Hard Light Productions Forums
Hosted Projects - Standalone => Fate of the Galaxy => Topic started by: TomShak on May 31, 2011, 04:08:49 pm
-
Hello,
A long time ago Vertigo 7 started making an Assault Gunboat model ... it was going well, but we'd not heard anything in over 2 years. I'm guessing that effort has died :-(
So, being a big fan of the Assault Gunboat, and realising it's not high up the priority list I decided it was time to put my money where my mouth is and make a new model. This is a bit of a challenge, since I've never done much of it and I haven't done any in many years.
Still, here's what I've got so far:
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG1.jpg)
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG2.jpg)
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG3.jpg) (http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG4.jpg)
What do people think? Look anything like an Assault Gunboat? It obviously needs a bit more detail, and the smoothing needs work .. but hopefully it's heading in the right direction.
The model currently clocks in at 1.6K faces, although I haven't triangulated it yet so I expect it'll be nearer 3K after that. Add the remaining extra detail and I think it's looking at about 4K tris kind of size.
Feedback welcome and wanted! :)
Edit: updated the pictures to have both wings, doesn't take long and gives a better impression.
-
It looks good.
-
Not bad. But if we would want to do ballistic secondaries, you might not want to model in the missiles in those pods. It'd be easier to add them in later than take them out at least, I'd imagine.
-
Yes, missile launchers should have holes, not modelled missiles.
-
Okay, removing the missiles is very easy :) any other feedback?
Shape okay? Obviously there's no "Reference drawings" for the AG, but I've been using this one
http://tpkc-klick.com/swda/images/swda/assault_gunboat_orthos.png (http://tpkc-klick.com/swda/images/swda/assault_gunboat_orthos.png)
As a vague reference, as it didn't seem bad to me.
-
looking good so far
-
Fractalsponge did a relatively nice Gunboat. I still think it looks too rebel and not imperial enough, but here's the pics anyways. http://fractalsponge.net/gallery/Starfighters/XG1%20StarWing%20Assault%20Gunboat/index.html
My big beef with the gunboat has always been that in every iteration it looks like a rebel fighter, even down to the big red markings all over it. Had I been modeling it, I would have taken a lot more design cues from the Lambda shuttle, lots of roundness with gentle angles, as opposed to the hard corners and angles of the rebel fighters.
-
I don't know, grey and black model, looks plenty Imperial to me there.
-
I dunno - in the spirit of the nu- series of re-imagined fighters, I like the idea of using the lambda for inspiration to get this to feel more imperial. Nothing wrong with this, and it's a great start, but that might be a really good direction to go with it to make it really stand out.
-
Looks nice--I'm glad you've picked this up. One thought I had when reading brand's post was that it might be neat to see how it looked if the cockpit module were redesigned to more closely resemble the lambda. For instance, it could be reimagined as a side-by-side two seater with an unbroken black canopy and the whole front end angled down.
In addition to looking more unified with the other Cygnus Spaceworks craft, the redesign as a bulkier two-seater would have the added benefit of differentiating it from the Rebel starfighters--it would have a ton of a dedicated forward firepower, but significantly less space superiority capability than those craft, in keeping with the Imperial philosophy of specialization vs. the all-around performance of the Alliance.
Could be a really cool complement to something like the Stormtrooper Transport--a few of these going in with a DX-9 would be really terrifying for convoys.
-
This is one that you could probably change quite a bit. It feels a bit assembled for my taste. Like the designers just put some boxes and planes together, and we're meant to assume something is holding it all together.
I like the idea of making it feel more like a Lambda class shuttle. It already looks like a smaller lambda with an extra set of wings, and a bit of resemblance would go a long way towards making it feel more imperial.
I would suggest using a cockpit similar to the lambda, only make it half again as big. That way you'd have the feel of a Lambda, but the scale would be noticeably different from the Lambda.
Yeah, I'd run wild with this one if I were you. Make it yours.
-
(http://amaqbw.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pa9I1YhzD2io4Q2phvBphMu0kHQTerIghX_yQ0K4yl0OhnVdijmjMQzN2xWakQKQ-J_a7PD-xaJSWmt5uMZknyZ1-AtVhB-hM/Gunboat.jpg?psid=1)
The Assault Gunboat as presented in the orignal Totally Games sims (X-Wing/TIE Fighter) were really cool looking fighters, at least in cutscene form. The fighters had powerful, armored lines while bearing the grace of the Lambda-class shuttle. I really wish someone could capture those lines again...
:D
-
Man, when I saw "Resurrecting the Ass..." I wondered what the hell it could be XD
-
Do you think your Gunboat will have movable wings for landing like shown in the screenshot above?
I'm so glad that you're building the Gunboat. It's my favourite imperial fighter next to the TIE Avenger, TIE Defender, TIE Phantom and Missile Boat.
-
191st Imperial Fighter Wing: Munchkin Group
Notable pilots of the wing include Boba Fett, Jango Fett, Baron Soontir Fel, Grand Admiral Thrawn, the half cybernetic Darth Maul, a clone of Darth Vader, Inquisitor Eisenhorn, Corran Horn, Wedge Antilles (temporary), the kid from The Last Starfighter and Captain James T. [Thrawn] Kirk. =P
-
Re FractalSponge's interpretation. I like it but I actually think that looks even more Rebel than mine. The hard lines around the cockpit really remind me of the X-Wing.
A lot of the discussion seems to come down to the cockpit shape. Which is something I'm not sold on in my design. It looks cool enough, but I agree the cockpit is a bit rebelish.
Okay so I'll have a play with the cockpit shape a bit more. I don't think I want to stray too far from the design established in the games. I agree the design in the games doesn't look as much like the lambda shuttle as it could, but if I strays too far it won't feel like the assault gunboat to me. I'm definitely not putting any red on mine though, I agree that's way too rebel.
Thaeris: I kind of used that as a reference for some bits, but not the cockpit. I actually think that cockpit looks more like the Lambda shuttle, as it goes all the way over and curves down much like the Lambda. Do other people agree?
-
I think if you want to sell the Lambda design heritage with the cockpit, you've got to lose the struts on the canopy--those say X/Y-wing as much as anything. The Lambda's flat black panel that wraps around at the edges gives it a very distinctive look that to me says "expensive!", as opposed to the early rebel fighters, which make do with more primitively cut panels of flat transparisteel. I guess that would require flattening that section out a bit which might take things further away from the original than you want to go, but it's a thought anyway. IMO, it's good for Imperial ships to have that kind of polished look even in their design, whereas Rebel ships must look utilitarian and as easy to maintain as possible.
-
@swashmebuckle: I agree. I'm fairly happy with the nose shape, it's quite distinct from a Rebel fighter and the curvyness still gives it some Lambda heritage ... but yeah my current cockpit screams "X-Wing". I also think that the Lambda's "sweeping" cockpit is one of it's most distinctive features, so it would be good to bring that out. I actually quite like the original cutscene art from that point of view, it's got more sweep.
I'll have a play with the cockpit shape when I get some time.
-
go go assboat! I srsly hope to see this in the mod.
Ya so, wot had happened was... I moved from truespace to 3ds max, brand was giving me lots of good infos on how to make things happen... anyways, i never could get the front end to look the way i wanted it, and i discovered that UV Mapping is a royal pain in the ass and i sux0red very much bad at it so yeah..i kinda gave up on it ~.~ I am ashamed.
-
I love fractal's version, it'd sit nice in fotg. At any rate this is one of the ships that were designed for the early xwing games and was designed with then-current art specs in mind; while it should retain the basic shape a bit of reimagining and a lot of detailing should be done. So ideally, take design cues from fractalsponge's version and maybe combine it with what brand's suggested, and you'll have yourself a pretty sexy ship.
-
I love the colours and surface detail on Fractals, I definitely think I'll be pinching those ideas. I'm going to aim for a rather different hull shape though ... something much closer to the Tie Fighter cutscene.
-
So a little update on some new shapes I've been working on. I think this still looks like an Assault Gunboat, but also feels a bit more like the Lamba shuttle ...
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-V2-1.jpg)
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-V2-2.jpg)
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-V2-3.jpg)
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-V2-4.jpg)
Let me know what you think ...
-
I think it's looking good, though I'd sort of like to see you take it even further by squaring off the top of the fuselage and having the canopy edges be straight lines. That might be going too far, but it would probably satisfy the pro-lambda crowd to at least see that it's been tried, heh ;) Other random thoughts:
What are you going to do for the laser cannons?
I think it might look more interesting if the bottom of the cockpit didn't continue out in the same flat plane from the back of the craft. I like the bottom being relatively flat under the main body of the ship as that's the part where the landing gear emerge from, but continuing those edges forward to a point where it is clear from the under-shot that there is nothing going on just makes it look harder to maintain from an in-universe perspective and sort of low poly from a purely aesthetic standpoint.
The only other big thing I can think of is maybe making the joints look more robust at the points where the wings are supposed to articulate. They look sort of gracile right now, which makes the craft look a bit less assaultish IMO :) One way to make the design seem more practical and beef it up a bit might be to have structural rings built around the weapon/engine pods, so that it looks like those wings have some support from the main body and or that the engines could be slid out from the undercarriage for maintenance without pulling off these huge wings. Anyway, just some random ideas.
-
Yeah, I'd thought about squaring it off, but I think it might start to not look like an Assault Gunboat any more ... As I say I want to keep it looking similar to the TF cutscene, and that is very definitely not square. I think to fit it only has to have recognisable Lambda heritage, it doesn't need to look like it was put together from spare shuttle parts ;)
I think I'll make the laser cannons quite like the wing cannons on the Lambda Shuttle.
Yup the bottom of the cockpit is very much unfinished at the moment. Just a place holder. And stronger looking lower wing joints and evidence of the wing rotation mechanism are also on the todo list ;)
-
Cool, sounds like you've developed a good idea of where you want the ship to go. Looking forward to seeing it progress!
-
I'd make the center cockpit section thinner and the missile pods wider and higher, myself - current proportions look kinda off.
-
I like swashmebuckle's thoughts on the bottom. It would be nice to see a bit of variation there, like angling the entire cockpit downward a tad, just to break up the flatness a bit. Make it a bit more dynamic.
A thought on the cockpit: If you want a more armoured look, you could use the Sentinel class shuttle for inspiration. It has a broken up canopy that appears more armoured.
-
Yes! I really like where you're going with this now. I don't have much to add as far as other suggestions, as most of my ideas are already spoken by others here, I just wanted to give you a big thumbs up.
-
So I had an idea for the cockpit that I wanted to try out ...
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-V3-1.jpg) (http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-V3-2.jpg)
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-V3-3.jpg)
Thoughts?
-
I'd refrain from breaking up the forward hull and the center section with a gap such as the one proposed. The Assault gunboat always had a nose section that drooped a bit, so that's all and good. However, I'd again insist on keeping some of the sharp lines as seen on the original design...
I might be able to upload some artwork over lunch break.
-
Yeah ... as much as I play with the various options I still think I like the TF cutscene version the most ... I'm also finding it much easier to replicate an existing design rather than come up with my own ;)
I'd be interested in seeing your artwork Thaeris :)
-
Yeah, actually Brand's E-wing was inspired by some concept artwork from StarSlayer. So for these EU ships a little artistic inspiration helps sometimes :)
-
This certainly isn't as drastic a change as slayer made to the E-Wing, mind you. This was scanned at work, and with whatever software that processed the image recognized some of the text accordingly, removing it from the master image. Those tricksy PDFs...
(http://amaqbw.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pHqqMxXUPbifSUsjr2Wnr76yHMLHiF4yB_7dIL8vcGRPNtMNGmDs3kG5OYnEyshmnwid7aIGae4zUi46jJ5DaME7RADWZnqOi/Gunboat.PNG?psid=1)
The uppermost detail was the cannon mount, installed directly beneath the the primary wing glove. The next-to-bottom illustration is a view from the bottom of the fighter's nose section, and locates the position of the canopy, as well as the notable details on the bottom of the nose. The hashed section locates a level region of hull geometry beneath the nose, which would continue on to the rear of the ship... actually, if the ship were to bow out slightly on the bottom, that might not look all that bad. The two leader lines with circles mark the lower fuselage chines and characteristics of the forward nosecone: "lower main chine and foremost section of the nosecone maintains slight negative slope." This can be seen to some effect in the rough, incomplete profile view in the center of the drawing. Given the direction you were moving, a shallow Lambda-Class shuttle style inlet is located beneath the nosecone's leading edge. Keep in mind that a solid nose wouldn't look bad on the AG, further reverting to the original design.
Designing the AG is deceptively hard - it's sleek yet squat, angular yet smooth.
-
Ehehe it'd be nice to have time to do drawings at work :) Not that I have the talent to do any ...
There's some good ideas there. I'm definitely agreeing it needs to keep the "armored lines" from the TF cutscene, as you say. If you take them out it just looks "flabby". I like what you've got on the underside, although I also agree a solid nose would look fine too.
The cockpit sections seems a little narrow perhaps? I think having the width there makes it less like the X-Wing.
Overall I think my general plan will be to follow the TF cutscene more or less, perhaps with some minor variations. The more I stray from those lines the less well it seems to fit. Which very much agrees with the style of your drawings I'd say ...
I definitely agree it's a hard ship to design. It needs to look like the Lambda shuttle ... but not too much. As you say the mix of smooth and square and sleek vs squat is tricky. Still progress is being made :)
-
Glad I could help. :)
The Assault Gunboat was always one of my favorites, even though when playing X-Wing I wasn't ever able to fly it... I spent most of the time dodging concussion missiles. :p If there's anything in particular you'd like me to try and work out, let me know. Today was a really slow day at work, so time was thusly available.
-
Glad I could help. :)
The Assault Gunboat was always one of my favorites, even though when playing X-Wing I wasn't ever able to fly it... I spent most of the time dodging concussion missiles. :p If there's anything in particular you'd like me to try and work out, let me know. Today was a really slow day at work, so time was thusly available.
The engine thingys, please.
They look on the original like bricks. Bricks are bad.
Even though i know that the model always had those bricks.
Also, good work on the model Tomshak, keep it up.
-
So a bit of an update, I've been trying to recreate the shape in the TF cutscenes. Fortunately the fact that's it's symmetrical constrains the shape quite a lot so reconstructing it from a single shot has worked okay.
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-V4-1.jpg) (http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-V4-2.jpg)
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-V4-3.jpg) (http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-V4-4.jpg)
Looks pretty good I reckon, kinda stubby but then I always thought of the AG as being a bit on the short side ...
-
I think it's a good beginning.
-
Wayyy to squat. Keep in mind that the nose panels are primarily flat - there should be very little curvature with the exception of the very front of the nose. Also keep in mind that all the canopy panels are flat as well.
*EDIT - I take that back, I put a bit of curvature on the uppermost canopy panels - the side panels, however, are flat affairs.
I kind of liked the length and slimness of your previous model. If you could keep that design aspect while getting back to the original shape of the Gunboat, I think you'll be on to something.
-
Here's another update, decided that the nose was indeed too squat. Looks like you read my mind Thaeris ;) Interestingly that's the only shape the original TF cutscene image would fit. But it's not quite the shape I wanted. Also decided the nose was too curved, great minds think alike it seems ...
I've also added some of the original detail back in.
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-V5-1.jpg)
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-V5-2.jpg)
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-V5-3.jpg)
-
Damn Skippy, you're going places with that! :D :yes:
I do have another profile sketch in the works if you're interested, so I might be able to post something this afternoon.
-
I'm always interested to see some more sketches :)
-
What app is that by the way, Blender?
-
Yup, Blender. I'd not used it before, but I'm fairly pleased with it now I've got used to it.
-
I've noticed that on the vertical wing you've used the same mounting as the Lambda, down to the exact shape. You have to be careful when doing that, because the human eye will use that as a scaling clue. As a result, things like that can make it look a little off, as if it should be bigger or smaller than it is. I think it'd be better if it was the same style, but a slightly different shape.
I've found a good trick when dealing with similar greebles with different scales is to reduce the count of of a repeating objects for a smaller version, or a higher count for a larger one. In this case, to keep the sense of scale right, you could remove one of the ribs from the side.
-
Thanks brandx0, I see what you mean :) I'll do that, that's a useful tip to remember in future :)
I may require some assistance from people with the greebles, not done anything like that before so could definitely use some extra eyes to see if they look good or not ... not quite on greebling yet, but getting close to having the basic shape done.
-
Quick photoshop job to illustrate my suggestions:
(http://i53.tinypic.com/2d851ro.jpg)
As you can see I enlarged the missile pods and thickened the wings a bit - they were a tad on the flimsy side. Maybe they should be enlarged/thickened even more. I'd also round off the missile pod's corner angles a bit more.
-
I agree on thicker wings :) But personally not sold on the bigger engine pods. I've also tried pods which are "smoother" but in my opinion they don't look as good, the smoothness of the pods contrasts too much with the hard lines of the wings and cockpit - it all looks a bit out of place.
-
What do you think this is newman, a DX9? ;)
-
No, but I don't much like the craft/weapons capacity ratio I'm seeing here. This thing's purpose is to launch torps and cause some pain, and it seems 90% of it's mass has nothing to do with that. I also like the styling on fractal's missile pods better, the round angles sell the thing for me. Just my personal quirk, though; I know from personal experience no matter what you do someone will find it too wide/slim/bulky/long/gray/mysterious/whatever - so carry on. What's important is he sticks with it and finishes the gunboat :)
-
Another update ... now with cockpit, and some detail underneath. Plus a view from the back because we haven't had one of those yet.
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-V6-1.jpg)
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-V6-2.jpg) (http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-V6-3.jpg)
Not sure whether to go for the cockpit as above (most like the Lambda) or whether to add crossbars to divide it into 6 pieces ...
-
A thicker canopy structure definately, as is it's extremely thin.
-
Actually I like the thin canopy structure. It contrasts the thicker rebel ships.
-
I think it also fits better with the lambda's lines which are very thin
(http://swc.fs2downloads.com/reference/Misc/Shuttle/Shuttle-CHRON.jpg)
-
So a little update on some new shapes I've been working on. I think this still looks like an Assault Gunboat, but also feels a bit more like the Lamba shuttle ...
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-V2-1.jpg)
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-V2-2.jpg)
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-V2-3.jpg)
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-V2-4.jpg)
Let me know what you think ...
Am I the only one that liked the direction you were going with this cockpit more than the current one? I really liked the smoother "lambda" feel to it, which really set it more apart from rebel fighters. I like the rest of your model, just not a big fan of the cockpit.
-
Guess I forgot about that. Been a long time seeing it.
-
Here's what I'm envisioning as a good compromise of your newer nose shape but with a more lambda-feeling cockpit:
[attachment deleted by ninja]
-
I think it also fits better with the lambda's lines which are very thin
(http://swc.fs2downloads.com/reference/Misc/Shuttle/Shuttle-CHRON.jpg)
Are you talking about the white lines across the cockpit? I always thought those were reflections, not actual pylons. Anyone have any shots that can confirm one or the other?
-
Here's what I'm envisioning as a good compromise of your newer nose shape but with a more lambda-feeling cockpit:
I have to disagree on that one - that's pretty "blah" appearance-wise.
The AG canopy is actually, as far as Imperial fighters go, pretty good. The break at the end of the forward frame lifts the canopy slightly, allowing the pilot a degree of visibility to the rear. My take on the design pushes this a little further still, giving the apex of the canopy a slight peak... stand by for drawings...
-
Okay easy enough to compare:
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-V6-4.jpg) (http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-V6-5.jpg)
What do people prefer?
Re: the lines on the lambda shuttle, they're on every image of the Lambda I've seen .. and they're always in the same place. So I think they are part of the cockpit, reflections tend to move with the light source.
-
Here's what I'm envisioning as a good compromise of your newer nose shape but with a more lambda-feeling cockpit:
I have to disagree on that one - that's pretty "blah" appearance-wise.
The AG canopy is actually, as far as Imperial fighters go, pretty good. The break at the end of the forward frame lifts the canopy slightly, allowing the pilot a degree of visibility to the rear. My take on the design pushes this a little further still, giving the apex of the canopy a slight peak... stand by for drawings...
I'm not saying it's good design for a fighter, I just think it fits much better, thematically. And it also seems to go along with the overall philosophy of the gunboat - loads of munitions pointed at the front for convoy/starship raids but not much of a dogfighter.
Okay easy enough to compare:
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-V6-4.jpg) (http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-V6-5.jpg)
What do people prefer?
Re: the lines on the lambda shuttle, they're on every image of the Lambda I've seen .. and they're always in the same place. So I think they are part of the cockpit, reflections tend to move with the light source.
I think it goes without saying that I like the one on the right better. Thanks for pulling together that comparison so quickly! That's exactly what I had in mind.
-
You're welcome :) The cockpit isn't actually hard to change :) delete a few triangles, create a few more, tell it to smooth the cockpit over ...
Personally I kind of like them both. To me the left one makes more sense as a fighter cockpit, but the right one does have stronger Lambda heritage ... let's see what other people think.
-
I'm more of a fan of the right one myself.
And to answer the question about the Lambda, those aren't reflections. Trust me, I textured it and I've spend hours and hours looking over photos of the filming model.
-
Alright, time for pictures. Since most of the primary shape is there, relying on this for fine details wouldn't be prudent, especially when considering that the drawing hasn't been tested critically to ensure that all the details line up. However, there are some things which it points out effectively. Note that the quality on this isn't great, as it was scanned at work...
(http://amaqbw.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pa3GovBmQwK7sgt7TVYDThf9NRRIQsfm-J_a7OslfR6u1bQKGa4wk_Nt7J2DDyTLBEOvmvzFnNF20s47Zi__kjh2zGOdP6ob5/Gunboat2.PNG?psid=1)
Again, there is a slight rise to the canopy, and another subtle rise in the rear fuselage. The canopy also arcs out slightly on the center panels, along with the rest of the central hull plating. Again, it's a very subtle curve. The main lines down the side of the nose profile remain straight until the tip of the nose is reached, where a slight curve is permissable.
The cut-outs on the side of the hull are probably over-exaggerated. However, you need to make sure you join the missile launcher/engine pods to the main hull properly - a small cut out is probably the only way to do that.
And yes, I do advocate keeping the canopy framing. Why? The fighter was originally designed with framing, and it looks at home with it. It's an assault fighter, remember, and the frame, however light, keeps that well-armored canopy securely mounted to that well-armored hull. Unlike other Imperial fighers, the AG is a tough cookie.
-
And yes, I do advocate keeping the canopy framing. Why? The fighter was originally designed with framing, and it looks at home with it. It's an assault fighter, remember, and the frame, however light, keeps that well-armored canopy securely mounted to that well-armored hull. Unlike other Imperial fighers, the AG is a tough cookie.
As this is an EU ship that was never seen in the movies, we're got a lot of freedom designing this one - just because it appeared in some games with a frame doesn't mean we have to follow that. Brand has already proved that you can achieve great results doing this with his re-imagined EU ships - I say let Tom go wild with this and make something completely amazing instead of shackling him to what's been done before.
To be fair, your canopy looks really good, but it also looks really X-Wing, which I believe is what we're trying to get away from.
-
TomShak, it might help make your decision easier if you first model the lower lines of the cockpit section. Looking at both options with the flat bottom, I kind of like the one on the right, but that might just be because the lines of the ship aren't complete in that area, so you don't get the parallelism between the canopy lines and the bottom of the cockpit like you do on the Lambda. Looking good!
-
Don't think it makes a huge amount of difference ...
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-V6-6.jpg)
I do want to try the standard "6 section" cockpit as well ...
-
I meant the lines of the actual underside of the front section, where right now it is just a continuation of the flat bottom of the fuselage, unless you're planning on leaving it that way now.
-
Ah ... no I think it's probably going to stay more or less as is ;)
Here's a 6-section cockpit
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-V6-7.jpg)
You'll have to ignore the minor glitch on the bottom left of the cockpit ...
-
And yes, I do advocate keeping the canopy framing. Why? The fighter was originally designed with framing, and it looks at home with it. It's an assault fighter, remember, and the frame, however light, keeps that well-armored canopy securely mounted to that well-armored hull. Unlike other Imperial fighers, the AG is a tough cookie.
As this is an EU ship that was never seen in the movies, we're got a lot of freedom designing this one - just because it appeared in some games with a frame doesn't mean we have to follow that. Brand has already proved that you can achieve great results doing this with his re-imagined EU ships - I say let Tom go wild with this and make something completely amazing instead of shackling him to what's been done before.
To be fair, your canopy looks really good, but it also looks really X-Wing, which I believe is what we're trying to get away from.
I personally never thought the AG looked like an X-Wing. Rather, it was its own affair, and there is purpose in its lines. As far as design style goes, can you honestly say that the frameless canopy fits - as is - on the Gunboat? Look at every other Imperial fighter, in fact most every fighter from the original films, and find one without any canopy framing. Furthermore, note that the X-Wing does not have a canopy built directly into the hull - the canopy can be called "stepped" or otherwise extending from the fuselage. The AG's canopy barely does this at all. Artistically, it fits.
Design-wise, I really think the single-piece canopy makes the fighter look like a toy. It makes its presence weaker and less intimidating. It would also make, realistically, a rather weak point on an otherwise very tough fighter. Ultimately, neither you or I have control over the design decision, of course, but I would still like to lend support to the design I feel fits best in the SW universe. I'll add that, if the AG ever started to look like an X-Wing, it was in the later TG games where higher-poly in-game models started to replace the cutscene and tech room animations. WXA is a good example of this:
(http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080714051237/starwars/images/thumb/2/2c/XWA-Xg1-3d-new.jpg/250px-XWA-Xg1-3d-new.jpg)
...Which you should note, I was never once suggesting reverting to the later, more X-Wing-ish design as seen in XWA.
And Tom, you Sir, are awesome.
:D :yes:
-
Hmm...I dunno. To me the curved, single pane to me looks sleek and expensive (sports car!). True, there's no other Imperial fighters that have that kind of canopy, but this has much more roots with the Lambda shuttle than TIE fighters.
-
Ah, fair enough. I was under the impression from before in the thread that you were thinking about breaking up the fuselage a bit so that the underside wasn't totally flat, as in tilting the cockpit section downward a la the Lambda. My mistake; carry on :)
-
6 panel cockpit looks awesome - I was skeptical with three, but six is good. :yes:
-
My two cents on a couple of things. Take it for what you will, Tom. As you are the designer.
Let me start buy saying that I like the looks of it. Although I was never a fan of the AG myself (a-wing guy personally).
I like the six piece myself. Both aesthetically and practically. I agree with the concept that it is a fighter and needs to afford some protection to it's pilot. The early fighters in cannon did not do this. But the later ones do (EU ones I mean). Lucas designed the fighters after WWII concepts. He stole a lot from Japanese culture and history for the film. The imperial fighters were all offensive. Deadly fire power. Agile. Insanely fast. Basically the Japanese fighters at the start of the war. Later in the War the Japanese saw the need to change this. Unfortunately too late for them. So there is the parallel.
Second thing is that I have to agree with newman on the size of the pods. Where are you going to put all the missiles it is supposed to be loaded out with? One possible suggestion (taking reference to Brand's Z-95 and E-Wing, in that there is no on reference for this so you could make it your own completely and end up with something awesome) is that you could move the engine to the main fuselage and dedicate the pods entirely to ordnance. Putting eight warheads in each pod. Four up front. Blast shield between them and four in back that could be brought up after those are fired. Granted we don't need to see a game mechanic for it. Just an explanation.
I also like the both sets of gun pods that we have seen earlier (the drawing and the computer done model that someone outside this project did). I liked the full gun pods better than the ones built into the wings myself. But I do like seeing them either way. :)
Thanks for doing this craft.
-
So, final option ... the bubble canopy ... which I think works better than the smaller "CountBuggula Cockpit".
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-V6-Bubble.jpg)
Still not decided between this style and the 6-panel cockpit ...
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-V6-7.jpg)
Cast your votes now!!!
-
I'd like the bubble canopy either as is, or broken up into 3 segments, I wasn't a fan of 6 though
-
Personalely I prefer the 6-panel cockpit.
-
I like it without the panels.
-
Good work right there, like the model but i don't like the bubble canopy, 3 or 6 is fine though.
And please, in the name of Padme, change the missile launchers a bit. They are way to thin.
-
Hmm. Still more of a fan of the previous single panel. And it's got my name on it now! Woot!
-
Hmm, of those two I think I like the bubble canopy more, but I think I would have liked the three-panel version best if its lines were a bit further spread out like on the lambda:
(http://imagebin.org/157391)
You'll have to pretend that my version doesn't look like a cross between the lambda and a turd :lol:
-
Hmm, of those two I think I like the bubble canopy more, but I think I would have liked the three-panel version best if its lines were a bit further spread out like on the lambda:
(http://imagebin.org/157391)
You'll have to pretend that my version doesn't look like a cross between the lambda and a turd :lol:
I could get behind this. I like it just as much as the single-paneled one that I proposed.
-
Six panel, of course.
If you opt for the overly-wide canopy, or the bubble canopy in this instance, you run the risk of making the fighter not "suit its size." In other words, the model becomes toy-like in appearance because parts or components are not proportionate in relation to their function, especially when there is no sensible reason in assigning said components that function.
The Gunboat is best when it is slim and trim - the bulging of a bubble canopy, or a "stepped" canopy as later seen in XWA would really cut down on that design aspect.
-
Six panel, of course.
If you opt for the overly-wide canopy, or the bubble canopy in this instance, you run the risk of making the fighter not "suit its size." In other words, the model becomes toy-like in appearance because parts or components are not proportionate in relation to their function, especially when there is no sensible reason in assigning said components that function.
The Gunboat is best when it is slim and trim - the bulging of a bubble canopy, or a "stepped" canopy as later seen in XWA would really cut down on that design aspect.
Or it could have a side-by-side pilot/gunner configuration that would work for the wide version.
-
The Gunboat has a missile launcher system, two heavy laser cannons, and an ion cannon turret. You don't need two crew members to operate those weapon systems.
-
You usually want two pilots in an assault craft, though. One to pilot, the other to handle weapons and targeting. It just works better that way. Since it's sci fi though go with what looks cooler to you..
-
For me the AG is the ultimate multi-role craft. The Imperials only had one hyperdrive capable craft (until the Tie Avenger) and so it had to do everything. As such I see it being pitched between the Y-Wing and the X-Wing.
Missions for the AG:
- Recon, since it's hyperdrive capable it's perfect for recon.
- Long range escort, escorting VIP shuttles and such like.
- Rapid interdiction, it can get there faster than the ISD and the rest of the fleet. This might be interdicting starships or fighters.
- Capture operations, it's Ion equipped so perfect for capturing enemy vessels.
- Surprise attacks, for when the large hyperspace signature of a capital ship would tip off the enemy.
As I say, the ultimate multi-role craft.
-
Pretty much. :)
Again, about the two seat ordeal...
Keep in mind that the Y-Wing is rarely seen with two crew members, and in film/games (as far as I know) is strictly single seat. The B-Wing in normal variants only has one pilot. As far as Cygnus fighters go, the only one with two seats is the Missile boat, which of the two (itself and the AG), is truly in need of a re-design. I'd suggest keeping the AG a single seat strike fighter. Its size and capabilities do not warrant a second crew member.
-
Scale does appear to be an issue ... I've scaled the gunboat to agree with these measurements:
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Alpha-class_Xg-1_Star_Wing (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Alpha-class_Xg-1_Star_Wing)
Whether these are accurate or not is open to debate, but they are comparable to the X-Wing measurements.
I've included an appropriately sized pilot (1.8m tall).
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-WithPilot.jpg)
It's pretty roomy in there ... But like Thaeris I see the AG as a single man fighter ...
Of course you can scale the ship down to be a more reasonable fit ...
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-Small-WithPilot.jpg)
Which comes out at 13.6m wide, 9m long, 6.5m high. Even then you could still fairly easily fit two in it ...
-
10 meters is still quite small. What you might consider is possibly increasing the slope of the lower fuselage panels, or in general reducing the width of the hull by a small margin to make the sizing a bit more reasonable. Simultaneously, increasing the width of the missile launchers might also help to better proportion the fighter.
By the way, I do kind of miss the blending of the lower panels with the curvature of the nose, as seen on some of the earlier models.
-
The length figure with the gunboat is a bit misleading; the thing is massive for a fighter but it was never too long - it's proportions always favored width and height, with the gunboat having a much higher width/length ratio than any other fighter. I wouldn't say the 10m figure is wrong right off the bat, especially for a single seat ship like that. Seems most sci fi fighters are about ww2 fighter sized, because compared to modern fighter jets they're tiny..
Anyway I wouldn't scale it up too high, they'd still want to be able to keep a reasonable amount of them on ships and stations.
-
If you're going by WWII standards, while dogfighters were exclusively single-seaters, attack aircraft were almost always crewed by 2 or more:
A-17 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_A-17)
A-20 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-20_Havoc)
SBD Dauntless (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SBD_Dauntless)
TBF Avenger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TBF_Avenger)
B-25 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-25_Mitchell)
And that's just american aircraft. German, british, and Japanese aviation followed a similar pattern.
And based on the pictures we have above, it's certainly not out of the question size-wise to have this be a 2-seater.
-
Oh good grief. Most of those aircraft were multi-crew as they had a tail gunner, which most SW craft do not have. The Gunboat has a turret, true, but you don't need a gunner to operate a gun turret beyond the pilot, especially when it's not the principal weapon system.
Moreover, using WWII standards as a strict standard is pretty dull. Most of the fighter craft as seen in the original series were single seat, and could be classified as fighter-bombers. Even more dedicated attack craft, such as the TIE Bomber, are single seat.
-
Oh good grief. Most of those aircraft were multi-crew as they had a tail gunner, which most SW craft do not have. The Gunboat has a turret, true, but you don't need a gunner to operate a gun turret beyond the pilot, especially when it's not the principal weapon system.
Moreover, using WWII standards as a strict standard is pretty dull. Most of the fighter craft as seen in the original series were single seat, and could be classified as fighter-bombers. Even more dedicated attack craft, such as the TIE Bomber, are single seat.
I only say it because the WWII standard has been brought up several times as where Lucas pulled his inspiration. But the trend continued long after the need for gunners:
A-6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_A-6_Intruder)
F-111 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-111)
-
I think the parallel you're making, especially with relation to a small attack craft can work, but is still not in-line with the weapons systems and capabilities with the AG, which often acts as a tactical interceptor and interdiction craft. Given that the AG is often performing in a role somewhere in between the Y-Wing and the X-Wing, a second crewman is not a necessity.
-
I think the parallel you're making, especially with relation to a small attack craft can work, but is still not in-line with the weapons systems and capabilities with the AG, which often acts as a tactical interceptor and interdiction craft. Given that the AG is often performing in a role somewhere in between the Y-Wing and the X-Wing, a second crewman is not a necessity.
Phantom II, Tomcat, Strike Eagle, Super Hornet
-
Ultimately...
Fighter bombers today will not fall in line with any specific single- or multi-crew arrangement, as the software/hardware capabilities currently allow any given attack craft to perform just about any role with a single crewman or an additional crewman for greater operational fluency. In fact, multi-crew fighters are assumably going to become more common, so long as there is a market for crewed fighters.
I'm arguing for a single seat in the case of the AG for reasons I've already noted - its role and the weapons it employs, either of which do not require a WSO. I'll also add in that for those of us who are already a fan of the AG, it has ALWAYS been presented as a single-seat fighter. Which I like, and I think a good many of others here like as well. If you want multi-crew, the Missile Boat is for you.
-
Yea, it's Star Wars. You got people waving laser swords, surviving 500 meter drops, and caveman level teddy bears defeating elite imperial troops. And let's not get into the least believable thing of all, that *ack* love story from the prequels. Whatever call is made on the number of pilots is going to be well in the scope of believable considering the amount of crap Lucas and EU writers put in that universe :P
-
Just give it a black canopy and we'll pretend it's whatever we want.
Personally I'd just like to see more personality in the your gunboat. For instance, is this ship a fast and efficient strike-craft? Then make it longer and focus on the linear-ness of it. Make it look aggressive with more diagonals and more dynamic form. If you want an armoured craft then break up the canopy and make it look blockier with extrusions and layers.
Be creative and make it your own. I'd like to be able to come across a picture of your ship on Google and say: that's a TomShak.
-
Honestly I always thought this ship didn't belong with Imperial forces anyway.
-
I think I'll leave that to someone who's better at designing stuff ;)
-
So here's a good question for someone with some modelling experience ... When texture and normal mapping these, what kind of texture size should I be using?
-
I personally think a two-seat design fits the ship itself very well. Also, the Lambda holds 6 crew in the cockpit! I know this is a smaller ship, but the manufacturer might have a habit of breaking up flight responsibilities as opposed to making a ship designed to have everything done by one person. There are 2-seater Y-wing variants, the Snowspeeder is a 2-seater, so I don't see why the Gunboat couldn't be. If there's something more official than a previous game that suggests otherwise, fine, but then maybe there could just be variants or something. Honestly, it kind of reminds me of BSG's Raptor.
-
Tom, you seem pretty familiar with the Gunboat, and I'm guessing you've run through TIE Fighter or X-Wing enough as a younger chap. If I was to make one last prompt as a Gunboat fan, I'd note that what the 'Boat does in X-Wing or TIE Fighter is most reflective of what the fighter should be capable of. It's slower than an X-Wing, faster than the Y-Wing, and suited to a role which falls right in between the capabilities of the two ships, all the while coming into the fight with a tough hull and mighty shields. The Gunboat has always been presented as single seat, and I'd like to see it stay that way if possible. Any other suggestion... I've probably already covered.
That said, unless you'd like any further concept art for this one, I think I'll rest my case for now. Keep up the good work, Sir. :)
-
I think I'll leave that to someone who's better at designing stuff ;)
You can do it! Try some experimenting. You certainly can't make it worse than the original.
So here's a good question for someone with some modelling experience ... When texture and normal mapping these, what kind of texture size should I be using?
I'd go with 1024 x 1024. But then again, I've been told in the past I don't detail enough. Brandx0's models all look like the're using 4096x4096 in the renders.
-
Our current textures for Brand's fighters are at 2048^2 each, but you should work huge and reduce to that if possible so that we can have ridiculously detailed maps in the future when more computers can handle them :)
As to the design discussion, I think the further you steer it away from fighter territory, the better it will fit with the Imperial fleet. I realize that for the old X-wing games it was important to have craft that had comparable functionality to the rebels', but to me it's just not in character for the Empire to use ships designed for hit-and-run action, even in limited numbers.
Instead, I think they would make for a natural pairing with the DX-9 Stormtrooper Transport (which we just happen to have an awesome model of, courtesy of Newman). I could easily envision a few of these jumping in along with the transport, launching combined volleys of torpedoes to take down the target's shields, engines, turrets, whatever, and staying on station while the transport boards to make sure the captured vessel plays nice. They should only be found in a dogfight in the most desperate circumstances--unlike the Alliance, the Empire can afford to specialize, and it has no shortage of dedicated space superiority fighters. IMO, the idea of the Gunboat "filling a niche" that just happens to involve doing everything that a generalist, rebel-type starfighter does is the problem. When the Empire wants to mess somebody up, it doesn't send out puny squadrons of starfighters--it throws a star destroyer at you. The gunboat has to have a dedicated role that it fills better than any other ship, or the Empire wouldn't use them.
-
I guess here's the issue. I never liked the Assault Gunboat, and I see this as a chance to make something that more people will actually like. The designers have already stated that their goal isn't in any way to replicate the lucasarts X-Wing games in any way, and instead to recreate the feel of the movies.
Since this ship has barely even surfaced outside of the lucasarts games in the EU, I'd say we have a huge amount of freedom in designing it to better fit with the movie ships than most current designs. Screw the X-Wing game mechanics. Make it our own.
Instead, I think they would make for a natural pairing with the DX-9 Stormtrooper Transport (which we just happen to have an awesome model of, courtesy of Newman). I could easily envision a few of these jumping in along with the transport, launching combined volleys of torpedoes to take down the target's shields, engines, turrets, whatever, and staying on station while the transport boards to make sure the captured vessel plays nice. They should only be found in a dogfight in the most desperate circumstances--unlike the Alliance, the Empire can afford to specialize, and it has no shortage of dedicated space superiority fighters. IMO, the idea of the Gunboat "filling a niche" that just happens to involve doing everything that a generalist, rebel-type starfighter does is the problem. When the Empire wants to mess somebody up, it doesn't send out puny squadrons of starfighters--it throws a star destroyer at you. The gunboat has to have a dedicated role that it fills better than any other ship, or the Empire wouldn't use them.
I very much like this idea, and agree that the gunboat/starwing shouldn't be a generalist multipurpose fighter. This is an assault craft.
Honestly I always thought this ship didn't belong with Imperial forces anyway.
This is exactly why I never liked this ship. I never thought this looked like an imperial ship:
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-V6-7.jpg)
While to me, these do:
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-V6-5.jpg)(http://imagebin.org/index.php?mode=image&id=157391)
-
I personally think a two-seat design fits the ship itself very well.
Yeah, because if you start putting your pilots in single-seat ships with hyperdrive capability, you've probably just made defections a whole lot more common.
So, you put two people in there, the pilot in the front and a political officer on the back seat. :D
-
I've closely followed the discussion and decided to add my two cents.
At first I was in favour of the one seater option, but regarding some very convincing arguments I've changed my mind and now would also prefer a two seater variant.
Especially in light of the fact that originally the AG was designed out of the necessity of having a shielded and hyperdrive capable imperial craft in the early stages of XW and TF (so it was basically a balancing decision), I think that some alterations in the design can make the AG much more appealing -
So my suggestions are:
- keep the general shape, but
- make it bigger in all dimensions (longer, broader, higher), enlarge the missile pods
- make it a two seater
- perhaps aim for a more compact appearence (I'm not sure about this myself, but I have a crossover of a BSG Raptor, the Lambda Shuttle and the traditional AG Design in mind, don't know to put that into words ;) )
Just my two cents :-)
-
So ... people can envision their gunboats as heavy assault craft if they like, but that's not what the Gunboat is to me so it's not the Gunboat I'm making ;)
I find it highly unlikely that Empire had no use at all for hyperdrive capable starfighters. Sure the general strategy was TIEs carried by capital ships, but not even a single long range starfighter? I can't imagine that every time the Empire wants to project force the only answer is "We'll jump in the ISD". Apart from anything else a single ISD can't be in more than one place at one time. The same with Ion cannons, the Rebels had Ion cannons on two of the 4 main starship designs. Were Ion cannons so useless to the Empire that they didn't have any starfighter sized ships at all with that capability?
To me the Gunboat has an important niche in the Empire. It was the only long range Imperial star fighter, it was also the only Ion cannon equipped starfighter. It did go against the standard Imperial doctrine of TIEs carried by capital ships, but that's what made it so useful. It filled the holes in the standard doctrine, it was what made the standard doctrine workable because it added flexibility.
I also remember that Gunboats were used quite frequently in the design of XW & TF missions. They came up a lot more frequently than they "should" have given their limited numbers. Having had a go once at making some missions I can see why. They are very useful for filling holes in missions. I'm sure the reason that TG created the AG was because without it the Imperial Navy is just too inflexible to write certain scenarios.
So, my AG is a single seater multi-role starfighter, sitting in performance between the XW and the YW :)
-
The empire had starfighter bases in most systems they controlled not to mention a ridiculous number of ASD, VSD ISD, ISD II and other star-fighter carrying ships. The Imperial Doctrine of not using intersystem fighters was only viable because of the huge number of carrier ships and bases they had scattered through the known galaxy
-
I'll step back in to make a counter-point here, Headdie: A tactical fighter which can move independently of a large strike vessel is still immensely useful for obvious reasons, and any competent military force would field such a type. As you noted, there aren't massive numbers of Gunboats out there, and they exist as a specialized type - a fighter which can perform roles no other Imperial type can. Due to the large number of Imperial installations out there, as well as the comparatively small number of Gunboats, you'll not commonly encounter the type. But, if you need a fighter to act as a long-range escort, a tactical interdictor, or even an atmospheric close support fighter, etc., you genuinely need the AG.
The only other "common" Imperial jump fighters only become common after the EU really starts to set in, and these are most notably space superiority types. The AG has a definite, useful, albeit uncommon purpose. If you need to slam a target with big shuttles, the Lambda and the Landing Craft are there, and the DX-9 has ion cannons and torpedoes. The Gunboat is the bread and butter in between your heavy boarding and assault ships, and the only one that can escort them (barring your advanced TIEs which only come about much later) after they jump.
-
On a side note this thread is hillarious :P
(http://i51.tinypic.com/2wcfh9z.jpg)
-
Newman, you're a douche.
:lol:
-
Be creative and make it your own. I'd like to be able to come across a picture of your ship on Google and say: that's a TomShak.
:yes:
-
As a little update I've been UV unwrapping and normal mapping, here's a normal mapped wing. Inspired by FractalSponge
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-NormalMapWing.jpg)
-
Looking good
-
What do people think the colour of the AG should be? Whitish like the Lambda shuttle, bluish like FractalSponge's (http://fractalsponge.net/gallery/Starfighters/XG1%20StarWing%20Assault%20Gunboat/index.html#4) or a simple imperial grey?
-
I think that it could either be blue-ish or Imperial gray with red markings, like in XWA.
-
Grey with the blue hue and black.
-
Imperial grey with blue or black markings. The grey would give it more of a working vessel look where as white of the lambda is more of a ceremonial look which goes against the AG's sharp end of battle role
-
No red, please. Imperial blue-grey with dark blue trim would work; if you go with a two-tone scheme, you might consider a lighter grey in some areas.
-
Yeah I'm not big on the red ...
-
TomShak, do you think you could post up a few wireframe pics, as well as orthographic views of the model from front, back, side, top? I'd love to take a closer look at it.
-
You'll have to ignore "Commander Steele", he's for sizing purposes ;)
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-WireFrame-1.jpg)
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-WireFrame-2.jpg)
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-WireFrame-3.jpg)
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-WireFrame-4.jpg)
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-WireFrame-5.jpg)
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-WireFrame-6.jpg)
-
Sorry to be demanding, but could I also get the ortho shots in a shaded view? Thanks TomShak.
Also, what program are you using?
-
Not demanding at all, I'm glad to receive any feedback :)
I am using Blender for the modelling, which is free and apparently somewhat popular for doing Freespace models.
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-Shaded-1.jpg)
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-Shaded-2.jpg)
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/AG-Shaded-3.jpg)
-
I will note that keeping the six-panel cockpit has an advantage here, as the pilot might appreciate a little more freedom in movement, if you know what I mean. I'd increase the length of the nose as well, if possible.
I think increasing the breadth of the vertical stab might also help the appearance a bit.
-
So now I need some advice on modelling. This could be Blender specific or maybe it's not ... anyway I'm trying to add some bump map detail to the wings ... When my bump map is viewed from a "high" angle it looks great, loads of bumpiness.
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/WingBump1.jpg)
However this effect disappears quite rapidly once the camera angle becomes even a bit flatter.
(http://www.shackell.org.uk/images/AssaultGun/WingBump2.jpg)
This hardly looks bumpy at all. Now obviously normal maps are not the same as actually adding real surface detail, and as you start to get very close to being flat on the surface it will be apparent that it isn't bumpy. However, my understanding is that the normal map should be giving a much bumpier appearance in the second image than it actually is ....
Can anyone confirm this?
-
AFAIK, that really all depends on the material lighting settings. I don't know which settings in Blender would be comparable with the FSO ones though. Try decreasing (or otherwise playing with) your diffuse reflections and specular hardness, that might help.
-
It looks as if the light is coming almost directly from the camera. Because a normal map only approximates shading, if the lighting is coming from the camera, the effect won't be noticeable except in cases where there's a face that can reflect that light back. Try a different lighting setup, put the lights on an angle from the camera and you'll be able to see it.
-
Doesn't matter where the light is positioned, the problem is the same ...
-
Raised this on the blender forum, I'll see if anyone there knows ....