There are quite a few people who have made models for FS. This got me thinking. At what point do you draw the line for complexity of the model?
From my experiences, making models can be at times easy and at other times hard. In general, the more complex the model, the harder. Reasonable enough. However, when I start work on a simple model, often I will want to add details to it, as the model's polygon count will be significantly lowed than that of a
However, I have also found that the more complex a hull model, especially smaller ones such as cruisers, the much greater the amount of time and effort taken to make it look good. I could go on about exponential factors, but I won't. However, these more complex models also, so far, pretty much always end up looking poorer than the simpler models. You'd think it'd be the other way around, even if the more complex version was essentially identical in overal shape. So what point does increasing complexity have?
Many people would say that it makes the model look better, by giving it a more rounded look, etc. I disagree. Clean, flat planes can have their own attraction. To me, large flat surfaces give an impression of no-nonsense design, as opposed to more 'elegant' rounded designs. That's not to say the two cannot co-exist on the same model. The Deimos and Aeolus are good examples of this. The Hecate is an example of a model that is essentially defeated by it's own complexity.
However, flat planes have a problem, in that while looking clean, they also look almost unfinished. The answer to that, I suppose, would be to add details in the form of outriggers, boxes, lumps, etc. On the other hand, this must be done carefully, in a way that gives the impression that these added sections are somehow integral to the model, instead of simply being added on to artifically raise the polygon count. For a perfect example, look at the Orion. This model is of the 'slab-sided' type, has large protusions that seemingly serve no purpose and are present with no rhyme nor reason, giving an asymmetrical, very random-looking model.
That brings us to another topic, asymmetry in the model. While assymetry is a good way to bring character to your model, it can be easily overdone or done wrong. I believe that when doning an asymmetrical model, it should pretty much be extremely asymmetrical, as in the Ravana, or not at all.
This concludes the philosophy discourse for now. Comments?