Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => The Modding Workshop => Topic started by: TrashMan on December 28, 2003, 01:50:41 pm
-
I was fiddling around and came up with this...what do you think?
(http://www.swooh.com/peon/Trashman/Pics/AstBase1.JPG)
(http://www.swooh.com/peon/Trashman/Pics/AstBase2.JPG)
-
To me it's too spherical. It's too much like the 'ideal' asteroid. Make the rock more uneven.
-
It's actually a bit stretched, but I guess one can't see it from this angle.
I'm gonna add more stuff into the interior.
And put turrets on the entrance...
-
NICE!
....add some noise to the general shap though.
-
[color=cc9900]I don't see the point of having towers inside the structure. You need to build things more into the asteroid, instead of just having a floor and putting stuff on it - any unnecessary hollowing out of the asteroid would be avoided at all costs if you were trying to build something on that scale.
EDIT: Come to think of it, is that even a stable mesh? You've got multiple points along one line around the door area (which would better less straight-sided, anyway).[/color]
-
its a beach ball!!!
-
It's a friggin' Death Star...
-
It's a noise-modified sphere with a tapered cube hole booleaned in. That's all I see, and is all I would ever see. Make the base exist as part of the asteroid, not in spite of it.
-
The whole point of the base is to be hidded. The less is out there to see the better.
I added a bit more detail, uninoed everything, triangulated, textured. Added turrets and tried to convert...PCS chrashes just like that...no reson, no message..nothi'n!
EDIT: In case you were wondering...the whole model (with turrets)..around 1760 polys.
-
[color=cc9900]I think StratComm and I's opinions are still valid. What we mean is build things into the asteroid, sure they can still be inside it, just not on the bottom of a box. Build stuff into the sides of a hollow inside the asteroid. It looks comical as it is.
Also, is PCS not converting because of the booleans screwing up stuff? You ought to be able to make something like that without using booleans.[/color]
-
Without booleans? Hardly... And I allways use booleans when I make things...
It is triangulated, so everything should be connected...
It's not a box inside, but a bit more complex object. Anyway, I hardly belive people ar just gonna sticka building on the side of a asteroid (even if inside). They are first gonna work to shape and re-inforce the area where they will build first.
And I added more structures on the sides of the hole
-
Originally posted by kv1at3485
To me it's too spherical. It's too much like the 'ideal' asteroid. Make the rock more uneven.
And you would build a base on a non-ideal asteroid?
-
Originally posted by Odyssey
[color=cc9900]EDIT: Come to think of it, is that even a stable mesh? You've got multiple points along one line around the door area (which would better less straight-sided, anyway).[/color]
That's not a problem with HT&L since the model gets triangulated on loading.
Originally posted by TrashMan
Without booleans? Hardly... And I allways use booleans when I make things...
It is triangulated, so everything should be connected...
Triangulation won't solve all problems. It doesn't deal with problems where two verts are in the same place for instance.
-
[color=cc9900]Building something in a non-ideally shaped asteroid would be less conspicuous, as otherwise bored fighter pilots go "ooh look, a spherical asteroid" and fly over and blow it up.
I suppose Truespace kind of forces you to use booleans. In any proper modelling program, it would be easy to avoid...
I know it's not quite a box inside it, but whatever it is it's flat on the bottom. There is no point for that. Look at it - it's a load of rock. Build stuff in the rock, why would you want to geometrically hollow out an asteroid, cart all the rock away, then cart building materials back into the asteroid for frickin' towers? There is no point to it.[/color]
-
it's a ball with a tower in it..
-
Originally posted by karajorma
That's not a problem with HT&L since the model gets triangulated on loading.
[color=cc9900]Yes, but it's possible that there are points along a line which aren't actually related to the line, so are ignored in triangulation. The polygons have to be remade to accomodate these points. This might not be done properly when booleans are used.[/color]
-
*SIGH*
Well...it worked for Freelancer...and it looked good there...but as you wish..
*deletes the file and start anew...in 3DMax...*
-
I think I know what you are trying to do and I go some ideas...
In fact I think we can help each other.. I got two models youmight like. Onc eis a lage asteroid I have to make smaller cause it has a winding tunnel that goes from one side to teh other you could fly a cruiser or possibly a juggernaught through! ;) The second is a nicely irregular shaped asteroid with a base inside it that is hard to see from the outside cause it has 2 or 3 small tiny entrances... This crashed in PCS though I was thinking if you could look at it and try to salvage it for FS2?
I particularly like the first one cause you put that in an asteroid field and use it to double back on enemy forces whenthey are chasing you but not right on your tail! like to get behind cruisers and what not, then order your allies to attack from the front, AMBUSH! Too tied and lazy to post a pic now I've been convetinglike mad last 5 days!
thoughts?
-
Originally posted by Odyssey
[color=cc9900]Yes, but it's possible that there are points along a line which aren't actually related to the line, so are ignored in triangulation. The polygons have to be remade to accomodate these points. This might not be done properly when booleans are used.[/color]
I did say in the second paragraph that triangulation wouldn't solve all problems but it will solve the standard points in a line problem.
-
[color=cc9900]The standard one, yes. But I'm talking about variations of the same problem, which I don't think you mentioned - it could still be regarded as a points on a line problem, just the polygon doesn't incorporate the points. Correct me if I'm wrong.[/color]
-
My thoughts:
I think the idea is alright and that some of the criticism has been a bit unfair.
A - spherical asteroid makes sense. Whoever's building in there want's an efficient foundation in which to build thier structure. Odd shapes would be less efficient and thus rejected.
B - I think it's alright to have a square inside of an asteroid, and build stuff in there. But don't put any towers or anything, because those don't make sense. Unless you're going to have the towers serve as docking points. Also I might add a bit more exterior, not much but just a means for the asteroid to keep track of the surrounding area so it doesn't get surprised and wasted. (some small watching post or something)
C - why would a square be alright? Because we assume that the asteroid is partly hollow in the first place. So they're not hollowing out the whole asteroid, but simply getting rid of the junk inside (the protrusions of rock and such). They're "cleaning up the inside" so to speak. And they'll need mining equipment to cut into the rock for more buildings anyway, assuming that the structures will be mostly within the rock, so they use that same equipment to get rid of the junk. You don't want a piece of rock sticking out break off and smash into a building, or some idiot ram his ship into the rock on his way to a docking point. And last, you don't need to "cart away the rocks". This is space, no gravity (of consequence) just give them a push out the door and no one has to worry about them again.
-
The first one's more less a dud.
But this one should be better:
(http://www.swooh.com/peon/Trashman/Pics/BaseNew1.JPG)
(http://www.swooh.com/peon/Trashman/Pics/BaseNew2.JPG)
EDIT: StarDragon...I just might...Pics?
-
It's not bad, but the asteroid is too spherical.
The idea that the asteroid should be reasonably spherical is silly. The only requirement to my mind is that the asteroid be large enough to completely enclose the installation. If its oblong, you put the base where it fits.
That said, I've got an asteroid installation around here somewhere that's built into the asteroid, not built on the floor of a giant hollowed out cube inside an asteroid.
-
It's still a ball with shapes inside. You can hardly call it an asteroid just because it's brown. Uncle fucker.
-
not bad, but as the others said, you have to work on the asteroid too, making it less spherical, and adding some structures that will be like if they are inside the rock, casually facing outside sometimes
-
It's not the same asteroid... this one isn't spherical.
And as far as the boxy interior goes, you don't undersant the concept... Maby a pic will help:
(http://www.swooh.com/peon/Trashman/Pics/Asteroid.JPG)
The black is the asteroid. The white inside is the cave/hole. The area with the lines are decks/quarters.
Understand now?
-
Yes. It still doesn't make much sense to have vertical building structures protruding out into the hollowed space in the asteroid.
-
you need a completely unsymmetric asteroid and a lot more details inside. Oh, and make sure that most things inside remain as seperate objects so you can BLOW THEM UP :)
The idea is great. It was about time someone'd do something like this for Freespace.
-
Let's hope that THIS one will convert....
-
As a general rule, if your buildings have less than ten polys you shouldn't be texturing them yet :doubt:
-
I HATE 3DMAX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Whenever I make something in it and convert it to cob it makes trouble!
First the Vasudan Starbase, now this!
AAAAAAAAARGHHH!!!!!!!
-
Use what you know... I only switched to max because I got bored with TS...
-
I'm trough with this!
If anyone wants the TS scene he can take it!
$&%!*@#!"!1!!!!
-
...that's why most models are originally made in Max, then sent to TS for heirarchy work, and then converted.
-
*pates max gently on the head and scratches a bit behind his ears*
:)
-
Originally posted by Raa Tor'h
...that's why most models are originally made in Max, then sent to TS for heirarchy work, and then converted.
The friggin asteroid WAS done in 3DMax...
I added most of the interior in Truespace...
Seems that booleans make too much trouble in both programs. Yet making anytging without them is a nightmare.
-
[color=cc9900]Keep trying, it'll become easier with time...[/color]
-
It's usually better to make the whole thing in one program, switching between the two will only bring trouble, like in this case... :(
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
The friggin asteroid WAS done in 3DMax...
I added most of the interior in Truespace...
Seems that booleans make too much trouble in both programs. Yet making anytging without them is a nightmare.
Just inverse-extrude a face & work from there. Easy as pie.
I've never needed to use a boolean in max.
-
Yeah...but that takes hours to make something like a asteroid base..
-
[color=cc9900]If I wasn't close to going to bed, I'd fire up Lightwave and try to prove you wrong.[/color]
-
uh oh! doing something that might require EFFORT! nooo!
-
Well.. when you put it that way, effort really does suck. I mean in general, not that this couldn't use any or.. maybe I'll just go to bed now..
-
You didn't understand..
I can make a simple fighter or a capship out of a single object, without using booleans, just with extrude, bevel and similar stuff...
But a asteroid base has just too many surfaces that go in underts of directions.
How can you make a LARGE flat platform in the middle of a hollow asteroid without booleans?
You can't with extrusion or beveling....
-
[color=cc9900]Oh, can't you now? Not that anybody would actually want to place a large flat platform in the middle of an asteroid, but if they did want to then they could just do it using cloned vertices pushed to an absolute position on the y axis, then constructing the polygons that those points form. That way you'd have a flat platform with perfectly vertical struts down to the asteroid surface.
You can do one hell of a lot if you shift down to vertex editing.[/color]
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
You didn't understand..
I can make a simple fighter or a capship out of a single object, without using booleans, just with extrude, bevel and similar stuff...
But a asteroid base has just too many surfaces that go in underts of directions.
How can you make a LARGE flat platform in the middle of a hollow asteroid without booleans?
You can't with extrusion or beveling....
Yes you can. It's piss easy. There is NOTHING there that can't be done simply and efficiently with a bit of extrusion, face resizing, welding (& vertice movement) and possibly some minor tesselation.
Vertex Weld is your friend.
-
Starting anew...This time the asteroid itself is 4300 polys
Now to start adding the interior...