should be as simple as humanly possible, because they were mass produced and quite rushed into service. Built in the time of war, same as Orions, remember? Boxes! Unlike the Hecate or Mentu which had time to be designed (and have failed to do their job accordingly, but that's something different :P).
-
Imho fenris/levi should be as simple as humanly possible, because they were mass produced and quite rushed into service. Built in the time of war, same as Orions, remember? Boxes! Unlike the Hecate or Mentu which had time to be designed (and have failed to do their job accordingly, but that's something different :P).
citation needed
also the leviathan was a refit/redesign of the Fenris years after the Fenris was put into service.
and
(http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm56/HLPHades/levia3.png)
detailing is largely incomplete and there's still a lot to do, front is mostly incomplete
-
I like it, as long as the texture helps to maintain the boxy motifs in FS1 Terran designs (which I have no doubt it will, knowing today's FSU).
-
I am not entirely sold on this. I do support the concept of the Leviathan displaying visual evidence of additional armor over the Fenris, in fact if you're game, you could even make the armor into separate sub-objects, allowing for mods to make them destroyable and use subsystem flags to actually protect the main hull beneath. What I am not for however, is the previously-mentioned departure from the blocky, sharp-edged nature of the design. I would rather it simply appear to be a Fenris underneath with the armor over the hull. Now, if the armor sub-objects had the beveling rather than the inner core-hull, I could accept that. I do like your changes to the engines, but I would suggest that you don't recess the inner back wall as much. I'd also like to see some improvements in the turrets. Perhaps, again if you're up for it, since we have support for non-standard multi-part turret positioning, perhaps you could make them all into small multi-part turrets with a larger one for the nose gun?
-
^ While we're on that subject, will this contribute to a new Fenris model, or will it simply replace the current Leviathan? Since they're technically the same mesh, I'm sure improvement would be welcomed on either front :nervous:
-
^ While we're on that subject, will this contribute to a new Fenris model, or will it simply replace the current Leviathan? Since they're technically the same mesh, I'm sure improvement would be welcomed on either front :nervous:
Only the Leviathan.
-
It needs to be Leviathan only. To me, Hades version looks like what the GTA would have done with more time, money, and technology when they built the Fenris... Which is precisely what the Leviathan is.
-
^ While we're on that subject, will this contribute to a new Fenris model, or will it simply replace the current Leviathan? Since they're technically the same mesh, I'm sure improvement would be welcomed on either front :nervous:
Only the Leviathan.
Actually awesome. Although I'd welcome a new Fenris asset from you as well, a cruiser with the same chassis as the Fenris, but with more arms and armament is A) very challenging to actually mode well (a testement to your skill when you pull it off, which I have complete confidence in) and B) Something that most players have wanted since retail, when the Leviathan was blue shifted I was happy, when the armor was extended over the glows, I was even happier: even though it covered the detail it just made sense (on a purely subjective level of course.
As long as the difference between the models fits with my feel of the Terrans as a utilitarian, economic species with a dependency on armor plating (as your Medusa certainly has and your Deimos has (in no small way continued,) I am completely, unequivocally supportive of that. As far as I know, with perhaps the exception of (ironically) Vasudan Admiral, you have done more to advance the Terran species in than perhaps anyone I know of. Anyone who freaks out about curves be trippin'.
(P.S. This is my drunk comment of the decade)
-
Perhaps, again if you're up for it, since we have support for non-standard multi-part turret positioning, perhaps you could make them all into small multi-part turrets with a larger one for the nose gun?
Not a bad idea, actually. I'll definitely toy around with that.
(http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm56/HLPHades/levia4.png?t=1317877301)
somewhat small bump, made the engine housing thing a LOT less long, and added those escape pod thingies that were on the texutre, and added some engine detail. Front is still mostly unchanged. Radar dish is also a placeholder.
@Mars: Thanks man, I'm glad you like the work I'm doing. Greatly appreciate it.
EDIT:
Do ya guys think these engines look better?
(http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm56/HLPHades/leviengines.png?t=1317879091 also, do these engines look better?)
-
It needs to be Leviathan only. To me, Hades version looks like what the GTA would have done with more time, money, and technology when they built the Fenris... Which is precisely what the Leviathan is.
I tend to think of it as less of an upgrade and more of a conversion from cruiser to mobile battlestation. :D
As to the thruster nozzles, it's hard to say without the thruster effects, but I'd lean towards the shorter example.
-
It needs to be Leviathan only. To me, Hades version looks like what the GTA would have done with more time, money, and technology when they built the Fenris... Which is precisely what the Leviathan is.
I tend to think of it as less of an upgrade and more of a conversion from cruiser to mobile battlestation. :D
As to the thruster nozzles, it's hard to say without the thruster effects, but I'd lean towards the shorter example.
Like wise i prefer the shorter nozzles as they are closer to retail
-
IMHO, it's a bit too round and sleek, especially the engine and the midsection. Both Leviathan and Fenris are very boxy. It looks more like an even more advanced version of the design, a through, overall upgrade instead of up-armoring and buffing the weapons. The model itself looks very good though.
-
IMHO, it's a bit too round and sleek, especially the engine and the midsection. Both Leviathan and Fenris are very boxy. It looks more like an even more advanced version of the design, a through, overall upgrade instead of up-armoring and buffing the weapons. The model itself looks very good though.
A MKII for production in low output systems or as a post Capella stopgap?
-
Something like that, I'd imagine that any Leviathans left by the time of BP would look like this.
-
Round != bad.
Not exactly a fan of the engines (looks like a big mouth with huge lips, inb4cannotunsee), but it's not because it's rounded.
-
Round != bad.
Not exactly a fan of the engines (looks like a big mouth with huge lips, inb4cannotunsee), but it's not because it's rounded.
OH NOES! CANNOTUNSEE!
[attachment deleted by ninja]
-
inafter
Thanks for your cooperation.
-
IMHO, it's a bit too round and sleek, especially the engine and the midsection. Both Leviathan and Fenris are very boxy. It looks more like an even more advanced version of the design, a through, overall upgrade instead of up-armoring and buffing the weapons. The model itself looks very good though.
It's only got a few more rounded surfaces if anything, it's hardly round and sleek.
-
Perhaps it's the midsection which gives it this appearance. Now that I'm looking at it, the midsection is very rounded compared to older models (and visibly octagonal, while the original was rectangular). If the lines could be straightened and side walls widened, it would look much more approbate. Other parts are indeed pretty close, except the aforementioned "lips".
Round != bad.
Round != Leviathan midsection. I'm not saying it's bad (quite the contrary), but it departs from the original a bit too much.
-
Perhaps it's the midsection which gives it this appearance. Now that I'm looking at it, the midsection is very rounded compared to older models (and visibly octagonal, while the original was rectangular). If the lines could be straightened and side walls widened, it would look much more approbate. Other parts are indeed pretty close, except the aforementioned "lips".
Round != bad.
Round != Leviathan midsection. I'm not saying it's bad (quite the contrary), but it departs from the original a bit too much.
I really would hate to revert to something closer to the old leviathan mid section, because the old Leviathan looked like trash. It looked frail. It looked like it was made of grey cardboard. It doesn't look the part, it looks primitive and like it'd fall apart at the faintest touch.
The lips are being worked on. Hopefully they won't be lips anymore.
-
I like the midsection, the engine is my only worry (and apparently its being looked into!)
-
Still, the midsection seems noticeably smaller on your model than on the old Leviathan, not to mention the fact it's curved towards it's ends (making it look a bit too much like Rugby ball). I'd suggest straightening the curves, perhaps with that, the octagonal cross section would be less of an issue.
-
yes please, we need a new htlization of those two frikking models.
I'm out of the loop here but what is wrong with the existing HTL model?
-
Far as I know, there isn't one. Though I could be wrong. It could just be that the old high polygon models aren't up to current standards.
-
You'll get different answers. However, there is an HTL already in the MediaVPs. Hades just felt like making a new one.
-
Ah, then it's just that it wasn't up to Hades' standards then.
-
yes please, we need a new htlization of those two frikking models.
I'm out of the loop here but what is wrong with the existing HTL model?
Not much really to say the truth, that statement was impulsed by a personal opinion on the ship design itself.
-
Ah, then it's just that it wasn't up to Hades' standards then.
Stop. This thread will not turn into a criticism of Hades.
-
He probably decided to do it because the current models are butt ugly compared to say, the Cain, or the Medusa, or the Valkyrie.
The current models basically add greebles to the trenches along the side, but that's really about it. The turrets, the armor, they all look basically the same as the retail model.
-
It's like the old HTL Deimos. It's a slightly better model than retail. This new Leviathan here blows the old one out of the water (no offense to the old HTL of course!)
-
I think that Hades should finish the Deimos first, as it's the one that need help the most. IMHO, working on too many things at one time results in none of them getting done.
-
I don't get redoing models that have already been done when there are some models which have never been done, but anyway. People are free to direct their efforts how they wish
As for the model itself, there's obviously some good work put into it and some very nice details though I would agree with the sentiment that it's a bit too rounded. HTL for FS2 retail ships should in my mind be about increasing detail not redesign because if you do redesign, then I believe you sorta need to redesign everything. It's like the new star trek movie, the new enterprise was obviously similar to the old one but was essentially a new redesign. And to make that design work they made an entirely new fleet to go along side it. Point is, the FS1 terrans are boxy, generally ugly ships. If you want them more rounded, the whole fleet should become more rounded.
-
I don't get redoing models that have already been done when there are some models which have never been done, but anyway. People are free to direct their efforts how they wish
Believe it or not, there's actually other people making models aside from myself, and most of the ships have been upgraded or are in the process of being upgraded already.
Plus I do what I want because then I have more motivation to do it.
As for the model itself, there's obviously some good work put into it and some very nice details though I would agree with the sentiment that it's a bit too rounded. HTL for FS2 retail ships should in my mind be about increasing detail not redesign because if you do redesign, then I believe you sorta need to redesign everything. It's like the new star trek movie, the new enterprise was obviously similar to the old one but was essentially a new redesign. And to make that design work they made an entirely new fleet to go along side it. Point is, the FS1 terrans are boxy, generally ugly ships. If you want them more rounded, the whole fleet should become more rounded.
I'm doing this Leviathan in the exact same style I've done the Medusa, am doing the Apollo, and Ursa.
-
Looking swell Hades, a big improvement on the previous "HTL" models.
Don't forget your Deimy though, please, it was another excellent model ye was doing.
-
HTL for FS2 retail ships should in my mind be about increasing detail not redesign because if you do redesign, then I believe you sorta need to redesign everything. It's like the new star trek movie, the new enterprise was obviously similar to the old one but was essentially a new redesign. And to make that design work they made an entirely new fleet to go along side it. Point is, the FS1 terrans are boxy, generally ugly ships. If you want them more rounded, the whole fleet should become more rounded.
If he were redesigning the Fenris I'd be screaming bloody murder right along with you, but I think you have the wrong analogy here. It should be Fenris:Leviathan::NCC-1701:Refit (http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/constitution-refit.htm). The original Levi was indistinguishable from the Fenris, which just about everyone agrees should be changed. The recolor was a cheap but powerful change. The most recent edit, adding armor plates, made a certain amount of sense but covered up some of the ship's more interesting details. You can quibble about the details, but a certain amount of redesign is necessary.
-
I'm doing this Leviathan in the exact same style I've done the Medusa, am doing the Apollo, and Ursa.
Please, please, Hades. Actually finish some of them :P
-
The medusa is finished, and it's one of the greatest models ever in FS IMO.
-
I know I know I'm talking about the rest.
-
Too early to tell if I like it or not. The front looks very rubbery.
-
Too early to tell if I like it or not. The front looks very rubbery.
Front was only put there for reference. That's definitely not how it'll look.
-
I like it, as long as the texture helps to maintain the boxy motifs in FS1 Terran designs (which I have no doubt it will, knowing today's FSU).
they weren't boxy, they were angular, like the slanting of tank armor. the boxy appearance is a result of technical limitation.
-
I like it, as long as the texture helps to maintain the boxy motifs in FS1 Terran designs (which I have no doubt it will, knowing today's FSU).
they weren't boxy, they were angular, like the slanting of tank armor. the boxy appearance is a result of technical limitation.
Some will agree, and some wont... but for the sake of our sanity, PLEASE do not engage in any discussion about this... at least for another year or so.
-
(http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm56/HLPHades/leviathan5.png?t=1321307357)
Update. Still need to add more detailing to the engines, radar, and main body, but got the engine block a bit more detailing to it.
-
Looking good!
-
Can I say dat ass? Because dat ass.
-
Are you gonna take my suggestion regarding destroyable armor sub-objects? ;7
-
Are you gonna take my suggestion regarding destroyable armor sub-objects? ;7
It's a nice idea but I'd have to check how feasible it'd really be.
-
Looking good, can't wait to see the rest.
-
The engine section looks great, but the rest less so.
It seems "tacked on" to the engine, with curved lines of the main tower looking rather weird next to the straight engine.
Now you can see what I was talking about earlier. Curves on the main section just don't fit the Leviathan. I'd suggest to straighten and "beef up" the main section, as it also seems rather small (though this could be the perspective, could you provide a side view in an orthographic projection, next to the retail model or the old HTL if possible?).
-
The engine section looks great, but the rest less so.
It seems "tacked on" to the engine, with curved lines of the main tower looking rather weird next to the straight engine.
Now you can see what I was talking about earlier. Curves on the main section just don't fit the Leviathan. I'd suggest to straighten and "beef up" the main section, as it also seems rather small (though this could be the perspective, could you provide a side view in an orthographic projection, next to the retail model or the old HTL if possible?).
Because it fits there, something like that would never work on the engine block because the retail structure of it doesn't lend anything to it nor suggest it in any way like it does for the middle segment.
And yes, the middle segment is correctly proportional, what may be throwing you off is that the neck connecting the middle and engine segments together was made a bit taller.
-
Might be another reason for the "tacked on" feel of the engine. Making it shorter could help overall look.
I'd say that the approach you used on the engines (mostly straight lines with rounded angles) should also be applied to the midsection. This should help eliminate the feeling that these two have been made by two different designers and bolted together. Overall, midsection is just too different from the engine and IMHO, also departs from retail too much.
-
Might be another reason for the "tacked on" feel of the engine. Making it shorter could help overall look.
I'd say that the approach you used on the engines (mostly straight lines with rounded angles) should also be applied to the midsection. This should help eliminate the feeling that these two have been made by two different designers and bolted together. Overall, midsection is just too different from the engine and IMHO, also departs from retail too much.
I disagree. Increasing the height of the neck not only makes it go better geometrically-wise with the engine block, but helps give it a less flimsey look to it.
As for the middle section, I disagree, it's certainly no more of a left hook than the nose was to the entire rest of the Fenris (in fact it fits in better with the nose)
-
(http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm56/HLPHades/datleviathanass.png)
Update. Thanks to Sara for the idea of the side thrusters (<3 you Sara)
-
It departs from the original model, but I'm not gonna complain... that looks really good! :yes:
-
It departs from the original model, but I'm not gonna complain... that looks really good! ****ing incredible :yes:
FTFY
-
Just. Wow.
-
I'll be honest, I thought I would hate this remake, but the new engine section is really nice - it keeps the original feel whilst freshening it up considerably, and I particularly like the side thrusters.
My only concern is that the engine section seems to mesh a little less with the middle section now, but I'm sure you'll sort that out. Keep it up!
-
This looks awesome, but at the same time, just doesn't look the Leviathan.
I'd suggest you abandon the intention of making it a HTL Leviathan and instead call it "Leviathan Mk.2" or some other fitting name, like Vidar or Kraken.
Really, there's a lot more potential for this model as a next generation Leviathan, and IMHO, it'd be an excellent addition to BP. IIRC, WiH does use the Leviathan, and this model both looks better than the current HTL and just different enough to be used as a refitted version.
-
I suggest you abandon your desire to tell other, more talented people what their intentions should be. I'm serious. I can understand your intentions, but at the same time, remember that Hades is the artist here, and he's the one making the decision what his model should be.
-
Well, I'm just giving a suggestion.
This really does look like something out of BP to me. Since it's not a bad thing, I just wanted to suggest going further in that direction. I don't think that it'll fit as a HTL Leviathan, it just looks too futuristic. It's still an awesome model though.
-
This looks awesome, but at the same time, just doesn't look the Leviathan.
It's not meant to look like the retail Leviathan, hammer that into your head.
Hammered that nail of a thought yet? Good. Now, let me explain my reasoning;
Based on the tech descriptions and the way I'm interpenetrating it, it's meant to be a more advanced Fenris, instead of being just a retrofit, it's a completely rebuilt vessel.
-
That looks really incredible, and I think it will make a fine Leviathan for general consumption! :)
I do feel like the aft "ring" section between the side thrusters and the main engine could use some detailing: but I suspect you already plan on doing something with it.
-
It's not meant to look like the retail Leviathan, hammer that into your head.
Hammered that nail of a thought yet? Good. Now, let me explain my reasoning;
Based on the tech descriptions and the way I'm interpenetrating it, it's meant to be a more advanced Fenris, instead of being just a retrofit, it's a completely rebuilt vessel.
If it's not supposed to resemble retail Leviathan, only in higher quality, then it's not suited for mediavps. IMHO, if it doesn't look like a Leviathan, then it isn't a Leviathan, but something else, perhaps from the same manufacturer. I think that your model would look a bit out of place in FS1, and don't forget Leviathan comes from that era.
The Leviathan isn't much more advanced than Fenris, the main difference being increased armor and weapons (it's speed, on the other hand, suffers). It's clearly been made by re-designing the Fenris into defensive role, as evidenced by the FS1 tech description. It mentions "changes to Fenris" and the reason they were made being was the need for a defensive vessel. It's a defense oriented version of Fenris, nothing else. And it was build during T-V war, so I guess that it being a Fenris hull with more armor welded on would be quite likely.
Your model doesn't really look "though" nor "old-style" and departs from the original design so much that it could be another ship, inspired by Fenris/Leviathan design. There's nothing wrong with that, of course. The model itself is great, and I'm sure that it'd be useful. Just not as a replacement for the current HTL Leviathan, but rather as a different ship, very definitely FS2-era or later. It doesn't have the "used future" feel of most FS1 Terran ships. It's sleek, complex and rounded, which is exactly the opposite of FS1 Terran look.
-
We are not going to have this argument again, are we?
This is obviously heading towards another split-lock unless you people figure out that you aren't changing any minds with this constant back and forth.
For the commentators: The most you can do is make your suggestions, hope they get implemented and move on regardless.
For the artists: The best thing you can do is take the suggestions that fit your vision and ignore the rest. Literally. You really don't need to make a post refuting every suggestion you disagree with. Just ignore them and keep going.
-
Are those engines? Why does it have more engines than the Fenris when it's slower?
-
I can't say I'm entirely sold on the side-thrusters concept myself. Besides its side profile and the radar dishes and such, I think one of the Fenris/Levi's key characteristics are the clean lines around the engine array. I like the details within the engine opening proper, but at least to me, those tubes break up the flow of the ship's lines way too much.
-
Are those engines? Why does it have more engines than the Fenris when it's slower?
mmm....cause it's heavier? :shaking:
-
Because you're comparing the old Fenris model to the new Leviathan model.
-
Hmm, you know - I'd say this detail styling is getting closer to that of your medusa now, and that's a very good thing. :) Since I last saw it, you've replaced the curved top and bottom surface with a series of flat ones, so the cross-sectional shape of the engine block is no longer kinda lip-shaped, but is now more of a bevelled octagon - and I would say it looks hugely better for it. The engine block is DEFINITELY beginning to resemble an up-armoured Fenris. :D
I do have some suggestions here which I'll go through below with piccytures!
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y184/VA--Twisted_Infinities/Fenris/LevvySuggestions.jpg)
1) I really like the recessed and segmented look at the front of the block. It fits in fairly well with the original style there and just looks freaking cool. My suggestion is to take it a little further and add another plating segmentation line around the hull as I've drawn onto your pic. You may need to shift some details back a bit to make it work (or possibly squish the curved sections in front of the line forward a bit - whichever works).
2) The 3 little round things I reckon could easily be neat little escape pods if you haven't already intended them to be, and my initial thought was that although they definitely fit......at the same time something didn't feel quite right. Then I opened the current model and saw - the big lights! The lights are a very prominent feature of the fenris/levy (and they significantly affect how the ship looks in dark scenes), and so I think bringing them back would be really good. They also nicely frame and integrate the escape pod structures (plus they kinda make sense - ie, lights are where people are, escape pods are where people are).
3) Not really a model suggestion but still worth mentioning: the colours...or rather the tones of grey. These I think will play a major role with the feel of the aft section based on the texturing. If you imagine the 'flow' of the engine block is fore to aft, the darker recessed part on your model is flowing in more of an 'around' direction. The more contrast between the recessed section and the raised hull around it, the more the 'around' direction will become the dominant direction of the whole engine block, which I don't think works as well for the design of the ship. Currently style wise there are many prominent fore-aft lines over the whole design, with 'around' lines having a much less significant role.
So basically my suggestion here would be for whoever's texturing it to keep this contrast down to the kind of level pointed out in the current textures. Ie, there and visible, but not overpowering enough to change the flow of the engine section.
Finally, about the engine nozzles: to be honest I really really REALLY don't think they fit at all sorry. Normally I love circular engines - heck I stick them on most of my ships! Here though I think they do break the style very badly. The big one just isn't a good use of area on the rear facing part of the engine block and makes me think more of a 'rocket ship' than a 'warship'. The little ones...yes they make sense from a rotational point of view,... but they just look massively out of place.
Here's a side by side comparison: (Including the original too for fairness)
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y184/VA--Twisted_Infinities/Fenris/FenrisRear.jpg)
[V] tended to do either flat vents or round nozzles on terran ships. Hippocrates, iceni, elysium, colossus, deimos etc all have definite round nozzles. Other ships such as the fenris, orion, triton, hecate and aeolus have definite flat vent style engines. This effect I think has been lost a bit since retail, since our thruster effects currently favour round nozzles, spewing huge amounts of glowey stuff backwards. Originally they just kinda glowed and flickered.
Style-wise the vent style engines are much more suited to this kind of glow: http://images.wikia.com/stargate/images/b/b6/MyancientshipOrion_2.JPG
Not entirely sure how we could achieve that but I'm sure it's not far off if not already possible.
So yeah - I'd really strongly urge you to reconsider doing a vent style. It doesn't have to be just a grating like the current fenris model (which is actually a stolen section of the faustus' solar panel :p ), but you can definitely make some interesting engine-y structures that don't look like round nozzles. :)
-
I have to agree with Vasudan Admiral. At least with the engine part. Sorry Hades, on any other ship they would look nice, but on a leviathan they look completely out of place, especially the small ones. :nervous:
-
*shrug* I think it looks cool. But I guess I can see where the purists are coming from. ;)
-
Way to troll. :doubt:
-
I don't think we could talk about "purism" at this point. A little artistic liberty is always nice, but one should make sure that the ship resembles the original in some way, that's all.
TBH, the model is amazing and I think it actually looks somewhat better than the original Leviathan. It's in different style and much more modern than the Leviathan, which may be a good thing.
On the other hand, I don't think this should be in Mediavps. It has too many changes to believably be used as a HTL Leviathan. It just doesn't look like one, and TBH, never really did. Leviathan Mk.2 or GTC Garm, perhaps, but not the original, FS1-era Leviathan. Too many curves, too different detail layout, especially regarding the thrusters.
In short, it looks cool, it's really high-poly and overall, awesome. It just isn't the Leviathan.
-
On the other hand, I don't think this should be in Mediavps. It has too many changes to believably be used as a HTL Leviathan. It just doesn't look like one, and TBH, never really did. Leviathan Mk.2 or GTC Garm, perhaps, but not the original, FS1-era Leviathan. Too many curves, too different detail layout, especially regarding the thrusters.
In short, it looks cool, it's really high-poly and overall, awesome. It just isn't the Leviathan.
Exactly...
-
On the other hand, I don't think this should be in Mediavps. It has too many changes to believably be used as a HTL Leviathan. It just doesn't look like one, and TBH, never really did. Leviathan Mk.2 or GTC Garm, perhaps, but not the original, FS1-era Leviathan. Too many curves, too different detail layout, especially regarding the thrusters.
In short, it looks cool, it's really high-poly and overall, awesome. It just isn't the Leviathan.
That's the point, it's meant to look different because the Leviathan used the exact same model as the Fenris in retail. I'll mess with the thrusters/engines, that's for sure (and only because VA gave constructive criticism here).
-
I am very sorry, Dragon, but there's nothing in the Leviathan's tech description that would rule out a redesign like the one Hades is producing.
Also, several points. 1) You have made your point that this is in your opinion not a "real" replacement for the Leviathan several times over. We know by now how you feel about the issue. Continuing to reiterate your position will not help you. You have made your point, now let us continue in peace.
2) So far, we (as FSU) have not made a decision whether to include this model in the mvps or not. Until it is finished, we will not make one.
-
It's just that every time I posted, I found some other thing that, in my eyes, reinforced my opinion (except maybe the last one).
I think that I might leave it alone until the model progresses further, then only focus on the artistic side of things.
That's the point, it's meant to look different because the Leviathan used the exact same model as the Fenris in retail.
I can see the "HTLing philosophy" you're following with this design. My posts were made with that in mind.
-
It's just that every time I posted, I found some other thing that, in my eyes, reinforced my opinion (except maybe the last one).
That does not mean you have to post the same thing over and over again.
-
I quite like it so far.
If there's something I'd change, it's the extra thruster nozzles. They look a bit out of place on the rim of the engine pod. I prefer the more subtle look of the four ancillary nozzles in this older image (http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm56/HLPHades/leviathan5.png).
I'm looking forward to flying around this in game!
-
I don't know how far you are into the main body, but if it's not too late, consider squashing the front a bit. It might give the ship a slightly more dynamic and aggressive stance.
edit: it's an animated gif, the first frame is what you have right now, second frame is the suggested modification
[attachment deleted by a basterd]
-
Is it going to have one thruster point in the back or 9?
-
Style-wise the vent style engines are much more suited to this kind of glow: http://images.wikia.com/stargate/images/b/b6/MyancientshipOrion_2.JPG
Not entirely sure how we could achieve that but I'm sure it's not far off if not already possible.
Hmm. I wonder if you could skip the standard thruster effect altogether and just use a glowmap with the "$thruster particles" table entry using something hazy like a nebula poof of the same color as the glowmap.
-
Style-wise the vent style engines are much more suited to this kind of glow: http://images.wikia.com/stargate/images/b/b6/MyancientshipOrion_2.JPG
Not entirely sure how we could achieve that but I'm sure it's not far off if not already possible.
Hmm. I wonder if you could skip the standard thruster effect altogether and just use a glowmap with the "$thruster particles" table entry using something hazy like a nebula poof of the same color as the glowmap.
Hmmm.. that could work, have to check it put though.
-
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y184/VA--Twisted_Infinities/Fenris/LevyEnginePic1.jpg)
Update. VA is a sexy man and went ahead and added some engine paneling when I asked (cause I was unsure how to make them look)
Render has no smoothing and is next to the old MVP Leviathan.
-
Ok, that looks good as well, and it will probably make a lot more people happy.
So it's a win-win situation I recon?
Kudos Hades, you are proving to be an outstanding modeler by taking everyone's wishes into account, and also too much love for VA, that's an excellent paneling work. :P
-
I did love the side thrusters; will what you did with that ever be made public?
On the other hand, this looks perhaps more like the type of engine that an uparmored version of something would have. The whole tail end is a beauty, for sure.
-
Wow, that's some incredible work, guys. Props.
-
Oh god that looks so sextactcular.
-
I'm really liking that now. :D
-
Ah, this fits in much better. :yes: Something about the tube is bugging me, but I'm not sure what it is.
-
Ah, this fits in much better. :yes:
this, a thousand times this.
Something about the tube is bugging me, but I'm not sure what it is.
the lack of smoothing most likely.
-
Ah, this fits in much better. :yes: Something about the tube is bugging me, but I'm not sure what it is.
Possibly the direction of the lines on the tube - I think that's what's still bugging me anyway, but that will be a texturing thing. Here the lines are caused by the AO rendering, which can't do smooth surfaces - and they follow the direction of the tube. The texture on the retail tube has lines 90° away from that, ie, going around the tube, and so they'd be pointing inwards towards the engine. They're kinda like....well......skidmarks. :p
-
The engines seem odd to me. Are you going to have multiple thruster glows, or keep the big one?
-
Whatever works best I imagine. I have some untested ideas that might also make other vent style engines look better. :)
-
The engines seem odd to me. Are you going to have multiple thruster glows, or keep the big one?
I'm hoping to have neither and instead an effect that complements this type of engine assortment much better than our awful engine sprites.
Modeled thrusters is actually a promising option here, there's a lot more you can do with them than the sprites and particle thrusters just aren't feasible now or in the near future.
I did love the side thrusters; will what you did with that ever be made public?
On the other hand, this looks perhaps more like the type of engine that an uparmored version of something would have. The whole tail end is a beauty, for sure.
I may end up trying the side thrusters thing on a Fenris remake if I do get around to doing one.
-
Modeled thrusters is actually a promising option here, there's a lot more you can do with them than the sprites and particle thrusters just aren't feasible now or in the near future.
Oh yes. Please oh please oh please modeled thrusters.
-
As much as I like the new Levy engines, they... well...
(http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d48/abolte/LevyEngineTV-1.png)
-
The engines seem odd to me. Are you going to have multiple thruster glows, or keep the big one?
There never was "a big one". Retail and MVP Fenris had 4 thrusters points.
-
Photon drive :P
-
There never was "a big one". Retail and MVP Fenris had 4 thrusters points.
Not that you can easily tell them apart in gameplay. I was just wondering if there would be 16 dinky little fighter sized glows replacing them.
-
Turn that engine into a torch ship, then we can get some Leviathan beam cutters.
I like the direction of the engines and faithful return to the "mono" engine design of the original Leviathan/Fenris, thought about trying different engine segment divisions (live having 4, 8 and so on?)
-
The new engine is definitely a step in good direction, keep it up. :yes:
-
Looking B-E-A-U-TIFUL ! :lol:
-
The engines seem odd to me. Are you going to have multiple thruster glows, or keep the big one?
I'm hoping to have neither and instead an effect that complements this type of engine assortment much better than our awful engine sprites.
Modeled thrusters is actually a promising option here, there's a lot more you can do with them than the sprites and particle thrusters just aren't feasible now or in the near future.
Why are particle thrusters not feasible?
-
Why are particle thrusters not feasible?
Current particle performance isn't too good, particles outright disappear from at certain ranges, clipping errors, etc.
-
Certainly keeping my status as a lurker (and thus, silent connaiseur) but here I beg to differ, these round nozzles VA suggested here http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y184/VA--Twisted_Infinities/Fenris/FenrisRear.jpg
are certainly more what I expect thrusters to be. Just move the outer hoses inside the rim... any way I'll accept whatever comes included with vps 14...
-
http://p3d.in/2aTio
Been too long since an update! The rear is p much finished detail-wise, the front is a placeholder, and the middle is next. I may put this on hold until I finish the Orion mesh.
-
I like what you did on the engine part, anyone that brings the "it's too detailed for a part that's gonna be covered by engine glow" theme can go to hell.
-
Considering how frequently these things get disabled, I'd say we'll get a lot of time to admire the engines. :)
-
For some reason the "shaded" option shows as black for me :( Anyone know a fix? On Firefox (whatever the latest), ATI gpu.
-
switch to X-ray
-
Is it like that for everyone, or just me? Is there a proper fix?
-
I get the black surface as well, is as if the plugin is not loading any light sources or something like that.
Switch to X-ray view, it works ok.
-
"I found a problem, what do I do?
My Models look black on my ATI graphics card.
This issue is solved by updating the ATI drivers, also know as Catalyst™."
Found that on their site. If your drivers are already updated, then I have no idea. :(
-
Why put the launcher tower on a hinge?
-
having the launcher tower like it is able to aim 360 degrees bearing and about 200 degrees elevation
Matches retail
Edit: I see what you mean but I think it's just style. besides he's working on the middle next so it is definitely not the finished product yet
-
I have an ATI gpu, and I get no black models. All drivers up-to-date...
-
I would say it's not driver or video card related.
I used the plugging on an ati and on an nvidia machine as well and both yielded the same results, with updated drivers.
again, switch to x-ray, you can see the details that way.
-
For some reason the "shaded" option shows as black for me :( Anyone know a fix? On Firefox (whatever the latest), ATI gpu.
On the last 12.X catalyst for Radeon 3000 HD series GPU (before support for them got scrapped a few months back) and the latest release build for FF. No issues here.
Did you play around extensively with settings in the FF control panel?
-
I like what you did on the engine part, anyone that brings the "it's too detailed for a part that's gonna be covered by engine glow" theme can go to hell.
VasudanAdmiral did that. I don't have the wit for such mechanical engineering!
Why put the launcher tower on a hinge?
It's not really a hinge. It's more of a stylistic sort of idea that popped into my head and I said "Well jolly, might as well try it!".
Thought it looked alright so I kept it.
-
Just took a look at your update from 2 August, Hades. Nice work!
-
http://p3d.in/2aTio
-
hey nerds there's some pretty big changes here, some criticisms that aren't about how smooth it is would be nice
-
The big beam emitter and surrounding armor look good but I worry about gameplay impact. I.e. you've made it harder to hit from the sides and easier to hit from the front.
-
hey nerds there's some pretty big changes here, some criticisms that aren't about how smooth it is would be nice
So those need not apply then? :p
(i keed)
-
Well I always wondered what was that big round thing on the middle of the model.
I'd go for an internal spinny thing of some sort, that works as a gravity generator or something like that.
Probably hard to make it look like something functional without altering the model but...well maybe you can think about something to do on that area.
-
Well I always wondered what was that big round thing on the middle of the model.
I'd go for an internal spinny thing of some sort, that works as a gravity generator or something like that.
Probably hard to make it look like something functional without altering the model but...well maybe you can think about something to do on that area.
I always assumed it was some sort of reactor vent or something. Either way, what's on the model now is an armor covering for that bit. It's meanted to look armored so I'm covering it up and I'm not going to be like Galemp and cover all of the details with armor plates and then leave the big glowy bit uncovered. :P
-
Now, whats this then?
I think this looks like the start of a textured ship? :P
(I'll be around to collect your soul later hades.)
-
O_______o
-
Good stuff Hades, Oddgrim et al.
-
God that's the leviathan?
I'm really REALLY impressed.
I've always thought of the Levy/Fenris as the most ugly model in FS universe. Now I'm not so sure, I mean... I kinda like it now.
How can that be possible, is beyond my understanding.
-
I've always thought of the Levy/Fenris as the most ugly model in FS universe. Now I'm not so sure, I mean... I kinda like it now.
How can that be possible, is beyond my understanding.
It's fairly easy to understand: you have bad taste. The Fenris / Leviathan were always beautiful ships, even more so after they've been HTL'd some years ago. Now they are even prettier.
-
So, what's the Fenris gonna look like? ;)
-
Very awesome Oddgrim.
I´m also "watching" your p3d-galery ;-)
I love your work und now you texture this beautyful ship from Hades. Thanks a lot man! ;)
When will you texture Hades´ Orion? :D :p
-
It's so beautiful that I feel like I could reach out and hold it with my hands. [/generic Oddgrim/Hades praise]
-
oddgrim is cool
When will you texture Hades´ Orion? :D :P
:nervous:
-
Not sure how I feel about the look, to be honest.
-
I think it looks phenomenal. :yes:
-
Damn. Makes the Fenris look like total turds in comparison :D
-
Looks good. We're going to need a hi-poly Fenris of similar quality, if that one's gonna be for the Leviathan only.
-
Thanks for the feedback! c:
http://p3d.in/Ftl2s
Getting closer to the finishing , adding grime and normal lines. The plating around the upper tower is pretty much done, the fusion mortar underneath is redesigned to better fit the new fenris one. The Machine detail under the girders around the engines present a challenge, the retail texture that is used as reference is difficult to interpret.
-
Nice model, verrry nice textures.
PS: That's one mighty fine lookin' Pegasus in that library, Sir.
-
Are the panel lines on a separate layer? Any chance of lightening them up so they're not as sharply defined? Leviathan or not, the original texture was very clean, with minimal panel lining - I'm not saying redo it, but maybe try to de-emphasize them a tad?
-
The purple strip seems a tad too saturated. The (bump mapped) panels at the main vertical body are probably too accentuaded, they seem blocky, cartoonish.
I can only think of those negative things to say. I love it otherwise! :yes:
-
should the glow really be red? we've used the blue one for so long now it just feels wrong to go back to red
-
We can actually see a big difference without a blue ship now. Should it come back or stay out?
-
Are the panel lines on a separate layer? Any chance of lightening them up so they're not as sharply defined? Leviathan or not, the original texture was very clean, with minimal panel lining - I'm not saying redo it, but maybe try to de-emphasize them a tad?
I personally like the look, it gives the mid section a medieval keep sort of look to it, plus it'll help further differentiate the two ships as well.
We can actually see a big difference without a blue ship now. Should it come back or stay out?
I'm of the opinion that it shouldn't, now that they'll be fairly different. I've also never liked keeping things the way they are simply because they've been done the same way for a long time - basically, I hate tradition. :P
I'm not opposed to it going to blue, but I'm also not sure it's necessary to do so. I'd rather wait and see how it works out ingame and I think Oddgrim's of the same mind in this regard.
-
I'd say, keep the color-swapped look. Green stripes on the bow, slightly "dusty gray" skin instead of "bluish-gray" of the Fenris, and of course the blue lights. Since the "Fenris-like" texture is either already done or nearly done, it could be added as an optional one.
-
i just think it should be blue to be easily able to tell the difference in the heat of it all
as soon as you are further than some 500m away from the ships you are probably not going to be able to tell which ship is which, without looking very closely
and blue just looks cooler ;)
-
Even if you DO decide to keep red, I ask that you ALSO create a blue texture so that campaigners can decide for themselves.
-
i just think it should be blue to be easily able to tell the difference in the heat of it all
as soon as you are further than some 500m away from the ships you are probably not going to be able to tell which ship is which, without looking very closely
I don't see why this is a bad thing. They're similar-looking ships. Difficulty in identification would probably be a problem faced in a "real life" situation.
Or, you know, you could just look at the target information.
-
Are the panel lines on a separate layer? Any chance of lightening them up so they're not as sharply defined? Leviathan or not, the original texture was very clean, with minimal panel lining - I'm not saying redo it, but maybe try to de-emphasize them a tad?
I can see why you would think so,they are a tad too strong and just to point it out I am using the retail .pcx textures as reference not the MediaVP ones. Normal strength can be changed as I desire, without much problems.
We can actually see a big difference without a blue ship now. Should it come back or stay out?
I'm very much on the fence regarding the glows, I can only assume FSU changed this to make visual identification easier as in retail leviathan and the fenris had identical appearance.
For now I'm very much inclined to see how they both preform ingame before doing a change, if visual identification at close and at distance poses too much of a problem game play wise, I'll happily make the leviathan glows blue and fenris glows red.
I'd say, keep the color-swapped look. Green stripes on the bow, slightly "dusty gray" skin instead of "bluish-gray" of the Fenris, and of course the blue lights. Since the "Fenris-like" texture is either already done or nearly done, it could be added as an optional one.
The main armour colour is almost identical ( around 90,90,90 RGB) The major difference is in the shine and elements in the grime. Adding an "optional" texture, while not completely out of the question is not on the agenda.
as soon as you are further than some 500m away from the ships you are probably not going to be able to tell which ship is which, without looking very closely
That is crux of the problem is not? In the altered version from the side you can easily identify the two, however viewed from anywhere else, top, under and front they look the same. In retail you did not know before targeting the ship or : pay attention to the briefing and battle chatter. (Thinking of the main freespace campaign here).
Well, in the end they are just glows, easily changed by anyone with access to a decent editing program.
-
The fact they are now different models with subtle differences makes the identification more fun, IMHO.
-
I've spoken with them about the issue of glows and they are being surprisingly strong willed about it. Their main arguments being...
1: Don't want to do it just because we've always done it.
2: (this is assuming because they haven't directly said it yet) Retail was red.
3: Shouldn't need them because of different polygons, but that they'll "see how performance is later".
The first is typical Hades, and I'm surprised Oddgrim is being just as strong willed about it. Oddgrim is usually much more open to differing views, but has been rather closed off on IRC this time.
The second is their strongest point and they could stick to that throughout and I couldn't blame them for it. Though it is ironic given the original modeller.
The third is just a plain cop-out to me. Who's going to do that testing? Hades or Oddgrim?.. (who are so familiar with every pixel and polygon on the model that it would be a pure bias). How do you test that? This one won't go anywhere, but it gives them something to say so that they don't have to change.
All that said, I will make blue glows available to whomever wants them and perhaps we'll hold an FSU vote later with finished textures on both ships to see what color it should be.
-
I've spoken with them about the issue of glows and they are being surprisingly strong willed about it. Their main arguments being...
1: Don't want to do it just because we've always done it.
2: (this is assuming because they haven't directly said it yet) Retail was red.
3: Shouldn't need them because of different polygons, but that they'll "see how performance is later".
The first is typical Hades, and I'm surprised Oddgrim is being just as strong willed about it. Oddgrim is usually much more open to differing views, but has been rather closed off on IRC this time.
The second is their strongest point and they could stick to that throughout and I couldn't blame them for it. Though it is ironic given the original modeller.
The third is just a plain cop-out to me. Who's going to do that testing? Hades or Oddgrim?.. (who are so familiar with every pixel and polygon on the model that it would be a pure bias). How do you test that? This one won't go anywhere, but it gives them something to say so that they don't have to change.
All that said, I will make blue glows available to whomever wants them and perhaps we'll hold an FSU vote later with finished textures on both ships to see what color it should be.
Neither of us have been "strong willed", we've both stated we're willing to change it if the reason for it being turned blue in the first place still proves true and is an issue, being visual identification. Like usual, you're just being a brat about it.
1. He's said he'd rather wait. That's not being strong willed, that's literally being neutral about the issue.
2. It's not ironic, most of my models have been fairly similar shape-wise with detailing extrapolated from the texture. The Leviathan has been made different for what should be obvious reasons, the Medusa was changed in a lot of ways to make it look beefier and meaner, and the Apollo had changes for similar reasons.
3. I'd sure hope that it's not just Oddgrim and myself doing general testing, because then that points inwards towards the FSU needing more active members. It's about as much as a copout to say "Hey, let's wait and see if changing it back to red will pose a problem" as it is to say "It's been blue for years thus it should stay blue."
I'd say that if anything, YOU'RE the one being strong willed here as you're unwilling to accept that: a) red might work, b) we're both willing to change it if necessary, we're on the fence about it, and c) people can do things other than readily agree with you.
-
Mjnmixael, I'm not so sure what you mean with "strong-willed" in this matter. As I have read the feedback and my own collected thoughts :
Both sides have a equally good reasoning behind it, either choice would be the "correct one" so to speak. I'll happily do the testing needed when the time comes, as could anyone with svn access.
The original change was probably game play related, and I suspect the need to difference the two models from being completely clones. As such it would only be fair to judge the new glows and models on the same merit.
-
The crux of my point is this. For ten years the Levi has been blue. It's like community as a whole has generally agreed this is a good thing. As evidence I point to the complete lack of complaints or "that's not retail!"s. Additionally, it was suggested that the TSC2 and the Cerberus also be changed to have blue glows and there have been zero complaints.
Suddenly, you want to change it back to red just cause. Now, I'm absolutely sure that half the community could care a less. But others do, so as I said I'll be making blue available if it's not. And since you are resorting to name calling, I'm stepping out. My point is made and I can mod well enough to make the changes I need that others may want.
-
Suddenly, you want to change it back to red just cause.
Not "just cause". The arguments have been laid out clearly in this thread. If you're unwilling to even acknowledge that the other side has arguments at all, it's probably better if you step out indeed.
-
Not that it carries much weight, but I'd vote for the blue. Even if it's not necessary for the same reason it was blue in retail, by making them both red, I feel you lose an opportunity for a cool call back to the original game we all know and love.
If you need a logical in-fs-universe reason for it, one could argue that when they built the Levi, they used newer generation parts including a new power system that happened to glow blue instead of red. :P But meh, I think it'd just be a cool shout out to classic fs2 to have the blue, even if the models were drastically different.
Just my $0.02. :) Either way, the new model looks lovely.
[edit] Wait... the Leviathan was blue in retail, right?
[edit2] Nevermind, it's been too long since I've played FS2 without any mods. In the spirit of calling out original retail, I suppose they'd both have to be red. A part of me would miss the blue, though.
-
If we want to look at precedence, the Cain/Lilith used to be identical in retail as well, but the FS community has made the Lilith a darker color than the Cain for the upgraded models. Applicability to this case is not perfect, because the Cain/Lilith share the same mesh.
I'm more in favor for the blue leviathan, because it improves readability of what a model is if it's 7km in the distance and made up of 20 pixels, one of which is colored either blue or red.
-
If we want to look at precedence, the Cain/Lilith used to be identical in retail as well, but the FS community has made the Lilith a darker color than the Cain for the upgraded models. Applicability to this case is not perfect, because the Cain/Lilith share the same mesh.
I'm more in favor for the blue leviathan, because it improves readability of what a model is if it's 7km in the distance and made up of 20 pixels, one of which is colored either blue or red.
Press Y, check target info.
And if the ship is 20 pixels in size, you're going to have trouble recognising any ship unless you really try, by which point you could have checked target info.
-
Yeah, I'm not sure if the color distinction would be anything noticeable at 7 kilometers either, not to mention why you'd need to be able to visually tell that from that distance since it won't be a part of your fight (aka not currently relevant) or if you're moving towards it, you can easily press Y.
Again, that's not to say I'm against making it blue (I feel like I need to highlight this for Mjn), but I really can't see the point.
Oh, and I'm mulling around revisiting the Lilith situation, but that'd be for later.
-
As with anything, how the FSU as a staff vote is irrelephant. How the community decides is what will happen.
If everybody has in fact gotten used to Blue and wants to keep it that way, then that's where I'll decide it goes.
Alternatives to many things can be made possible by anybody after that.
Otherwise, this has quite clearly turned into a mess conversationally wise and I for one am only going to ask once that we bring the temperature down a notch or two.
-
I like blue leviathan for reasons:
1. Visual Identification (regardless of how easy it is to tell apart with the different geometry, it would probably be easier with different glows as well!)
2. Color Diversity (rainbows are fabulous, etc.)
3. Red, being the "hotter" color is on the Fenris which is lighter armored and faster "attack cruiser", blue the "cooler color" is on the heavier armored and slower "defensive cruiser"
4. With RedFenris and NotRedLeviathan, the red one goes three two times faster. This is the most important one.
-
I like blue leviathan for reasons:
1. Visual Identification (regardless of how easy it is to tell apart with the different geometry, it would probably be easier with different glows as well!)
2. Color Diversity (rainbows are fabulous, etc.)
3. Red, being the "hotter" color is on the Fenris which is lighter armored and faster "attack cruiser", blue the "cooler color" is on the heavier armored and slower "defensive cruiser"
4. With RedFenris and NotRedLeviathan, the red one goes three two times faster. This is the most important one.
I'm quoting this post because I think it's right.
-
I like blue leviathan for reasons:
1. Visual Identification (regardless of how easy it is to tell apart with the different geometry, it would probably be easier with different glows as well!)
2. Color Diversity (rainbows are fabulous, etc.)
3. Red, being the "hotter" color is on the Fenris which is lighter armored and faster "attack cruiser", blue the "cooler color" is on the heavier armored and slower "defensive cruiser"
4. With RedFenris and NotRedLeviathan, the red one goes three two times faster. This is the most important one.
I'm quoting this post because I think it's right.
Me as well. Blue/red is a cool way of showing the difference between similar Terran units.
-
I like blue leviathan for reasons:
1. Visual Identification (regardless of how easy it is to tell apart with the different geometry, it would probably be easier with different glows as well!)
2. Color Diversity (rainbows are fabulous, etc.)
3. Red, being the "hotter" color is on the Fenris which is lighter armored and faster "attack cruiser", blue the "cooler color" is on the heavier armored and slower "defensive cruiser"
4. With RedFenris and NotRedLeviathan, the red one goes three two times faster. This is the most important one.
1. We're leaning towards having hugely reduced glows on the side of the Leviathan. It's not going to be like Galemp's one where it looked like all of the more vital stuff didn't get armor put over it :p
2. I guess 1 will play in with this, but I think Oddgrim's idea was to have their base hull material be different well. (I concede this point, that bit before wasn't an argument against more than it was adding additional information).
3 That's a fair point, though what colors imply is suggestive. I think red is a bit more of an imposing color, personally and even as a fighter pilot the Fenris does not frighten me in the least, and the Leviathan isn't clam when it's in range. :nervous: (except in that one FS2 mission but I don't think a cargo container versus a Fenris is a fair fight (I'm not arguing against this point either, just providing a different PoV as I see and understand exactly what you mean)
4. I'm not entirely sure what you mean here.
-
Painting it red always makes it go faster. Always.
-
Given that the Fenris will still have big red glows I don't think target identification is going to be an issue like people are making out. I do think the Levi should have some blue glows though, even if they're much more muted than the old model.
-
4. I'm not entirely sure what you mean here.
Sorry about this. Pleasedon'tkillme (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RedOnesGoFaster).
-
Yeah, I realized my mistake soon after I posted that. :P Haven't done anything with 40K in a while so it slipped my mind.
-
Beautifully textured,light years ahead of the current model,keep up the excellent work!
-
Got excited to see a new comment regarding this work of art... what's the latest on its progress? All has been quiet on this front for a bit now.
-
Got excited to see a new comment regarding this work of art
Same here. This song comes to my mind every time I see pics of the new model
-
progress?
-
Oddgrim has not been present since a couple of months so I guess that we will have to wait until he comes back. Then we can expect some updates on the projects he was making.
Please be patient.
-
Seriously, stop asking for progress reports. Do you think people go "oh someone asked if there's progress, now I can show everything I've done."?
People don't need you to remind them to update their model threads. If they've done something, they'll show it.
-
Seriously, stop asking for progress reports. Do you think people go "oh someone asked if there's progress, now I can show everything I've done."?
People don't need you to remind them to update their model threads. If they've done something, they'll show it.
I don't really agree with this position. I don't think that its uncommon for projects to be pushed to the back burner and then quietly forgotten by modders - I do it all the time. A quick post on a thread might be enough to remind a modder about this or that cool old project that they were working on, and the knowledge that other people are still excited for it might possibly help motivated them to finish it.
Sure, a single word post might not be the best way to go about it, and obviously pestering people every few days would be counter predictive, but if there's not been a post in a long time on a thread that you're excited about, I don't see the harm in a gentle, encouraging prod.
-
Speaking as a modeler, when I make decent progress on a model, I'm rather looking forward to seeing what people think of it. I neither need nor want to be prodded about model progress, because when I've got something to show, I'll want to show it.
It's not like it's been years. If Oddgrim hasn't posted anything, he's probably busy (which he is, since IIRC he's working on that Lord of Rigel project). I don't think he needs to be reminded he has FSO models in progress. I certainly wouldn't.
-
Speaking as a modeler, when I make decent progress on a model, I'm rather looking forward to seeing what people think of it. I neither need nor want to be prodded about model progress, because when I've got something to show, I'll want to show it.
It's not like it's been years. If Oddgrim hasn't posted anything, he's probably busy (which he is, since IIRC he's working on that Lords of Rigel project). I don't think he needs to be reminded he has FSO models in progress. I certainly wouldn't.
Your experience isn't the only one though. Also speaking as a modeller, I've finished projects that I had effectively forgotten about because someone reminded me about them.
Again, I'm not encouraging people to bump threads every week, our over and over again. There has to be a degree of common sense utilized, as with anything. But I've seen you make similar posts a couple of times now and, given that these kinda of little topic bumps are easily ignored and don't hurt anyone, I wanted to take this one as an opportunity to make it clear that "No progress requests" isn't any kind of hard and fast rule around here.
-
Alright, duly noted.
-
You know, looking at this, I am somewhat confused as to just what ISN'T finished.
The model is complete has a working texture and from the browser preview it looks to have shine, glow and normal maps.
I know oddgrim mentioned something about adding more grime around the engines, but I can't see anyone noticing it that much once in game, and even if it ISN'T finished, it already looks tons better than what's in the game now.
So, yeah, aside from final "it's only 98% perfect" nitpicks and converting it for FSO use, what progress is there TO be made?
-
Probably LODs and debris, which can be fairly time consuming.
-
Probably LODs and debris, which can be fairly time consuming.
Obviously not, as they actually aren't. Even good looking debris with different texture and some more details like parts of ship skeleton poking off from parts of the ship are 30 minutes of work. Every modeller can do it.
-
IIRC, this was being textured by Oddgrim who seems to have quit FS again for now. I have a bunch of his unfinished models and textures.. but he never specified a use-case for if they could be released or finished. So...
Not sure if I have this one though.
-
It is nearing completion :)
(http://i1293.photobucket.com/albums/b590/lolaldanee/screen0008_zpsytilgx4r.png~original)
(http://i1293.photobucket.com/albums/b590/lolaldanee/screen0009_zps2sgib9ww.png~original)
-
What's up with all of the black streaks everywhere?
-
Finally!!!
(https://media.giphy.com/media/11sBLVxNs7v6WA/giphy.gif)
-
This just looks as much awesome as a block can look ever look.
Black streaks? Where?
-
The pixelation of the green bit at the bow is awful. Rest of the model: Woo. Also, I see 'em. I think that's an effect of coloring and lighting.
But... was there ever a turret on the top of the bow? :wtf:
-
I guess it needs some final adjustments. As far as I know, this is not a final version of the texture. Missing panelling in a few sections is not a big deal. Overall coloring at the other hand, is. Maybe try to make some details and armor plates darker? It's not a good thing to have single color at every part of the ship. Yup, I'm looking at Erebus right now :P.
It's already briliant, anyway :yes: :D. I can't wait to see it released!
-
The textures are final, at least from my side
Getting Oddgrims textures to work in PBR was a lot of trial and error with this one, this is already the 3rd try, by far the best one so far, and i am not going to do it again (Nothing against Oddgrims textures, they are great, and just never were made with PBR in mind, so it took some fiddling)
The rather not so paneled part at the end is also the place for the nameplates, so more variety is going to be there with those on
all this weird green tint is just reflections from the mainhall "skybox", that shows on the more reflective part of the texture
-
some shots in action:
(http://i1293.photobucket.com/albums/b590/lolaldanee/screen0011_zpsb4qojjz4.png~original)
(http://i1293.photobucket.com/albums/b590/lolaldanee/screen0010_zpsr1oqcwip.png~original)
-
Please tell me I need to wear my glasses and that I am not seeing an AAA beam shoot through the textures.
Other than that, it's a lovely vessel.
-
Please tell me I need to wear my glasses and that I am not seeing an AAA beam shoot through the textures.
Other than that, it's a lovely vessel.
haha, it's the beam on the other side fireing, while the one in the front is charging ;)
-
Please tell me I need to wear my glasses and that I am not seeing an AAA beam shoot through the textures.
Other than that, it's a lovely vessel.
haha, it's the beam on the other side fireing, while the one in the front is charging ;)
So, not only do I need my glasses, but I also need to be more mindful of animations.
Well...The Mothership is standing by.
-
Black streaks? Where?
(http://i.imgur.com/12GPsjk.png)
They seem to be on a lot of the edges, there's some of this towards the front as well.
edit: also I'd suggest making the nose "warpaint" more blue so it matches the blue reactor glow better. The teal clashes with the blue too much in my opinion.
-
Cannot unsee.
At first I thought they where shadow effects but...
-
that's just more polished metal (edge wear), facing a direction where there is no specular reflection from the sun, so it reflects just the skymap, which here is almost completely black
this effect is a lot less on all the other metal surface of the ship, since it is a lot rougher, but it is still there
the ambient lighting in a mission does not apply to the reflection texture with our current PBR renderer i think (no idea if that is how it is supposed to be, actually), and since metals have an almost completely black diffuse, every surface that does not receive direct specular light thus appears as black, especially quite polished metal
-
I'm not so sure the edge wear is achieving the look you're going after. Right now it just looks like half-broken cel-shading/outline shader. It may be easiest to just remove it?
Aside from that, I'm loving that matte metal look on the rest of the cruiser. I also don't mind the green war paint at the front.
-
the ambient lighting in a mission does not apply to the reflection texture with our current PBR renderer i think (no idea if that is how it is supposed to be, actually)
This is the correct result. Ambient lighting only samples the diffuse color and the red channel of the ambient occlusion map while the light source calculations sample the diffuse, reflectance, and green channel of the ambient occlusion map.
The edge wear doesn't really work here because it has too much curvature influence with very little occlusion influence, so it appears in cracks where it wouldn't normally appear and is too thick with the wrong fade rate into the matte metal. I'd say ditch it, especially on the smooth edges (vertical edges on the main body that are circled in Hades post for example), as there isn't much matter in space to induce edge wear or oxidation in the first place.
-
the position of the edge wear is just where oddgrim has painted it
i might be convinced to make it a bit more rough, to make the difference between it and the rest of the ship less extreme
-
That's one route you can take. There should really only be a sudden change in the material like that if it was scratches in paint exposing the underlying metal surface, but I think we can agree that the Leviathan is largely not painted.
-
Wha? I'd assumed most surfaces on FS ships are painted.
-
Wha? I'd assumed most surfaces on FS ships are painted.
The only parts that immediately strike me as painted on the Leviathan are the war strips and the caution pattern on the missile turret. Other than that, the main surfaces never really looked painted to me.
As for the rest of the FS ships, some are definitely painted while others either aren't or it's difficult to tell.
-
Wait what why do you have to paint grey metal grey?
-
In atmosphere mostly to keep it from erosion i guess
i think most fighters like the F16/F22 that appear to be grey are actually painted, but i am not 100% sure
-
Wait what why do you have to paint grey metal grey?
paint is to protect the metal from outside effects, like erosion, rust ect.
In space there radiation, tiny objects (in asteroid fields) That would effect the surface of the hull for example.