Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => The Modding Workshop => Topic started by: Unknown Target on November 10, 2005, 04:26:48 pm
-
I'm having trouble thinking of what/how to texture it...but otherwise, what do you guys think? (been waiting the past few weeks to post it here! :D)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v56/UnknownTarget/13.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v56/UnknownTarget/12.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v56/UnknownTarget/11.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v56/UnknownTarget/10.jpg)
-
Sorry for making you wait. ;) Looks great, especially the cockpit. What do you think of making it a bomber instead? It's pretty... chunky. :D
-
Looking good.
Setekh's idea is great, the ship really looks like some bomber that can deliver a huge payload.
-
To be honest I want a different design ethos for this project; you know, how most fighters are considered small, fast, sleek, etc. Well, I want to give it a bit of a different flair and make the fighters these monstrously fat things that move like they're actually in space (but still quick enough to make them feel like fighters).
The bombers, on the other hand...well, I'm going for a WWII aspect. If you want a bomber vs fighter comparison, compare a WW2 B-17 to a P-47.
Think it'll work? :D
-
What would it look like if you went for standard boring course and moved the cockpit to the nose?
-
Its a space Tempest!!
Not that that is a bad thing, mind you!! :)
(http://www.world-war-2-planes.com/images/tempestflying_550.jpg)
-
Actually I think it looks like something from Star Wars Eps. 2 or 3...
(http://massassi.yavin4.com/sw_img/algattg.jpg)
This or the Clone Fighter. I think it's because it's bottom-heavy.
-
**** YOU NEW POST SYSTEM CANNOT EVEN POST A ****ING PICTURE MOTHER ****ER
-
:wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
-
Uh... Janos? The picture post system works fine. Whats up?
-
Uh... Janos? The picture post system works fine. Whats up?
It just posted random stuff and not anything I wanted. Not that it was important anyways. (I tried to quote a picture and reply with my own, but due to something this was just too much for something to handle.)
-
Someone wanted to see what it would look like with the cockpit moved forward. I don't personally like it ,but here you go :) :
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v56/UnknownTarget/modified14.jpg)
Now I'm having problems texturing it. Does this look ok, or should I try a different overall scheme? (this is just a rough draft skin, so I can figure out what I want.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v56/UnknownTarget/textureblah.jpg)
I think it looks a bit too "racer"-ish. I want it to look militaristic, but not bland.
-
Needs shark teeth.
-
Haha, yea, maybe. But how do I keep the textures sharp? The fuselage is using a 1600 X 593, but up close it gets fuzzy, like it was made out of cloth. How large should the image be to maintain clarity at a close difference?
I'm also limited by the fact that Milkshape doesn't really have a very good UV mapper built in. My baseline texture that I apply decals to is taken from a screenshot of the profile of the ship. Any tips? Lithunwrap doesn't do it too well, either, by the way.
-
Preliminary texture:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v56/UnknownTarget/prelimtex.jpg)
-
The fuselage is using a 1600 X 593
You really should make that into a power of 2 texture if you're planning on using it in FS2. As it is now the game will turn it into a 2048x1024 anyway.
-
Converted to 1600 X 600. Also dirtied it up/added some sort of camo or what have you, but im not so sure about it:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v56/UnknownTarget/14.jpg)
-
Converted to 1600 X 600. Also dirtied it up/added some sort of camo or what have you, but im not so sure about it:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v56/UnknownTarget/14.jpg)
I'm liking the textures with the dirt. As for the maps, you still should bump their size to a power of 2 in each dimension (by the looks of what you've got already, that means 2048x1024) and make them crisp at that resolution if you want them to be super-sharp, any larger will be a waste in any game-like rendering environment (actually 2048 on a fighter is probably a waste, but you can try downsizing it later and you'll still get better performance if you're at powers of 2)
As for the ship itself, I like it. Different, but cool none the less.
-
Needs shark teeth.
and a gatling gun :D
-
While I'm at it, I'll just throw on a big missile pod, a chainsaw, and hell, why not a tellatubbie :p
Update:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v56/UnknownTarget/43e30f51.jpg)
-
why not a tellatubbie
because his antennae would break the glass
-
How's this look?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v56/UnknownTarget/15.jpg)
-
It's getting there, but personally I think that if that is 'dirt' on the plating it is too high a contrast, and if it's a camo effect, it's too small. It's works ok as a basecoat, but needs character. Also, for my part, I'm not too fond of the dots at the front, a flame effect could actually work on this occasion. The model itself looks good, it's just the texture. But then, that's just my opinion :)
-
What would you suggest for the grime/cammo?
By the way, I'm going out soon, so I figured I'd post this update of the stripe identification system. The different stripe colors denote different uses of the vessel - yellow is military, orange is private, blue is law enforcement (might be changed, due to it being hard to see :))
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v56/UnknownTarget/variants.jpg)
WARNING - mild nudity. Linkified below. Just playing around with the noseart :D
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v56/UnknownTarget/nosearthehe.jpg
-
now everyones gonna do nudie nose art :D
i like, gives that WW2 feel.
-
The top. Im not sure about it, should I redo it?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v56/UnknownTarget/16.jpg)
-
wing seems to look a litle bit to big. it might look ok if you texture them with a darker color. or you gan split em up into a dragmonfly configuration. detail of any kind would help too.
-
Hmmm, what kind of fighter are you going for? If very fast or something in that range doesn't really suit it. But, ether a bomber interceptor in the WW2 since, lots of armor and guns would be better. Or something like the BF-110 likeness, as a tank destoryer or something that shoots all kind of rockets and drops all kind of bombs.
-
It looks like a missile-boat fighter. The kind of thing that would hold more than an Ares and skimp on primaries in favor of ridiculous numbers of secondaries. In which case this would be, if in the GTVA universe, a "transport killer" fighter :P
-
I think you should darken the gaps between panels a bit, and/or make it look more metalic.
-
1600x600 isn't a power of 2, it is a multiple of 2.
Powers of 2:
2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512,1024,2048,4096 and so on.
-
It's your standard Martian defensive spacecraft, not too fast, some good armor to keep inexperienced pilots alive, and a heavy armarment to make sure that once they get behind an enemy, they shoot him down. In the hands of an experienced pilot, it can be deadly, and in the hands of a novice, slightly less deadly.
You have no idea how much pain I went through to make the sides of the wings and the lights. These things took me all day to do, but I hope it's worth it. What do you think?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v56/UnknownTarget/20.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v56/UnknownTarget/19.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v56/UnknownTarget/18.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v56/UnknownTarget/17.jpg)
-
Some messed up mapping on top of the bottom "pod"
Other than that she lookin' real good 'ere
-
Yea, I haven't made textures/assigned UV coordinates for the front, back, and top of the PAC (the "pod" :)) yet.
-
PAC
Powered Assault Core?
Positional Altitude Controller?
Potential Accumulation Capacitor?
What does it stand for!!!
-
Propellant and Ammunition Container. It's there so small fighters like these have enough fuel and ballistics ammunition to stay in the fight :) (Fuel is liquid Hydrogen, by the way - and don't worry, the PAC is heavily armored, but hey, you can get a lucky shot on it...;))
-
so you texture and uv simultaniously i take it. i usually find it easyer to uv in one pass and thus make use of as many pixels as possible. some of my textures have around 95% usage wich is damn good imho. btw anyone know a way to export uv polygons to an *.ai (ilustrator) file? as i generally make heavy use of vecrtor shapes in rendering the texture and having a way to do a direct conversion would speed this up alot.
-
Yes, I UV while I texture - MS3D isn't too great at making a decent UV map :(
By the way, the picture of the girl was sort of a placeholder - in true WW2 style, I decided to draw the nose art myself :) Here we go - what do you think?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v56/UnknownTarget/tailendcharlie.jpg)
And with that I' m gonna take a little break from this girl :) She's starting to get on my nerves with her little texture errors (misaligned textures on opposite sides - egh, not noticable from a distance, but definately there up close). I'll probably come back to her later, but my perfectionist side is driving me insane right now :D
-
how cute
-
That thing is ****ing massive!
...no offense.
I'm not too keen on the design myself, it's not a bad model, it's just that I couldn't fly that thing.
-
It's not that big...
-
I like it.
Though I would also definitely class a spacecraft of this size class a "bomber", not a "fighter"... In FS2 universe.
Actually, if we compare the FS2 fighters and bombers to WW2 aircraft... well, then almost any bomber on FS2 would be rather a "fighter-bomber" than "bomber".
WW2 bombers ARE huge, and the fact is that behemoth of that size would not be very useful on Freespace type of combat... at least, as piloted. If used right, a wing of those could deliver a deadly blow to any cap ship, including tha Sathanas Juggernaut. They have limited speed and maneuverability, but their armor is not so much better than fighters'... they're just bigger, so they can take more random hits, but critical systems will go offline on about same amount of fire that is required for fighters system failure...
So, if we would want to really build a bomber that would be somewhat "similar" to, say, WW2 B-17 or B-24, it should be:
-20-30 metres long (B-17 was 22,7 m long) and about 15 metres wide - there would be no need for a wing span as great as B-17's whopping 31,6 m, so this width would rather consist of weapon banks and engines
-have multiple crew, that could be shown from outside; when piloting, it's not a big deal...
-generally have a speed of ~1/2 - 2/3 of the best intercept fighter there is (which would be Serapis, wouldn't it? Or Perseus? I can't remember... No, now I remember, Horus is the fastest ship in GTVA...) Anyway, the B-17 top speed was 480 km/h ~ 133 m/s . And yes, I think that every damn craft on FS2 should run at least 200 m/s to even qualify as a fighter - damn, even the WW2 interceptors such as Messerschmitt Bf109 K or FW190 D types flew faster than 700 km/h, which is about 194 m/s... and how fast does the Horus go? 150 m/s with afterburners? About so, if I remember right... Unfortunately, more realistic speeds make dogfighting *much* harder, which would decrease playability... so in a way, the speeds are good as they are... *sigh*.
-The payload should be much greater than in current FS2 "bombers". For example, B17 could carry up to 3600 kg of bombs... and had at least 12 .50-caliber Browning machine gun turrets on it... Whereas the best fighter-bombers of WW2 could only carry about 1/2 of that; Ju-87 Stuka (dive bomber) payload was 1800 kg at maximum (D-variant, common payloads were smaller) and IL-2 Shturmovik (ground attack) could only carry 600 kg of bombs and rockets. So, a B-17 equivalent FS2 bomber should be able to carry at least twice the payload of a Boanerges, PLUS have about 5 times more other weapons, mainly turrets.
-Additionally, it should have about 1/3 of a maneuverability of the Boanerges or other similar "fighter-bomber"... or ~1/10 of a Perseus, Myrmidon or any other fighter...
Actually only Seraphim of FS2 bombers can get even close to be classified as a real bomber... but even in that case, I'd class it equivalent to a Ju-88 or similar, 2-engine bomber of WW2.
On the other hand, if we want to build a bomber that would be equivalent to, say, Tupolev Tu-95 "Bear", now, there would be a real behemoth...
Tu-95 has a top speed of 925 km/h (!), which is ~257 m/s... or, again, about 1/2 of common fighter's speed. Tu-95 is about 50 metres long and has a wing span of the same amount... but again, that much width is not needed on spacecraft. It has 4 turboprop engines, giving an approx power of 11 033 kW EACH. So, the engines should be quite impressive... Just like weapon banks: Tu-95 can carry up to 15 000 kg of bombs... that's 4 times as much as B-17. Maneuverability is even more limited than B-17's...
Anyone can see that if these craft had a prober fighter cover, they could be used *effectively* to wipe aut capital ships. One bombing run would be more than sufficient, should it penetrate the first defense, aka fighter screen.
Flying them would not be great fun, though... But they would be more like bombers. All the FS2 "bombers" could be associated with ground attack aircraft, dive bombers or fighter bombers... at most they could assume a role of a small 2-engine bomber, but that's it.
This new craft could very well be a fighter-bomber... but I'd like to see a REAL bomber being modeled, just for fun.
Oh yes... I'd place something onto those wings. On space they are useless if something is not attached to them. Perhaps they could be bent forwards in a negative arrow-shape? And add tertiary weapon banks or fuel tanks below wingtips...
EDIT: Oh yeah... forgot to mention US Strategic bomber, B1 Lancer... Dimensions a bit smaller than Tu-95, much faster (max 1329 km/h), greater payload (three internal bomb bays for 34 000 kg of bombs AND 6 external hardpoints for 27 000 kg of ordnance, total of 61 000 kg of divverent kinds of ordnance...) boy, that thing can deliver quite a punch... it'd be a goddamn killer, should it unleash it's firepower...
-
The helios is as long as an AT-AT is tall, probably weighs more than the laoded weight of any real bomber.
-
Are you seriously suggesting that a single Helios torpedo would be as long as an Imperial All-Terrain Armored Transport is tall?
I don't think it is. It wouldn't fit into the bombers that carry it...
Or are you perhaps referring to some other Helios, some that I have no knowledge of? I can't remember anything else named Helios but the torpedo...
-
Well, if you follow thae AT-AT's as being 15.5m tall. The helios is actaly slightly shorter, around 14m.
Edit: nevermind, turns out that 15.5m is errornous, the AT-AT is actualy 22m tall, same height as the ursa
Either way, this isnt the thread for this...
And this ship design could realy look good with a gaping maw on the textures...
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v66/FireCrack/Awesome.jpg)
-
Aye, true.
-Though still I wonder where the hell does that 14-meter long bomb FIT on, say, Myrmidon fighter? The whole damn fighter is merely 16 metres long... Still it can carry the bomb inside it's gun racks...
Btw: most FS2 Ships tend to be bigger than they feel to fly... e.g. Boanerges actually IS longer than mentioned B-17... though on other respects it is more fighter-bomber-ish.
-
I'm still going to stick with a "Heavy Fighter" classification for this one. If I make a bomber, well, you'll see.
And by the way, those wings are for payload - it hangs off and over them :)
And geeze Herra, that's a long post, lol.
-
**** YOU NEW POST SYSTEM CANNOT EVEN POST A ****ING PICTURE MOTHER ****ER
This brought me a good laugh. Heh still dose. Amen.
The fighter is lookin good man, nice job.
-
I am loving this model. I thought it was really funky and akward in the first picture in the first post, but the nearly completed version textured and everything.. I dunno.. it just really really appeals to me. Looks GREAT.