[AthlonBoy]

While I do like the way that model is turning out, it doesn't change the fact that the Boanerges all-in-all is a pretty damn ugly ship, but you're making it look a lot better.

And I still can't pronounce the damn word.

Yeah, well, you can't polish a turd. In my opinion the Boanerges as a bomber is a bit of a turd. They tried to take the Ursa and make it more manoeuvrable, sacrificing gun mounts, messing about with ammo distribution, and losing some armour. That was all a high price to pay for a slightly higher top speed.

I've tried to take that mindset with me in remaking the Boanerges; it's a big, fat bomber that they've tried to put racing stripes on, so it's rather smooth and relatively curved for a bomber that size.


Small update here; I've added simple greebles onto the less streamlined parts of the hill. These will NOT be on the final model. You might have also noticed that a meshsmooth has been used on it. I'm gonna bake the greebles and the meshsmoothed-normals into a normal map, and bake in ambient occlusion to a diffuse map (texture). On that subject, what poly count is acceptable for a high-poly fighter?

Not quite done with the missile pods. I'm gonna look at the high-poly Ursa and see how that does it.

But first things first. I really have to get to work on the cockpit. Can someone give me a model of the cockpit that the other fighters use?

[attachment deleted by ninja]

[Hellstryker]

Something about those missiles and guns just looks strange to me. 10000 or so polies is fine, so long as you have efficient LODs

[peterv]

For the Lod0:

Fighters/Bombers - Less than 6000 Polygons
Cruisers/Freighters - 6000-12000 Polygons
Corvettes - 14000-18000 Polygons
Destroyers - 20000-24000 Polygons
Juggernauts - 24000 Polygons upwards

About this matter though, one of our top modelers (Vasudan Admiral), wrote this:


"Those polycounts are only vague guidelines - don't take them as rigid limits. Some better guidelines I think would be:

1) Try to bring the model to life, and use as many polys as it takes to make it look built instead of modelled.

2) While you should put on as much detail as you like, keep it within reason for a game engine. For example, hundreds of thousands of polys on a capship would be just as unreasonable as thousands of polys on a nav bouey or cargo crate.

3) Keep it UV mappable and texturable - this is 100 times more important if you don't plan on UVing/texturing it yourself. An 80 000 poly model is pretty useless if left untextured due to it's shear complexity.

4) Keep the smaller detail as modular as possible, and separate from the hull so you can put it into a detail boxed subobject for improved in-game performance.

5) Don't worry about older computers when dealing with polycounts. This may sound like I'm blowing them off, but what I mean is that it's FAR FAR easier to rip extra detail off for lower end versions than it is to add detail later when the still relatively low poly ship sticks out against the rest!"

I'm looking for the cockpit model but i suggest you to build it from the scratch and use only the textures.

[Titan]

I say completely rework the cockpit. Maybe take a note from the Artemis.

[Droid803]

The Greebles make it look...worse...
I honestly think it looked better when it was nice and streamlined all the way though, semi-vasudan like. Greebles like that belong on Destroyers, Juggernauts, and Death Stars - I don't think a bomber would have odd protrusions like that.

I don't mind the cockpit - It's kinda like the Ulysses's and Myrmidon's. The Bike-style seat would look pretty neat on it (then again, I like the whole concept of that anyway).

[Commander Zane]

These will NOT be on the final model.

*AHEM...*

And I don't think the Artemis canopy looks very good at all either.

[Droid803]

Ok...then why are they there in the first place? XD
Fixxored the last post.

[AthlonBoy]

Nah, he was right to criticize, it looked bad. I was gonna bake the greebles into a normal map, but I'm gonna tone it down a lot. Like, just the odd greeble here and there on the flatter bits.

Truth is I wanted to move AWAY from a part-Vasudan look. It's an all-Terran fighter to my knowledge. But if general opinion is to stick with it, they're staying off.

[Galemp]

Ugh, I hate those auto-greebles (at least here, they do have their uses.) You really want to look at the existing model and texture and model what's implied there. I think a more Ulysses style of segmented armor plating would be better here.

[Hellstryker]

For the Lod0:

Fighters/Bombers - Less than 6000 Polygons
Cruisers/Freighters - 6000-12000 Polygons
Corvettes - 14000-18000 Polygons
Destroyers - 20000-24000 Polygons
Juggernauts - 24000 Polygons upwards

About this matter though, one of our top modelers (Vasudan Admiral), wrote this:


"Those polycounts are only vague guidelines - don't take them as rigid limits. Some better guidelines I think would be:

1) Try to bring the model to life, and use as many polys as it takes to make it look built instead of modelled.

2) While you should put on as much detail as you like, keep it within reason for a game engine. For example, hundreds of thousands of polys on a capship would be just as unreasonable as thousands of polys on a nav bouey or cargo crate.

3) Keep it UV mappable and texturable - this is 100 times more important if you don't plan on UVing/texturing it yourself. An 80 000 poly model is pretty useless if left untextured due to it's shear complexity.

4) Keep the smaller detail as modular as possible, and separate from the hull so you can put it into a detail boxed subobject for improved in-game performance.

5) Don't worry about older computers when dealing with polycounts. This may sound like I'm blowing them off, but what I mean is that it's FAR FAR easier to rip extra detail off for lower end versions than it is to add detail later when the still relatively low poly ship sticks out against the rest!"

I'm looking for the cockpit model but i suggest you to build it from the scratch and use only the textures.

Don't listen to those. Somebody is modeling a 16k poly fighter.  You just need to have efficient LODs.

[AthlonBoy]

Ugh, I hate those auto-greebles (at least here, they do have their uses.) You really want to look at the existing model and texture and model what's implied there. I think a more Ulysses style of segmented armor plating would be better here.

That's what I was gonna do. I just used the auto-greebles to give an impression of what a texture may have. But that's still too many greebles.

I was gonna have something more to show, but Max decided it wanted a break. 


EDIT: I re-did what I lost. It's a quick and dirty cockpit, along with new missiles, and a close-up of the new guns. Now I really must be going to bed.

[attachment deleted by ninja]

[IceFire]

Right on!  The Boanerges is my favourite of the Terran bombers....I always liked how the design was totally off from some of the other ones.  I think what you've got is a very good upgrade.  I would say that its ok to make it a little harder around the edges...it wasn't a very organic looking design originally.

I do have to say I love the split vein down the side and the intake/vent top and bottom.  Excellent!  Ultimately its your creation...so long as its true enough to the original I think we'll be very happy to see a HT&L version of the ship!

[blowfish]

Be sure to match the size of the cockpit to the actual size of the model.  I recall attempting to place a pilot in the Boanerges once, and it was pretty small.  But nice work

[Unknown Target]

Don't listen to those. Somebody is modeling a 16k poly fighter.  You just need to have efficient LODs.

Um, no, how about you're wrong and try reading up on the subject before offering advice like that.

[Hellstryker]

Don't listen to those. Somebody is modeling a 16k poly fighter.  You just need to have efficient LODs.

Um, no, how about you're wrong and try reading up on the subject before offering advice like that.

http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,61889.0.html
Argue with them, not me. He seems to know what he's doing.

[Mongoose]

http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,61889.0.html
Argue with them, not me. He seems to know what he's doing.

Except the modeler in that thread wasn't primarily making that ship for in-game use.

[Hellstryker]

http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,61889.0.html
Argue with them, not me. He seems to know what he's doing.

Except the modeler in that thread wasn't primarily making that ship for in-game use.

Then what else was he planing to use it for? a movie? 

[Vasudan Admiral]

16k for an in-game only fighter is waaaay excessive given how close you can get to them in-game. For capships if the detail can be seen it's not really an issue, but for fighters it's just a waste.

I would stick to the 6k guideline figure as a rough limit.

[Mongoose]

Then what else was he planing to use it for? a movie? 

Perhaps...just to model.  Imagine that.  And in any case, whether it was originally meant to be in-game or not, you're trying to compare a stand-alone, out-of-universe ship to something that's presumably going to wind up in the MediaVPs someday, where it would be used by a large number of people.  Adhering to standard general guidelines for content that appears in a standard release package is a good thing, no?

Now, I suggest we end this line of off-topic conversation and let AthlonBoy continue to post shots of his excellent progress in peace.

[Dilmah G]

Yeah

I think that cockpit's looking pretty good at this stage, shape-wise and all. However

- The cockpit kinda looks like it came off an airliner. Airliner's aren't made for air combat thus explaining the lack of 360 degree visibility from the cockpit.
- Problem I have being that cockpit offers little visibility, I definetely wouldn't fly something with that kind of visibility into combat.

I know it's just a rough design for the canopy at the moment, but just as a suggestion, maybe copy the canopy style of the concept art versions of the Boanerges.