Hard Light Productions Forums
Community Projects => The FreeSpace Upgrade Project => Topic started by: Hades on March 24, 2015, 07:22:05 pm
-
Engine pylons are weak-looking because they're not done. Yes, the engines will be hollowed out. Cockpit yet to be done, mid section mostly undetailed. GTCv Deimos and GTD Orion being uvmapped.
-
Still looks like a brick. I like it. :yes:
-
I don't know if I like the hollowed out engines. But the rest is awesome and it is your model.
-
By 'hollow' I simply mean the internal greebling modeled; sort of like in the Medusa's engine blocks but overall it'll still feel like it has similar mass to the retail model in that area.
-
I almost regret when I'll destroy Ursas ;)
gj
-
GTCv Deimos and GTD Orion being uvmapped.
and the Apollo? When can I fly that beauty? WHEN, you're evil making us wait so long *cries*
====
Anyways, I think it's not too bad so far. Some engine greebling will be nice rather than the old smooth surfaces. I think the bomb launchers seem odd, though. While I can agree to some rounding off, the launchers were at least rectangular, and this strays quite a bit. The main reason that it bugs me, though is that we have seen the Ursa sitting on that surface, and those points don't seem like something you'd want to set down on. The rest is great and I can't wait to see what you do with the rest of it.
You might consider making the bottom faces closer to being equally wide.
An alternative: landing pads that restore the rectangular profile on the main body, while the missile launching mechanics can be whatever other shape.
On a side note, if I am not mistaken all 22 of the apparent missile launch points on the Ursa are assigned to banks. What are the potential effects from you modelling a different number?
-
The conversation on this will remain civilized.
Previous content now located HERE (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=89435.0)
Don't repeat it here, take it over there.
-
It's a very good start, I'm defiantly interested in seeing where you take this one Hades.
-
Looks like the Ursa to me. Great start, looking forward to seeing this develop further.
-
The conversation on this will remain civilized.
Previous content now located HERE (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=89435.0)
Don't repeat it here, take it over there.
So, you cut out all the negative criticism while leaving the positive one (and a single indecisive one)... Way to go. Just for the record, not everyone is as welcoming of the new design as the posters above, in a more decisive way, to say the least.
-
Dragon I don't think it's like that.
BirdofPrey's comment is the one that sparked off the discussion, and that post is still here and really it sums up what the issue is with the launchers. Does any of the rest of that stuff really need to be here? Does it bring anything constructive to the thread? It's just filling up the thread with posts of people arguing with each other and getting nowhere. It's not as if the stuff that got moved has been thrown out, it's still there for the discussion to continue. And Hades is obviously still working on the model. If Hades were to change something else while that discussion about the launchers was still raging on in here, it would be difficult to discuss it, or if he posted something about something else it would just get swamped in the posts about the launchers.
-
Cut the crap Dragon. That wasn't constructive criticism in the slightest, and the modeler is in no way beholden to listen to you rant about it. If you have a problem with moderation use a PM.
-
I think my post was constructive rather than destructive, so I'll risk reposting it here:
The angled and rounded missile launchers are aesthetically pleasing... which the Ursa shouldn't be in my opinion. It was a very utilitarian and somewhat rushed job built mainly to carry the Harbinger and as many of them as possible, so changing the design to something more elegant doesn't really seem to fit the idea behind the ship for me.
If you don't want to make the pods fully rectangular, Spoon has posted this (http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/s490/kingspoon/Untitled_zpsx0lwlcgv.png~original) alternative (I favour the left, broader missile pod) in the split-off section, which seems like a reasonable compromise between your and the original variants.
That's not to say the model is bad, quite the contrary, it is very nice work, it's just doesn't quite fit my idea of what the Ursa should be like.
-
I am thinking making the inside of the launcher come to a right angle while keeping the bevel on the outer side could be a good compromise. The angular inside does keep some of the blockiness, and leaves a broad flat surface on the bottom for the ship to sit on, while at the same time, the outer bevel could mirror the top to give some visual continuity and also prevent the ship from being too fat and square.
I do agree looking like a rush job hacked together does fit the profile of the ship, but it doesn't have to be a bunch of boxes bolted together. Some angling is good, it's just at this point, the bottom of the launchers don't seem to jive with the rest of the design (even with the slight curve to the main hull and the beveled corners, the main hull is still relatively rectangular), or the fact it sits on the launchers from what we have seen. Those cowlings on the top look great, and mirroring the overall shape would be a good starting point for the bottom.
-
You know, I actually thought the opposite: I'd prefer a hard corner on the outside and a bevel on the inner edges.
-
I don't understand why people think a ship designed in a hurry needs to look like little Timmy pieced it together from bits of scrap he found outside. Real life fighters and bombers designed in a hurry don't look hacked together, and that's because the airframe is probably the simplest part of aircraft design.
The complex part is what you put inside the airframe. Engines, sensors, stuff like that. The Ursa being a rushed bomber doesn't mean every piece of it was designed in a hurry. It means the designers would go looking for previously designed systems they could use instead of starting from scratch. Maybe they took the sensors and fire control off the Athena, the engines off the Valkyrie, and the reactor from a Medusa. The box that holds it all together? That's trivial. The Germans had the Me-262's airframe done long before they had working engines to put on it. Which is why it didn't look like a cobbled together POS.
I'll add that the GTA probably started the design process years before the thing made it to the front lines.
Anyway, I like Spoon's edit more than the curved pods because it fits in better with the rest of the ship's sharp lines.
-
Anyway, I like Spoon's edit more than the curved pods because it fits in better with the rest of the ship's sharp lines.
I'd just like to second this. I'll take the change over how it was previously, but I do think it clashes pretty badly with the rest of the ship, and Spoon's edit is much better.
-
I don't understand why people think a ship designed in a hurry needs to look like little Timmy pieced it together from bits of scrap he found outside. Real life fighters and bombers designed in a hurry don't look hacked together, and that's because the airframe is probably the simplest part of aircraft design.
It's not just the design though. Compromises may be needed also to enable quick manufacturing capacity ramp-up.
-
I don't understand why people think a ship designed in a hurry needs to look like little Timmy pieced it together from bits of scrap he found outside. Real life fighters and bombers designed in a hurry don't look hacked together, and that's because the airframe is probably the simplest part of aircraft design.
It's not just the design though. Compromises may be needed also to enable quick manufacturing capacity ramp-up.
This isn't how mass manufacturing works. Hell, this isn't even how engineering works. If you want a good example of mass manufacturing, look at the US Sherman tank design; which used shared parts, were very modular, and very easy to maintain. Was it thrown together with spare planks and duct tape found behind the designer's house? No, it used welding and metal like any 'special' or non-mass produced tank there was.
Another point to note is that no-where in retail FreeSpace des it say that the Ursa, was in fact, designed and rushed into production in a rush (or even after The Great War broke out), to my knowledge.
Anyway, I'm not making the pods anything short of tapered towards the end. I'm still debating keeping it curved or making it look like Spoon's suggestion. Either way, the shape of the pods being tapered like they originally were showed as and as they are now benefits the ship's profile in my eyes. It gives it character, it makes it more than a lumpy, blocky mass of boxes; it even makes it look somewhat intimidating - which it is, to capitalships.
-
Considering there aren't any other curves that actually stand out (I know most of the hull has a gentle curve, but it's not overly noticeable), I think having curved bottoms clashes with the design just as much as those sharp points (again, not seen elsewhere on the design).
What did you think of the idea to keep the taper, but just on one side?
I can do a mockup myself, but GIMP was being a pain in the ass earlier.
-
it makes it more than a lumpy, blocky mass of boxes;
That's my problem with it. A blocky mass of boxes is the quintessential character of the Ursa. I have a feeling that :v: wanted it to be that way, too. The new model just looks too sleek. And it's not only about the pods (though they're the most visible part of this problem), I've found a lot more places which have more intricate shapes than they really need to.
Sherman tank design; which used shared parts, were very modular, and very easy to maintain. Was it thrown together with spare planks and duct tape found behind the designer's house? No, it used welding and metal like any 'special' or non-mass produced tank there was.
The thing here is that, simply put, curves are harder to make than cylinders, which are harder to make than straight pieces. That general rule applies everywhere, unless you're working with plastics (which you can thermally form into arbitrary shapes). The wiki page says, at least, that it was designed towards the end of the Great War, so it would be rushed, what with the future of the human race being at stake. At the very least, it would be designed for rapid manufacturing. Welding plates together at right angles is much easier than warping them into complex shapes. It should not look shoddy, but it should have a no-nonsense, no frills appearance.
Now, it's true that the airframe is the simplest part of making a new aircraft, but it's the only thing you have in FS. You can't show that avionics are off the shelf stuff (or adapted from earlier craft with little modification), or that the use of internal space is inefficient to allow for quicker manufacturing. The looks of the ship have to send the right message. IRL stuff doesn't often look rushed even if it is, but FS stuff has to, because we wouldn't be able to tell otherwise.
-
The thing here is that, simply put, curves are harder to make than cylinders, which are harder to make than straight pieces. That general rule applies everywhere, unless you're working with plastics (which you can thermally form into arbitrary shapes).
You're wrong. The earlier models of Sherman used a cast hull that was extremely curvy because it was easier and faster to make than a welded one (and the terrible riveted hulls the M3 used).
-
This might be a little oot, though still somewhat related: Have we ever gotten any bits of backstory about how hulls for fighter-/bomber-size ships are made in FS?
-
Considering that vasudans use their fighters as disposable, I guess producing curved shapes is not difficult. At least for them.
Also, the russian T26 pre-WWII tank, looked like this:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/T-26_in_Kirovsk.JPG/320px-T-26_in_Kirovsk.JPG)
while the T34-85 dessigned in the middle of the war looked like this:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/Flickr_-_Gaspa_-_Cairo%2C_museo_militare_%284%29.jpg/320px-Flickr_-_Gaspa_-_Cairo%2C_museo_militare_%284%29.jpg)
So don't tell me blocky equals mass production or desperate situation, cause if anyone has been in a rush to produce tanks with limited ressources, it was the russians circa 1943.
-
Didn't we split this thread into GD already? Also, Dragon, they're not making these things by hand(duh), they're most likely mass-produced in factories by machines which can bend a sheet of metal any way you want them to. Yes, the Ursa is really big, but it's not the actual steel construction of the ship that's limiting production. It's probably the complex fire control and other electrical systems, the engine needed to power something that heavy, etc.
Project Ursa is mentioned in act3-m4, and all that's said is that R&D has almost completed "project Ursa", an attempt to make a new type of bomber specifically designed to take down capital ships.
Nothing is said about when the project started(for all we know might've been a project from the T-V war) in that briefing or the techroom. Saying the Ursa had to be rushed because it was completed towards the end of the game is pure conjecture and there's really no evidence suggesting it was or wasn't rushed.
-
No, we didn't. The discussion split was an offtopic debate somewhat related to Ursa, not an attempt to censor the dissenters. This is feedback on the model itself and very much not the same discussion.
You're wrong. The earlier models of Sherman used a cast hull that was extremely curvy because it was easier and faster to make than a welded one (and the terrible riveted hulls the M3 used).
In a time before robotic assembly lines, yes. Casting was faster back then, when welding had to be done by hand, not with robotic arms. Welding is easier (and cheaper) than bending for machines. FS is not WWII, they're not making this stuff by hand. Mass producing plates and assembling them later is easier than making various single-purpose curved pieces.
guess what dargon
it's still boxy
while actually looking good
checkmate athetits
It's neither, really. It's much sleeker than the original, while not actually looking all that good (detailed=/=pretty, even though detail is generally a good thing to have). The latter is a subjective opinion, but the former is not.
What I am concerned about is that the shape sends the wrong message. The original Ursa looked and handled like a brick. It just seemed perfectly shaped for what it was. This upgrade adds a lot of smooth surfaces, ending up looking much faster and agile, as well as more "refined" than it should.
-
If only vehicle manufacturers knew that they could substantially cut down on their costs by building only straight lines with no curves. You could have saved car companies so much money.
You need to get it into your head that your notion that curves are hard to produce is nothing but your imagination. Stamping and casting are really easy ways of producing curved metal plates, and also probably the cheapest ways to make a 3d metal shape. This was true 70 years ago, and it's still true today. Robots or no, welding tends to require more metal and more time. If anything, robots make curves easier to produce. Stamping is pretty much the easiest and cheapest way to get a metal plate into a desired shape, especially when mass-producing.
And what The Dagger said. If making curves was an issue, why would the Vasudans make their cheap, disposable fighters all curvy?
Oh, BTW, if Volition had wanted the Ursa to be cheap and easy to make, why is it that the Freespace Reference Bible says "These ships cost more to make than it takes to buy a small moon."? Unless you're going to start saying that small moons are really, really cheap in the GTA, seems to me the Ursa isn't meant to be a cheap ship at all.
It also says the Harbinger was designed specifically for the Ursa, and there's nothing to indicate the Harbinger is a new weapon. Actually "3 salted fission bombs" and "most effective when used in preemptive defensive strike against non-military installations." makes me think it's a dirty bomb designed more for orbital bombardment. Not terribly necessary against Shivans.
All this points to a design cycle a fair bit longer than the few months the Great War lasted. It probably started a few years before FS1, and only finished recently.
-
Oh, BTW, if Volition had wanted the Ursa to be cheap and easy to make, why is it that the Freespace Reference Bible says "These ships cost more to make than it takes to buy a small moon."? Unless you're going to start saying that small moons are really, really cheap in the GTA, seems to me the Ursa isn't meant to be a cheap ship at all.
Not cheap, quick to produce. It might cost, the idea is that it's quick to make. The idea with angular shapes is that the hull can consist of many similar pieces, which are then welded into shape. So you can have one line cranking out pieces which can be used multiple times in a single spaceframe, instead of multiple separate lines for each individual piece. Curves make that hard to achieve. And even if curves were cheaper IRL, they don't look like they are. Realism isn't the goal here. The goal here is to make Ursa "send the right message". It doesn't matter if it makes sense after you think about it and do some research later. This is not a realistic game, so what matter is what people "intuitively" think.
Oh, and there are different considerations to designing cars than just manufacturing the body. Aerodynamics and aesthetics bring in much more money than cheaper techniques for making the body would save. Cars are not space bombers, different criteria apply there (indeed, they're very heavy aesthetic features, something Ursa should be completely devoid of).
And what The Dagger said. If making curves was an issue, why would the Vasudans make their cheap, disposable fighters all curvy?
Because they use different manufacturing techniques (and likely materials, for that matter) than humans. We don't know what their ships are made of, but it doesn't look like metal. Also, again, aesthetics. Vasudan fighters are fast and nimble compared to Terran ones. So they have to look fast, nimble and Vasudan. They do a fairly good job at that, too.
-
Why are we even discussing this?
-
Because dragon
-
Oh, BTW, if Volition had wanted the Ursa to be cheap and easy to make, why is it that the Freespace Reference Bible says "These ships cost more to make than it takes to buy a small moon."? Unless you're going to start saying that small moons are really, really cheap in the GTA, seems to me the Ursa isn't meant to be a cheap ship at all.
Not cheap, quick to produce. It might cost, the idea is that it's quick to make. The idea with angular shapes is that the hull can consist of many similar pieces, which are then welded into shape. So you can have one line cranking out pieces which can be used multiple times in a single spaceframe, instead of multiple separate lines for each individual piece. Curves make that hard to achieve. And even if curves were cheaper IRL, they don't look like they are. Realism isn't the goal here. The goal here is to make Ursa "send the right message". It doesn't matter if it makes sense after you think about it and do some research later. This is not a realistic game, so what matter is what people "intuitively" think.
The Ursa is an expensive, very modern heavy bomber. Making the Ursa look like a ramshackle mess of boxes produced in the designer's shed does not send the right message. It makes it look cheap and generally pretty ****ty. By FS1 standards, that's the exact opposite of what it is.
Believe it or not, some people think "advanced super-heavy bomber" is a more defining feature of the Ursa than "designed at the end of the Great War according to this blurb that isn't even in either of its tech descriptions".
-
Gentlemen, please keep your discussion focused on your critique of the Ursa, not the people posting in the thread.
-
@Aesar: I could be wrong, but wasn't it mentioned in one of the FS1 Command Briefs that the Harbinger was originally built as a warhead for planetary assaults (which I interpreted as meaning Orbital Bombardment) and because it was too big to launch by established bombers they had to build the Ursa so they could use it in space too?
If so, the Harbinger did indeed predate the Ursa... unless I'm misremembering here.
-
Because dragon
I thought you were on my side this time! :) Didn't you disagree with the design as well, for the same reasons, even? :)
The Ursa is an expensive, very modern heavy bomber. Making the Ursa look like a ramshackle mess of boxes produced in the designer's shed does not send the right message. It makes it look cheap and generally pretty ****ty. By FS1 standards, that's the exact opposite of what it is.
Believe it or not, some people think "advanced super-heavy bomber" is a more defining feature of the Ursa than "designed at the end of the Great War according to this blurb that isn't even in either of its tech descriptions".
How many times I have to remind you of this? There's nothing "ramshackle" about being boxy. It is rugged, quick to make and packs a lot of armor, at the expense of maneuverability. It has also been designed and produced in a desperate situation. It is not fast, it is not maneuverable, nor does it have any fancy super high-tech stuff. This thing made tradeoffs to get its firepower. The "super-heavy" part needs to be emphasized here, not the "advanced" part. From the gameplay standpoint, it is the heaviest thing you can fly, and it is as far from a sleek interceptor as possible. It should look like it. That you can't imagine an angular design looking like anything but ramshackle doesn't mean it's impossible to make it something else. Ursa is though, heavy, utilitarian, rugged, slow and inagile. The design should reflect those qualities. That means the "rock tumbler" approach does not work well here (and certainly not something that reduces internal volume of the torpedo pods, the very thing the design should maximize).
I know I opposed bringing in Vasudans into the discussion, but now I remember they do actually have one craft that could be compared here: Oddgrim's Amun. It is the Vasudan Ursa equivalent and shares many of its characteristics. IMO, that one is done perfectly. It still looks like a box, but it's a pretty box. :) It keeps the original outline in its entirety, with only slight smoothing out to get rid of perfect sharp angles. That's not to say it doesn't have curves, but they follow the lines of the original model and make it look distinctively Vasudan (quite important with that particular model, and even then, it still looks a lot like a Terran ship when untextured).
-
Anyway, Ursa has it's exceptional looks that makes it immediately recognizable even from distance - the design is spiced up with a pinch of wtf.
As long as that aspect is conserved there should be no problems.
-
@Aesar: I could be wrong, but wasn't it mentioned in one of the FS1 Command Briefs that the Harbinger was originally built as a warhead for planetary assaults (which I interpreted as meaning Orbital Bombardment) and because it was too big to launch by established bombers they had to build the Ursa so they could use it in space too?
If so, the Harbinger did indeed predate the Ursa... unless I'm misremembering here.
The FS Reference Bible explicitly says that the Harbinger was designed with the Ursa in mind. I can't check FS1 briefings because doing so would require me to play FS1 again, and **** that ****.
Anyway, the conclusion I draw from this is that the Ursa is a ship that's been in the pipe for a long time.
How many times I have to remind you of this? There's nothing "ramshackle" about being boxy. It is rugged, quick to make and packs a lot of armor, at the expense of maneuverability. It has also been designed and produced in a desperate situation. It is not fast, it is not maneuverable, nor does it have any fancy super high-tech stuff. This thing made tradeoffs to get its firepower. The "super-heavy" part needs to be emphasized here, not the "advanced" part. From the gameplay standpoint, it is the heaviest thing you can fly, and it is as far from a sleek interceptor as possible. It should look like it. That you can't imagine an angular design looking like anything but ramshackle doesn't mean it's impossible to make it something else. Ursa is though, heavy, utilitarian, rugged, slow and inagile. The design should reflect those qualities. That means the "rock tumbler" approach does not work well here (and certainly not something that reduces internal volume of the torpedo pods, the very thing the design should maximize).
Uh, yeah, it probably does have a fair amount of fancy high-tech stuff compared to the other FS1 bombers. I still have no idea why you'd think it wouldn't. It's the GTA's newest, strongest heavy bomber, and you think it'll be packing less advanced systems than a Medusa? Volition says it costs more than a small moon. What do you think makes it so expensive? The paint?
Making the Ursa less boxy and squarish does not make it seem lighter and more agile. That isn't something tied to how many sharp lines a ship has. Boxy has nothing to do with rugged, tough, or slow, and you need to look at more military hardware if you think it does. Especially Soviet tanks.
-
Making the Ursa less boxy and squarish does not make it seem lighter and more agile.
Actually, in this case it does. Those diagonals in the pods *do* make it look more nimble and less resistant. You may say that as the pods are now, make it look "cooler" or "more beautiful", and that's fair (although I disagree). But you can certainly notice that it looses it's "hulk" feel, with trapezoid pods. The message that comes across in the original is certainly different from this one's.
I know that's not the way physics and\or engineering work in real life, but I can't really take realism into account when it comes to Freespace, since Freespace is everything but realistic. And also keep in mind that I'm making this comment completely detached from any FS lore, too. All I'm talking about is the visual read. :)
-
Pretty much it. The curves and tapering might look "cooler" (though they don't, IMO), but the message it sends does come across as very different from the original.
Making the Ursa less boxy and squarish does not make it seem lighter and more agile. That isn't something tied to how many sharp lines a ship has. Boxy has nothing to do with rugged, tough, or slow, and you need to look at more military hardware if you think it does. Especially Soviet tanks.
Looks like everyone needs to look at more military hardware, then. Sorry, but realism does not apply here. Just because a WWII tank geek would not consider straight, sharp lines though and rugged doesn't mean everyone wouldn't. In fact, I think most people would. Just look at SUV designs, which are meant to evoke similar qualities. They also tend to have curves, but that's because they want to come across as modern as well (actual sharp angles were a staple of the '70s cars and look very outdated today), which you can try to do with Ursa, just with relative moderation. Remember that it's not actually a SUV, so it shouldn't look like the designer was actually trying to make it pretty (even though the actual designer very much did... :)).
Ursa never resembled "actual military hardware" of any sort, so things that might have been true about WWII tanks do not apply. And people (aside from you, it'd seem) don't usually compare futuristic space fighters to WWII tanks, either. Space fighters have little to do with cars in universe (about as much as with tanks, really), but out of it, it turns out many things about car design do apply. The model needs to send the right message because in the end, the shape is all you will ever have in game. It should imply things that were explicitly said in fluff.
-
Maybe it would be better if Hades makes 2 versions? :doubt: These missile pods don't look like they are gonna be detailed more so it may be a good thing to make the curvy and rectangular versions. Seems like a simple solution which would satisfy everyone. Of course if Hades doesn't, I will do it ASAP when the model is released.
-
Looks like everyone needs to look at more military hardware, then. Sorry, but realism does not apply here. Just because a WWII tank geek would not consider straight, sharp lines though and rugged doesn't mean everyone wouldn't. In fact, I think most people would. Just look at SUV designs, which are meant to evoke similar qualities. They also tend to have curves, but that's because they want to come across as modern as well (actual sharp angles were a staple of the '70s cars and look very outdated today), which you can try to do with Ursa, just with relative moderation. Remember that it's not actually a SUV, so it shouldn't look like the designer was actually trying to make it pretty (even though the actual designer very much did... :)).
Ursa never resembled "actual military hardware" of any sort, so things that might have been true about WWII tanks do not apply. And people (aside from you, it'd seem) don't usually compare futuristic space fighters to WWII tanks, either. Space fighters have little to do with cars in universe (about as much as with tanks, really), but out of it, it turns out many things about car design do apply. The model needs to send the right message because in the end, the shape is all you will ever have in game. It should imply things that were explicitly said in fluff.
Ah, so looking at real life things that actually were bulky, rugged, and tough, like tanks, in an effort to make a ship carry those qualities is somehow a negative and doesn't apply. Ok, well, that's an... er, interesting opinion, but it explains a great deal about your approach to visual design.
You and I are never going to see eye-to-eye on this, so I'm calling it here. I no longer have the patience to deal with this ****.
Maybe it would be better if Hades makes 2 versions? :doubt: These missile pods don't look like they are gonna be detailed more so it may be a good thing to make the curvy and rectangular versions. Seems like a simple solution which would satisfy everyone. Of course if Hades doesn't, I will do it ASAP when the model is released.
I see no reason why Hades should increase his workload taking the model in a direction he doesn't like. You can do it though.
-
Someone has already noted that it would be an utterly trivial exercise to swap out the missile pods for a different design if one so chose, which makes this entire discussion moot anyway.
-
The missile pods on my model are not going to move away from being tapered, period. It gives it an aggressive look, which I think fits the Ursa more than boring and primitive. I may undo the curve and make it more like Spoon's suggestion, but I will not be removing the taper.
-
Someone has already noted that it would be an utterly trivial exercise to swap out the missile pods for a different design if one so chose, which makes this entire discussion moot anyway.
It might seem trivial to someone who IS a modeler, but to other people it is not trivial. And that's just the model itself. Changing something from rounded to blocky would mess up the texture at the very least and suddenly this supposedly trivial task is actually two tasks, requiring different programs and skills. Then there's also UVmapping and possibly glowpoints too. The firing points might have to be ajusted as well...
Maybe to someone like you or Hades this seems trivial, but from my layman's perspective this seems far from an easy task.
-
But the reality is that it is easy to a fair number of community members. If the pods are too much of a departure, to the point that they're a problem when the model is finalised, someone will likely change it. And once that version of the model is around, then it'll probably be available for anyone that wants to use it.
-
POF editing is easy enough, the real hard part is taking a complete model and adjusting the mesh and the UVs. Thankfully, there's a modeler who's willing to do it, so looks like we're in luck. :) When Hades is done with it (not saying "finished", I know how that usually goes :)), Col.Hornet will probably step in. It would be especially funny if his version ended up being done first...
The missile pods on my model are not going to move away from being tapered, period. It gives it an aggressive look, which I think fits the Ursa more than boring and primitive. I may undo the curve and make it more like Spoon's suggestion, but I will not be removing the taper.
It would be a good idea to try Spoon's idea, because the current version isn't even that good looking. The current taper lightens the bomber too much from the bottom and looks just plain out of place (literally, the only 45 degree angle like that on the entire front profile, on something that is mostly right angles). Indeed, I think that overtly aggressive look doesn't fit that particular design. It looks halfway between the "implacable and heavy" look and "fast attacker" one, sending a mixed message (it has a "fast" front/back and "slow" sides). Note, all this is regardless of what this model is supposed to be.
Ah, so looking at real life things that actually were bulky, rugged, and tough, like tanks, in an effort to make a ship carry those qualities is somehow a negative and doesn't apply. Ok, well, that's an... er, interesting opinion, but it explains a great deal about your approach to visual design.
The thing is, tanks are a diverse lot and certainly not the first thing people think of when looking at space fighters (and Ursa is not designed to explicitly evoke a tank). See "reality is unrealistic" effect. FS is not ArmA, and the perception of how something is "supposed" to look is more important than what something would actually look like IRL. That's my point. It doesn't matter if the biggest lumbering behemoth actually fielded in WWII had a lot of curves or not. It matters that right angles and flat surfaces are associated with toughness and ruggedness.
TBH, even when thinking of tanks, most people will picture the (very angular) M1 Abrams, unless they live far enough east to think of round-turreted Soviet/Russian ones instead (or in Israel, which uses the Merkava, which is angular like the Abrams). The modern tanks are also notably missing the "slow" part (they're anything but).
-
Boxiness and right angles are not associated with ruggedness and toughness in my mind because from an engineering standpoint they're anything but. The IS-3 is angled and curved and looks rugged and tough, and it is also tough, because angled armor is one hell of a thing when it comes to actually being effective against enemy tank rounds.
Of course in space this also changes somewhat, in 3D space, angles tend to lose value over curvature. You still wouldn't design a box because a box will still be exploited, but a cylindrical design has a lot of benefits, including acting as angled armor when struct toward the end of thes curve.
-
From my point of view it's not about armour at all ;) 1'st. Shivans are not firing at us with AP tank shells. In FS we are facing energy weapons and explosive warheads from rockets (some of them however are piercing the armour before detonation, like Harpoons) I'm standing for rectangular pods because:
-it's more retail (but nevermind :P, do as you wish)
- Ursa's capacity is impressive. These pods are really looking like they can really carry a lot of ordnance. It's more about the space inside then armour. Cube has bigger volume then tapered block, so maybe you should stay with the curved version. It will make the visual "loss of space inside" smaller.
-
if it's so easy to model, uvmap and texture a variant design why is hades waiting on about 3 other people to do it for his
-
because it's not my responsibility nor my job to model a version I disagree with? I don't get how this can't get through that thick skull of yours, we've had this discussion before several times.
You have to remember how it works, you can disagree with my opinions and vision all you want, but I can also disagree to change my model to fit those if I disagree. VasudanAdmiral, Raven, and Aesaar are people who are good at giving constructive criticism when they disagree with an aspect of a model and they understand this too; just because they say something doesn't mean the model will fit to change their view. Just as I don't expect them to change their model just because I may not like something about theirs.
Of course if you never get this concept I'll not be surprised, I remember you telling me to basically take over Aesaar's Titan over a couple of uncurved lines.
From my point of view it's not about armour at all ;) 1'st. Shivans are not firing at us with AP tank shells. In FS we are facing energy weapons and explosive warheads from rockets (some of them however are piercing the armour before detonation, like Harpoons) I'm standing for rectangular pods because:
-it's more retail (but nevermind :P, do as you wish)
- Ursa's capacity is impressive. These pods are really looking like they can really carry a lot of ordnance. It's more about the space inside then armour. Cube has bigger volume then tapered block, so maybe you should stay with the curved version. It will make the visual "loss of space inside" smaller.
The latter point is a very good point. I'll have to think about this.
-
OK what I was trying to say is that making your own personal variant of the model clearly isn't the five-second job some people are making it out to be.
-
Changing the pods is a 5 minutes change if you start from a finalized model. The reason there are so many models in FSU that require UVmapping, texturing and convertion is because those have to be done entirely. Doing an entire UVmap, texture and conversion takes weeks. Changing the UVs and adjusting the texture does not (if you know what you are doing). If you don't know how to do it, maybe you shouldn't be giving your opinion after some other modellers have already said so.
Finally, if the FSU demands the model to follow Spoon's drawing instead of whatever Hades comes up with, I'll ****ing do the change myself, so stop whining about it! :mad:
-
FSU will not make such a demand unless the curve or whatever you all are arguing about significantly alters retail mission balance.
I say significantly because it must be measurable and reproduceable. I don't want to see mission balance arguments popping up without irrefutable data to support it.
A good example is the two Saths a while back. One of them had turrets in very different locations from retail due to the new model's geometry, so we had no choice but to disqualify it.
-
Speaking of which. No one answered my question earlier.
While I like the look of the large bomb points on this model, will the fact it has less spots for missile launch points cause any issues?
-
Having played FS1 first, i actually feel some bizarre fondness towards Ursas, so i'm glad it's getting such a lovely upgrade.
(But you must make the missile pods completely cylindrical, to minimize the surface-to-volume ratio and to achieve the classically intimidating revolver look. Won't be any good otherwise.)
-
Speaking of which. No one answered my question earlier.
While I like the look of the large bomb points on this model, will the fact it has less spots for missile launch points cause any issues?
That should have almost no impact on gameplay.
-
FSU will not make such a demand unless the curve or whatever you all are arguing about significantly alters retail mission balance.
I say significantly because it must be measurable and reproduceable. I don't want to see mission balance arguments popping up without irrefutable data to support it.
A good example is the two Saths a while back. One of them had turrets in very different locations from retail due to the new model's geometry, so we had no choice but to disqualify it.
Man, the way you phrased that makes it seem like the FSU is like the DoD Joint Strike Fighter competition between defense contractors or something. :P
-
FSU will not make such a demand unless the curve or whatever you all are arguing about significantly alters retail mission balance.
I say significantly because it must be measurable and reproduceable. I don't want to see mission balance arguments popping up without irrefutable data to support it.
A good example is the two Saths a while back. One of them had turrets in very different locations from retail due to the new model's geometry, so we had no choice but to disqualify it.
Man, the way you phrased that makes it seem like the FSU is like the DoD Joint Strike Fighter competition between defense contractors or something. :P
Just trying to be clear and impartial when I'm representing FSU as a whole. :)
-
(But you must make the missile pods completely cylindrical, to minimize the surface-to-volume ratio and to achieve the classically intimidating revolver look. Won't be any good otherwise.)
I like the cut of your jib.
-
This isn't totally dead.
Finally did the cockpit, which I redesigned because the vanilla cockpit design was pretty ugly and also made the thing look like it was half the size or so and I fixed up parts of the main hull as well.
-
Nice, I suppose. It really gives it this "next generation bomber" look, if you know what I mean...
It really does make it look big, though. I didn't quite realize just how ginormous this thing was.
-
While tweaking the canopy to accentuate the size of the craft is a good idea, I would be hesitant about designing a canopy that appears to restrict the pilots' view. This is a 4 place bird correct? Pilot/copilot front and weapons officer/navigator back?
By reducing the vertical space instead of the top I think the cockpit canopy would give the impression of mass without appearing to cram the crews' view of the battlespace.
Below is just a MS scribble but I hope it illustrates the jist of my point:
(http://i67.tinypic.com/6693ep.png)
-
Good to see the bear alive and kicking :) I like what you've made with the canopy so far, though I second Slayer's opinion. A little more glass would be better.
-
I don't think you can fit two people side-to-side comfortably in the front. The two meter long block has the general proportions of a human that tall.
I was thinking the pilot in front, in the middle. Then one or two other crewmen off to one side behind him. It's heavily implied that there's high levels of automation in the FreeSpace universe so I think 4 and maybe even three crew might be pushing things a little, especially with how easily these things die.
-
I figured it was similar in size to a EA-6B but I could be wrong.
-
The Ursa is 42 meters long, 27 meters wide, and 16 meters high, so more than twice as large in any dimension.
The model is also really terrible at selling its size :P
-
The model is also really terrible at selling its size :P
hey c'mon man i'm trying
-
While tweaking the canopy to accentuate the size of the craft is a good idea, I would be hesitant about designing a canopy that appears to restrict the pilots' view. This is a 4 place bird correct? Pilot/copilot front and weapons officer/navigator back?
Just have enough room for one to put on his cowboy hat in case thermonuclear war ;)
Kidding aside, nice work so far. Keep it up
-
I thought he meant the old Ursa.
This triple primary mount needs a really powerful gun. You could fit a man in each of that barrels!
-
Got a 180cm tall pilot or so to use as a reference. I don't think you can fit two of these guys side-by-side at the front.
edit: also the 'main' guns have a diameter of 816mm, so that's something
-
Wtf is up with those engine spars
-
The model is also really terrible at selling its size :P
hey c'mon man i'm trying
I know, I meant the retail model.
Also the mediavp one, which is apparently crewed by giants.
-
Wtf is up with those engine spars
I assume its a placeholder before it gets greebledthe****up
-
Ok, now we can see how ridiculously BIG this thing is :O. It's actually just 6 meters shorter than modern day fast attack crafts I saw in the naval base during summer practices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orkan-class_fast_attack_craft
No doubt Bastion was able to deploy just 4 of them into strike against Lucy. I bet they could store 2 or 3 Hercs per 1 Ursa.
In my opinion a crew of 3 would be most convenient. Pilot, co-pilot <weapon systems officer> and engineer (actually this thing is such big that some minor repairs could be done from the inside)
-
Wtf is up with those engine spars
I assume its a placeholder before it gets greebledthe****up
That was originally the idea, but I'm a coward bastard so I ended up just filling it in instead.
Last update for today. Hull details, filled up engine pylons, and also trying out straightened engine pylons to see how they look, and they look a lot less ugly. Thoughts?
-
(http://i67.tinypic.com/zwdgg8.jpg)
JK JK :p
-
taking shape, great work man
i hate all those multy crew ship, that then always get represented as one guy in the missions :/
-
I've pretty much finalized the LOD0 mesh (p3d link above is up to date), cockpit interior is modeled (first time I've made one I'm ok with). However if anyone wants something changed, feel free to suggest something.
-
i for one would feel a lot more comfortable with the ship, if the 3 guns would be just a bit bigger than the 2, and also a bit shorter, they look quite out of proportion right now
i think at least the opening of the barrels should not be that big
-
As for the details, everything is in fine order. However I would strongly suggest to get the angled engine pylons back. It distorted the whole rear section and width proportions. I find it very weird at some angles, especially this one:
(though I understand the point of making them straight. First thing which crossed my mind was the engine thrust. Force distribution would be handled better with straight frame then angled one. Or was that only esthetic reason behind it :)? ).
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
It's surprisingly low on greebles for a Hades(tm) model.
-
i for one would feel a lot more comfortable with the ship, if the 3 guns would be just a bit bigger than the 2, and also a bit shorter, they look quite out of proportion right now
i think at least the opening of the barrels should not be that big
The three guns are bigger, the've got 816mm diameter barrels (interior) compared to the 620mm diameter interior that the two other guns have.
Also the guns are actually shorter than the retail ones. However I do see what you mean, so I added a support to the guns near the end, I think it helps.
https://p3d.in/sRuEa
As for the details, everything is in fine order. However I would strongly suggest to get the angled engine pylons back. It distorted the whole rear section and width proportions. I find it very weird at some angles, especially this one:
(though I understand the point of making them straight. First thing which crossed my mind was the engine thrust. Force distribution would be handled better with straight frame then angled one. Or was that only esthetic reason behind it :)? ).
It was for three reasons that I changed the pylons to be straight, a) aesthetic reasons, I think it looks a lot better with them straight, b) engine thrust, and c) it makes the Ursa look like it helps form Voltron
It's surprisingly low on greebles for a Hades(tm) model.
Being on WoD and making models for it helped me learn to temper myself a bit and I've grown up a bit as a person, so I no longer just look at models and go full on detailing mode.
-
the support for the guns helps a lot already, i still think the barrel opening is too big, but it looks definitely better proportioned now :)
-
May be "low" on greebles, but it's sure as heck not low on polys! How many right now, Hades? 100k?
-
WTF are you talking about? p3d says something like 16k
and even 100k would not be ridicously much these days, this is 2016!
-
WTF are you talking about? p3d says something like 16k
and even 100k would not be ridicously much these days, this is 2016!
Yes, it is. And as Star Citizen is proving all the time, having polygon budgets is a really good idea. 100k is overkill for something like a fighter or bomber.
Always consider the circumstances in which a model is used. If we were making a game with an FPS element, where a player might feasibly walk up to the fighter and inspect it close up, then extra detail is useful. But in our game, models are rarely if ever covering enough screen real estate that fine details are noticeable. Such detail would just end up sucking ressources for no good reason (A single 100k poly ship? Fine. But chances are, ships like the Ursa are not going to be deployed solo).
-
yea sure, no disagreement here, i just said it would not be ridiculously much, especially not with agressive LODing
of course it would still be a lot, and most of all pointless for reasons you stated
-
The three guns are bigger, the've got 816mm diameter barrels (interior) compared to the 620mm diameter interior that the two other guns have.
Jesus CHRIST
Following development of this model is really driving home just how utterly enormous Freespace ships actually are. I mean even those engines are like five stories tall it seems!
-
The Ursa is basically the ultimate party bus...complete with planet-cracking nukes!
-
Looks fabulous, but I'd agree with adding an appropriately sized window square above the pilot and seeing how that looks.