Hard Light Productions Forums

Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => The Modding Workshop => Topic started by: Raven2001 on October 19, 2003, 07:52:23 am

Title: Textured babies
Post by: Raven2001 on October 19, 2003, 07:52:23 am

Ok, here's the Phaethon textured:

(http://nodewar.penguinbomb.com/aotd/Raven/CIMShipPics/Phaeton3 1.jpg)

(http://nodewar.penguinbomb.com/aotd/Raven/CIMShipPics/Phaeton3 2.jpg)

(http://nodewar.penguinbomb.com/aotd/Raven/CIMShipPics/Phaeton3 3.jpg)

Title: Textured babies
Post by: Raven2001 on October 19, 2003, 07:54:43 am

Next, the Vasudan destroyer with a preliminary texturing (I really suck at vasudans...)

(http://nodewar.penguinbomb.com/aotd/Raven/CIMShipPics/Maelstrom 1.jpg)

(http://nodewar.penguinbomb.com/aotd/Raven/CIMShipPics/Maelstrom 2.jpg)

Title: Textured babies
Post by: Raven2001 on October 19, 2003, 07:59:58 am

And for last... the Sol Cruiser that I promised to put up for you:

http://nodewar.penguinbomb.com/aotd/Raven/CIMShipPics/SolCruiser.3ds

About poly counts. The Phaethon is about 3000 while de Vassie destroyer is at about 5000

Also, I'd like to get somethings clear:
1st. You don't kudo me for the Phaeton main design. Most of it was drawn for me by Psycho a long time ago, although I diverged from the early concept a lot.
2nd. I don't want the Phaeton to be the next gen Hecate, but a new, offensive destroyer for the GTVA. The Hecate successor is coming up when I sort out a nice design for it...

That's it folks :)

Title: Textured babies
Post by: Devils_Hitman on October 19, 2003, 08:20:56 am

Some nice looking ships, great designs.

Title: Textured babies
Post by: Black Wolf on October 19, 2003, 09:50:54 am

(http://dynamic4.gamespy.com/~freespace/forums/images/smilies/jaw.gif)

Not too Shabby at all.

Title: Textured babies
Post by: Nico on October 19, 2003, 10:57:41 am

The terran ship is neat, the vasudan ship is... on par with my vasudan ships ( to be blunt: it sucks, sorry :p looks like a edgehog's turd )

Title: Textured babies
Post by: Knight Templar on October 19, 2003, 11:47:45 am

The Phaeton is plain awesome dude. :yes: Nice work.

The Vasudan destroyer though, I still say it looks a bit chunky for how 'lean' the front is, otherwise it could use smaller tiles for texturing and some darker textures as well. :nod:

Title: Textured babies
Post by: Gloriano on October 19, 2003, 12:36:10 pm

:eek2: :eek:  nice:yes:

Title: Textured babies
Post by: FreeTerran on October 19, 2003, 12:47:14 pm

yeah realy nice dude

Title: Textured babies
Post by: Hippo on October 19, 2003, 12:50:39 pm

:yes:

Title: Textured babies
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on October 19, 2003, 12:55:38 pm

When I try to open up the Sol ship with Truespace I get a "Bad input data" error. Anyone know what's up with this?

Title: Textured babies
Post by: TrashMan on October 19, 2003, 01:11:52 pm

Wicked! Great job man!

Title: Textured babies
Post by: StratComm on October 19, 2003, 01:39:05 pm

Truespace has never been good at loading .3ds files...  you should probably use something like 3dexploration to convert it to cob.

Title: Textured babies
Post by: Bobboau on October 19, 2003, 11:31:56 pm

only thing I don't like about the vasudan ship is the engine thingy, nicw to see a high poly ship comeing along

Title: Textured babies
Post by: Eviscerator on October 20, 2003, 12:30:32 am

I don't usually do this, but I gotta ask: when are they gonna be converted and put up for download? :D

Awesome work. I like very much.

Title: Textured babies
Post by: Setekh on October 20, 2003, 04:35:21 am

Phaeton's sweet - render it with some perspective, dude. As for the Zog destroyer, well, it's an intriguing design, but I think Venom said it the best. ;) Btw, dude, I gotta say it again: compress these images harder! Render it on a plain grey background, they'll compress far better. :nod:

Title: Textured babies
Post by: Ypoknons on October 20, 2003, 05:48:43 am

I actually really like the Vasudan deisgn - very unique, but I fear clippinmg problems. The engine probably needs a little work.

The Phaethon is cool too, but I think it's a bit too thin for a warship - no offense against the design, but I'm fond of warships with smaller cross ratios so that they are stronger as a whole. Perhaps there is a design reason why the Phaethon is quite so loose?

Title: Textured babies
Post by: Raven2001 on October 22, 2003, 03:15:11 pm

Well, the phaethon was built long for it carries broad arsenal mainly, and because it is a fast ship for flanking enemy positions... it has a strong hull nevertheless

About the Vasudan thingy, don't empale me!!!!!! It's my first Vassia (or Zog :D) design... gotta train more I guess...

Title: Textured babies
Post by: Flaser on October 22, 2003, 04:34:55 pm

The Phaeton is very good.

Actually most modern cruisers (even the Raynor is an example :D), would be long like this - because it's easier to make a subspace jump with such a shape (you don't have to open up a portal that big).

Title: Textured babies
Post by: Carl on October 22, 2003, 04:38:09 pm

i see you're using the truespace retarded snakey cloud thing.

Title: Textured babies
Post by: Petrarch of the VBB on October 22, 2003, 05:27:14 pm

That Vasudan destroyer if ****ing incredible.

Title: Textured babies
Post by: Setekh on October 22, 2003, 10:25:39 pm

Quote

Originally posted by Flaser
because it's easier to make a subspace jump with such a shape (you don't have to open up a portal that big).

Hmmm, that's quite an interesting point you raise. I wonder how much power is required to keep the window open larger, and how much power is required to keep them open longer - because actually, I would be inclined to believe that early subspace-capable would have been made with energy efficiency most in mind, because of the uncertainty of the experiment and greater costs involved. But I could be wrong. :)

Title: Textured babies
Post by: CobaltStarr on October 23, 2003, 03:42:58 am

Quote

Originally posted by Setekh
Hmmm, that's quite an interesting point you raise. I wonder how much power is required to keep the window open larger, and how much power is required to keep them open longer - because actually, I would be inclined to believe that early subspace-capable would have been made with energy efficiency most in mind, because of the uncertainty of the experiment and greater costs involved. But I could be wrong. :)

I was wondering the same thing for a story I was writing... (Non-FS but had similar tech.) Personally, I think it might be something like: e=a^2*t

e - Energy required to complete jump
a - Total area of circular jump hole
t - Duration of jump in seconds

Thus longer would be more efficient... But I'm sure someone else has a differing view...

[edit] I just realized the letters I chose for my formula spell the word "eat"... :lol: How ironic!