Hard Light Productions Forums
Hosted Projects - Standalone => Fate of the Galaxy => Topic started by: bobbtmann on November 16, 2010, 04:33:00 pm
-
Figure I'd get a head start on another one. :)
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
you are like some sort of machine pumping out a starfleet here.
2 little things about the strike-class:
-do you think you'll do different varients playing with its modularity, stuff like an interdiction variant, and a more carrier-based, and a more heavily armed one?
-Are you going to do some slightly different things with the command tower, maybe making it look more like the ones seen on victory (or ventador, or imperator) SD's, or going with what most people sort of know from a couple of games?
-
The meshes have been coming good, and game ready, but I think recently they could be using a little more detail, and probably a little more time spent on the texturing instead of jumping from one ship to the next. We had that with Tempest and unfortunately we were never really able to use most of his models.
-
So are we saying that the textures need to be bigger? I'm not sure what else I could do to them... As for the models, I guess I put in as much detail as I want to UV map. I suppose the lod's could probably use more detail.
-
Awesome, lots of good memories with the Strike class :)
For reimagining, I'd sort of like to see a bit more of an angular look to the segments to make the whole thing seem more sleek and Imperial and less like a huge space turd, but I guess that would be a bit more dramatic than most of our reimaginings so far. Still, something to think about.
(http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20051030094137/starwars/images/4/4a/StrikeCruiser1.jpg)
-
One of our forum members did a Strike Cruiser for the X-Wing Alliance Upgrade project, though I don't remember precisely who it was. Perhaps we might devise a higher-detail version of the ship if necessay (and you can get the needed permissions)?
-
I could be something to consider, making the ship more angular. It have to be completely different from the accepted version, though. I imagine it would look something like a couple star destroyers lined up end-to-end, with their undersides hollowed out.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Ah, forgive my ignorance, bobbtman.
The ship I was thinking of was made by our very own Col. Fishguts, but that was a different ship! The ship in question was the Escort Carrier.
For the record, though,
(http://amaqbw.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pHP2GUfasV1-PwEXccUMn_kDEjbtqMRInkPbmh7oyXY4DUPWdp_GzVhEwo1nyRTlqoXnIF3xn6YD6nqsQTJTK5W_7wCKnK_HE/Strike%20Cruiser.PNG?psid=1)
I do like the approach taken in XWAUP's Strike Cruiser. Perhaps if we could maintain that sharp chine in the lower hull while making the overall hull a bit more rackish, we might arrive at a design which is faithful to the original yet distincitive to this project?
-
Eh, forget what I said, it's looking great. I'm just a sucker for completely overhauled EU ships :)
-
So are we saying that the textures need to be bigger? I'm not sure what else I could do to them... As for the models, I guess I put in as much detail as I want to UV map. I suppose the lod's could probably use more detail.
Speaking strictly as an outsider, and not really knowing what methods you used (unique mapped? tiled?). Let's take your marauder as an example - texture wise, it looks like a great start; a base for a texture. What it could use is a lot more greebling, machinery, that sort of detail. It could also use baked occlusion (doesn't work with tiling, mind you), lights when applicable, etc. And, for a star wars ship, it could definitely use a lot more weathering. Don't get me wrong, what you're doing is good work, but the textures could really stand to be spent more time on being detailed.
Basically, just put it next to something brand-x has already fully textured and you'll get the idea :)
As for the texture sizes and count, I have no idea what they are on your ships currently so that's a bit tough to answer.
-
I'll look into it.
update: With fuel-tanker pods ( the previous updates had cubes representing tie fighters)
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Looking pretty damn good
-
Yeah, I especially dig the built-up area around the tower. How many versions are you planning? I guess the cargo/ground assault and carrier versions can be the same with the way you're doing it, just with different types of pods in place of TIE fighters. Is there also a strictly combat-oriented version?
-
Will you guys be able to implement fighters launching off that?
-
I don't see why they couldn't. If not possible by fighterbays for some reason then by it should be by docking.
-
Maybe it's just me, but the soft shapes throw me off. I really liked the sharp lines the one Thaeris posted has in all the important places:
(http://i51.tinypic.com/2a61a9c.jpg)
Then again, your ship :)
-
I agree. For me the Imperium is all about edges and straight lines. Leave the curves and organic designs to the rebell and neutral ships.
-
Well, the strike cruiser does have some nice curves there. But it's also sharp where it matters making for a pretty nice shape.
-
I'm treating the hangar bay as a completely different ship. I'm not sure if it would work having the differnent mods as dockable objects, but at least they'll each get their own map.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
God this thing is gonna have some real tactical uses.
-
god's finger.
-
God this thing is gonna have some real tactical uses.
Definitely.
Do want :D
-
So I'm thinking that the colouration is going to be in line with the SSD.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
This might be my monitor, but it seems to me a bit dark-ish colorwise.
Maybe a tad bit lighter?
-
It all depends on the in-game executor
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
An in-game Executor up to Brand's standards might be impossible to...execute? But that's a long way off anyhow. I'm an ISD-gray guy myself, but this looks pretty cool too.
-
So I've run into a strange problem. I'm trying to bake my AO, but the main hull is rendering wierd. The highest parts are rendering darker than than the lower parts, and the edges seem to be appearing in the AO. Any suggestions?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
You need to use edge padding if you want to avoid those edges. Also, the texture appears to be quite low res, judging by that screen you posted. Are you using unique mapping?
-
I personally would like to see more color on the cruiser.
It definitely is more stylish than most Imperial cruisers and more suited to have colors other than boring Imperial.
I'm not suggesting to make it the Rainbow Cruiser, maybe something to accentuate the details of the model.
Just my thoughts...
Whatever you decide though, it will still look pretty amazing.
-
That's an AO map, ambient occlusion. It's not the base texture. It gets overlaid onto the base texture usually to give a more realistic lighting effect, but for studying the AO map itself it's usually overlaid onto a plain white base.
-
newman, the padding is at around three. The problem is that the AO almost seems inversed. On the other objects in the scene the AO works fine. But on this one mesh it's like the AO is done in reverse. Those edges are outlining raised portions, while the recessed areas arn't being darkened at all.
-
Okay, I fixed it. It seemed to me that it was backwards, but when I tried flipping the normals, it just came out black. So I just reset the xform and presto! The normals were all backwards. Flip them and it worked!
-
Heh, was just about to suggest that. Also, padding pnly works on the image you set up to be saved inside the rtt dialog; it doesn't work if you have it render and then save the resulting pic from the rendered frame window. So for ambient occlusion, I find that the best way is applying a white material and rendering a complete map with a padding of around 2 (ymmv). Just in case it can help.
-
That's an AO map, ambient occlusion. It's not the base texture. It gets overlaid onto the base texture usually to give a more realistic lighting effect, but for studying the AO map itself it's usually overlaid onto a plain white base.
While I did not know that, I was more replying to
So I'm thinking that the colouration is going to be in line with the SSD.
Guess I should have been more specific... >_>
-
can we see the smexy fixed maps?
also, really like the SSD colouring.
-
An Update:
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
looks good to me. can't wait to see the final. :yes:
-
I'm really liking the curves. :D
-
Very distinct look, would be hard to get it confused with any Imperial ship I can think of.
-
That means I need to colour it as closely as possible to another imperial ship, so that people recognize it as imperial. BTW, there are 41 turrets on it now.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
That means I need to colour it as closely as possible to another imperial ship, so that people recognize it as imperial. BTW, there are 41 turrets on it now.
ulp.
-
41 seems a bit high. I would have been thinking 15-20 for something that size. That would still give you 30-40 firepoints if those are all double barreled turrets.
-
They're all single barrel, and they're smaller than the Dreadnaught's big guns. It has ten more than the Dreadnaught, but none of them are antifighter turrets, unlike the Dreadnaught. As is, this ship would be able to take on large ships, but would require an antifighter escort. In the x-wing books rogue squadron seems to take these ships down without any trouble, so that seems okay.
-
They're all single barrel, and they're smaller than the Dreadnaught's big guns. It has ten more than the Dreadnaught, but none of them are antifighter turrets, unlike the Dreadnaught. As is, this ship would be able to take on large ships, but would require an antifighter escort. In the x-wing books rogue squadron seems to take these ships down without any trouble, so that seems okay.
phew, I was thinking a few of those were quad lasers.
-
That means I need to colour it as closely as possible to another imperial ship, so that people recognize it as imperial. BTW, there are 41 turrets on it now.
Maybe not a lot of color... just something decorative.
Yeah... that doesn't really sound Imperial to me either. :sigh:
-
Here's an update, though the texture is unfinished:
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Well that's just fabulous.
-
That's looking awesome. :yes: One question: is the red glow on the center engine in the first pic baked onto the map? Cause that would look kinda off if the engines were disabled. I only ask because a similar glow doesn't appear on the far side, which is how it would look if it were the type of thruster effect that can be seen from all angles.
-
I've been told that the glow map can be turned off if the power is out.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
You have to do that via sexp and that turns off the glow map for the whole ship not just a part. Glow points can be toggled individually or attached to subsystems so they turn off automatically.
Now what you can do is make a copy of each engine, name it enginex-destroyed, and map it differently so it looks damaged and doesn't have glows.
-
I'm treating the hangar bay as a completely different ship. I'm not sure if it would work having the differnent mods as dockable objects, but at least they'll each get their own map.
I'm amused it's taken this long for someone to even try something I suggested back in...2006?
-
I'm treating the hangar bay as a completely different ship. I'm not sure if it would work having the differnent mods as dockable objects, but at least they'll each get their own map.
I'm amused it's taken this long for someone to even try something I suggested back in...2006?
I think this has been done a lot before, like the addons for Arcadias.
-
I'm treating the hangar bay as a completely different ship. I'm not sure if it would work having the differnent mods as dockable objects, but at least they'll each get their own map.
I'm amused it's taken this long for someone to even try something I suggested back in...2006?
That is the way these things work. Rest assured, if I had been a member of Hard Light back in 2006 I would have seen the value of your suggestion.
On another note, the debris (and by extension the whole model) is finished. Just loading it all onto the FTP.
edit: I'm also loading an updated diffuse map and normal map for the Carrack.
-
Cool, newer maps :)
-
Started conversion, turrets done...
As with the Dreadnaught, I'd appreciate a subsystem placement schematic if someone could come up with one.
-
Oh man, I really can;t wait to get this, the dreadnaught, and a few other ships so I can get my FRED on :D
-
Mostly done, mostly done. However, the scale of the bridge seems a bit odd. Should we biggerize it a bit?
[attachment deleted by ninja]
-
Yes, but only if you can do it without requiring major work I reckon. Otherwise we can live with it I suspect.
-
If the ship is that big, I think it's going to need some more detail.
-
So long as height clearance for a human being is good I don't think it is to small, I would imagine if you lined up an F-14 with a destroyer (the tin can ocean type) bridge they would take up a similar amount of space. I do agree with chief at that scale it might need some detailing though.
-
I measured it so that there is enough room for someone to stand up in it, with room for the bulkheads and equipement and whatever. Chief, that's not its correct texture, so it'll look different once it's done. Possibly look more detailed.
-
Yeah, pcs2 or the collada exporter likes to screw up the texture slots, so that's why it looks like that. Anyway, I just wanted to make sure the size is intentional; I think it's within realistic bounds (whatever that means in this context), and you're unlikely to see a fighter parked right next to the bridge during regular gameplay anyway.
-
I thought it was just a temp texture. The mesh itself seems a bit low, but a proper texture could bring it to life, so I'll wait and see what you guys cook up :)
-
Yeah, pcs2 or the collada exporter likes to screw up the texture slots, so that's why it looks like that. Anyway, I just wanted to make sure the size is intentional; I think it's within realistic bounds (whatever that means in this context), and you're unlikely to see a fighter parked right next to the bridge during regular gameplay anyway.
No, but you might see the occasional A-Wing fly through it...
-
Ok, the ship's almost done. Some notes:
1. There's now a communications subsystem behind the bridge (that grid of blocks), with a -destroyed model too.
2. The front bay is a fighterbay, the rear bay doesn't have anything to it atm.
3. No dockpoints since I didn't really know where exactly to put them. Are those needed for the fighterbay in the first place?
4. I made the hull plating a separate subobject in case we want to make it more durable and thus encourage the player to aim for the softer bits. Currently it just transfers all damage to the main hull.
The only thing still remaining is paths for all subsystems (the only ones I did were fighterbay paths). Unless someone volunteers to do them, I suggest just leaving them out and seeing how things work without them.
However, there's one annoying issue: the turrets are difficult to hit. I've got their hitpoints set so that I can blow one up with two shots, but quite often, especially when shooting from straight above, the hits just don't register. Although it probably could be fixed by tweaking the turret models (detach the pods the turrets are mounted on into separate subobjects and then linking the turrets to them, making them share damage with each other), I'd really like it if there was a better solution, like for example using an orb subsystem for hit detection (which I tried, but didn't get to work). Anyone got any ideas?
-
The dockpoints are needed if you want to have the fighters appear docked in the fighter bay, otherwise, no.
-
I haven't been able to experience it myself, but having hard to hit, but if hut they're down for the count tourets sounds kind of cool on paper, and encourages the player to strafe the target with a spread of shots, as opposed to flying at it needing several hits to take down.
Maybe the hull plating subobject is interfering with the touret..
-
Are the turrets within the bounding box of detail0? Any part that extends beyond it will tend to have no collision detection.
-
Done and committed. The only things missing are subsystem paths except for fighterbay paths which I've wired in along with a docking path for the rear bay.
I put 12 docking points in the fighterbay (6 on the floor, 6 on the roof) and just 1 in the rear bay, which looks like a bay for bigger stuff. It easily holds a DX-9 Stormtrooper Transport (could actually fit 4 of those in there if we added more docking points) and could probably hold something like an AT-AT barge as well.
For some reason engine wash didn't seem to be working. I didn't test if it's just this ship or all of them, though.
-
Yay! It's been committed! Yay! :D
-
Calm down TopAce, or someone might think _you_ need to be committed ;)
-
I committed a slightly tweaked version yesterday. The targeting bracket bounding box issue should now be fixed, and I've revised the fighter hangar in the following way:
It's now just a regular fighterbay, capable of launching 6 fighters at once. However, we still have to figure out a way to cap the speed of fighters when they're flying out after arriving through the bay, because currently they accelerate way too quickly and end up crashing to each other and/or flying through the sensors because the space is so limited. It doesn't seem like there's a clean and reusable FREDding solution to that, so maybe we'll have to make a feature request.
I also spent a lot of time coming up with a TIE rack system so we could have modelled racks from which TIEs could be launched. However, even after spending hours and hours on it, I found no way to make undocking fighters properly obey their docking path, which made it impossible for TIEs docked in the hangar's ceiling to be able to fly out without cutting through the hangar's walls. Therefore, I've scrapped the whole idea of TIE racks both for this ship and the Dreadnaught and we'll just be having regular fighterbays, since those seem to work pretty nicely. Therefore there's no docking points at all in the forward hangar anymore.
-
It's now just a regular fighterbay, capable of launching 6 fighters at once. However, we still have to figure out a way to cap the speed of fighters when they're flying out after arriving through the bay, because currently they accelerate way too quickly and end up crashing to each other and/or flying through the sensors because the space is so limited. It doesn't seem like there's a clean and reusable FREDding solution to that, so maybe we'll have to make a feature request.
I might be speaking out of turn on this, so please forgive me if I am.
I watch two projects here. FotG is obviously one. Diaspora is the other. Recalling their videos, The have a rack mount system set up on the Cylon Basestars that launch the Raiders. I know they were having issues with it at one point but I think they resolved it. You might be able to poke one of them about this.
-
You mean issues like these? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsBCtATuCaI&feature=player_profilepage) :P Yea I think that was fixed. Don't ask me how, though.
-
You mean issues like these? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsBCtATuCaI&feature=player_profilepage) :P Yea I think that was fixed. Don't ask me how, though.
We NJP'd all those pilots asses' down to swabbing out Battlestar latrines and trained up some better ones.
-
Any ideas for Strike variants? I'm thinking some kind of tanker varient with fuel cylinders. Maybe an orbital assault version, with a shuttle bay and some big guns.
-
Orbit to surface bombardment package.
Think AC-130.
-
I like both of those ideas--a version with a heavy turbo battery in place of the fighter bay would be especially nice because it would allow the ship to challenge a heavy cruiser, but they player would still realistically be able to pull its teeth. You could also try a scout or AWACS approach with massive sensor and communications arrays in place of the bay (think of the ISD tower equipment for reference).
-
I like those ideas. I'll start making one tonight (I'm on the night shift :( ) The orbital bombardment package could make for a cool mission. You could have a far away and invisible ship that's invisible and untargetable, and a big planet right behind it. Then have some strike class cruisers and a SD bombard the object. Or something. Your job as the pilot would be to patrol the perimeter and catch runners. It would look something like this, but with different ships:
[attachment deleted by ninja]
-
Do you think that you'll create the Peregrine-Variant (the one with gravity well generators) from X-Wing vs TIE Fighter: Balance of Power?
-
Not likely. Rare EU ships are low on our priority list. The Peregrine (correct me if I'm wrong) only appeared in XvT:BoP and nowhere else.
Of course we'll use anything we get. If someone comes out with a good-looking operable Modified Strike Cruiser, we'll likely use it.
-
I like those ideas. I'll start making one tonight (I'm on the night shift :( ) The orbital bombardment package could make for a cool mission. You could have a far away and invisible ship that's invisible and untargetable, and a big planet right behind it. Then have some strike class cruisers and a SD bombard the object. Or something. Your job as the pilot would be to patrol the perimeter and catch runners. It would look something like this, but with different ships:
I like the sound of this.
and there is the possibility of being a rebel on the other side, weave through the bombardment (spawn between target and the cruisers) to attack a couple of these