Hard Light Productions Forums
Community Projects => The FreeSpace Upgrade Project => Topic started by: BrotherBryon on September 26, 2008, 09:45:14 am
-
So what do you all think? I'm at a bit of loss as to where to go from here.
-
4 things:
- So far so good :)
- Why isn't this on the Freespace Upgrade forum?
- Please post pics from other angles to see what can be improved
- May be a good idea to use the cargo container for reference (if you aren't using it already)
-
:yes:
It's good enough as it is.
-
:yes:
Very nice.
Though yeah, this should be in FSU :P
-
The massive polygons on the back of it could be changed. Otherwise :yes2:
-
There's some nasty low-poly triangles where the arms meet the body. Rebuild that area so it looks more realistic, like blocks running into each other instead of bare-bones polygons.
Same goes for the top of the engine cowlings on either side. On a high-poly mesh you really shouldn't be able to see individual triangles at a weird angle on a surface like that.
I will flag your post for a moderator to move. Please don't panic.
-
I didn't know if I should put it in FSU as its a Sketch-Up model and as I understand it they are notoriously difficult to get in game. I was going to post another angle but seem to be unable to attach another photo. I assume this is because the thread was moved. Thanks for the feedback I will try to upgrade the arms a bit more when I get a chance.
-
Why not just upload the picture to say, imageshack or photobucket?
-
no picture :(
-
Okay I set up an account with Imageshack and uploaded a few pics to the first post. Sorry for the mishap.
-
I didn't know if I should put it in FSU as its a Sketch-Up model and as I understand it they are notoriously difficult to get in game. I was going to post another angle but seem to be unable to attach another photo. I assume this is because the thread was moved. Thanks for the feedback I will try to upgrade the arms a bit more when I get a chance.
Send it to me when you're done. I can make sure all of the geometry is stable and then convert it into a usable format so it can be textured by someone...
-
Like Galemp said, it needs a bit of tweaking, but it's looking good so far. :yes:
-
i think we need to get this hauler outta sketchup ASAP if it's going to be in the game.
-
i think we need to get this hauler outta sketchup ASAP if it's going to be in the game.
Let him do as much as he can in SketchUp, I can fix almost anything. Texturing should be done elsewhere though.
-
Now that there are more pics, I can see a definite problem with the geometry. You've added greebles and things that can be done with normal maps and good textures, but haven't straightened out the corners or improved the base mesh significantly.
For instance, look at the arms that connect the mitts to the main body. At both of those junctions there are some triangles at weird angles. That makes it look less like a real object and more like a mesh built of triangles. With your polygon budget you can do much, much better.
Probably not in SketchUp, though. Its editing capabilities on the vertex level are pretty poor.
-
Request to moderators: Please update the "MediaVP Assets Status" topic. :)
-
I wasn't sure how much of the overall shape I could change, but based on what has been said I'm going to redo the engine pods, pylons and a few places on the hull. It may be a few days before I have something to show.
-
What about the thrusters in the back? are you making some change over there?
Looks nice man ^^
-
docking
animation
-
***UPDATE***
Completely redesigned the engine pods and large portions of the hull. Should I model in individual thrusters or would that take to many polys? Also any other suggestions for detailing would be welcome. I'm having a bit of a brain fart as to what to do with the large polys in the rear that can't be done by textures and normal mapping.
(http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/8289/freighter02pic4zh9.jpg)
By brotherbryon (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/brotherbryon) at 2008-09-30
(http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/9873/freighter02pic5fc2.jpg)
By brotherbryon (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/brotherbryon) at 2008-09-30
-
:yes: Underside of the "head" still needs to be fixed, however
-
Nice. Don't forget to leave flat areas on the hull where the turrets will be installed.
-
:yes: Underside of the "head" still needs to be fixed, however
Yeah that part is proving to be a little bit tricky. I'm trying to round that off a bit.
(http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/9567/freighter02pic6jk3.jpg)
By brotherbryon (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/brotherbryon) at 2008-09-30
-
Now THAT's more like it! :yes: I love the plates and bolts holding the arms to the body. That's exactly the kind of upgrade I was looking for.
-
once again calls for animation.
-
How? Aside from having the arms telescope out of the body I don't really see that much potential.
Care to throw something together for us, Bob?
-
have them rotate back or in or something, but that model has always screamed NEED ANIMATION to me.
-
Can you have turrets on rotating objects? :wtf:
-
Turrets don't work when rotated. The firing point pretends it hasn't rotated at all.
The Poseidon has turrets on its arms = no rotation allowed.
-
How? Aside from having the arms telescope out of the body I don't really see that much potential.
Care to throw something together for us, Bob?
Since we don't have subobject translations (A-to-B) movement yet, and using invisible, non-collideable, hinged submodels to achieve the same result is a bit tricky, perhaps we just need the arms to clamp somewhat. Have the arms stay vertical when there's not object docked, but have each arm pinch inwards to grab the cargo unit during dock. You'd need the pads on the tips of the arms to swing outwards to the same degree that the arms swing inwards, so they stay parallel to the sides of the container.
-
couldn't you just move the turrets to the engine pods or something.
-
:doubt:
-
Isn't the whole point of the original Cargo Container is that it was built so the Poseidon could simply slide down the arms into the grooves and carry it away? Why would the container be shaped that way if not for non-rotating arms?
-
As suggested I've added thrusters, compensated for the turrets on the arms, and tweaked the underside of the head. Any other suggestions before I hand it over to blowfish for conversion?
-
Any other suggestions before I hand it over to blowfish for conversion?
Well there's still texturing, not something that I'm particularly keen on doing. Basically what I am offering to do is make sure all the geometry is stable etc and then convert it to a format that whoever plans on texturing it can use.
Speaking of which – any volunteers for UV'ing and texturing? ;)
And BrotherByron, you should reduce the number of sides of the circles that compose the engines to 16 or 12. Right now they take up too many polygons.
-
Yowza!
And BrotherByron, you should reduce the number of sides of the circles that compose the engines to 16 or 12. Right now they take up too many polygons.
This needs to be done right away.
Speaking of which – any volunteers for UV'ing and texturing? ;)
The existing Poseidon UVs are 512x1024, if I remember correctly, which should be just fine. We may need to UV generic greebling with some texture that would fill in some gaps in the map, and it probably needs glow/shine/normals too.
Isn't the whole point of the original Cargo Container is that it was built so the Poseidon could simply slide down the arms into the grooves and carry it away? Why would the container be shaped that way if not for non-rotating arms?
:nod: There's a FS1 CB Ani that demonstrates exactly that.
Bobboau, we appreciate your enthusiasm for docking animation but it seems a bit misplaced here. The Vasudan Maat, Bast, and Isis are all designed for docking animation (from the concept art at least) and could be done more faithfully.
-
Speaking of which – any volunteers for UV'ing and texturing? ;)
The existing Poseidon UVs are 512x1024, if I remember correctly, which should be just fine. We may need to UV generic greebling with some texture that would fill in some gaps in the map, and it probably needs glow/shine/normals too.
Well then, any volunteers to apply and upgrade the current Poseidon map? :nervous:
-
That's it!!! lovely thrusters!! ^^
-
And BrotherByron, you should reduce the number of sides of the circles that compose the engines to 16 or 12. Right now they take up too many polygons.
Done. Is there anything else I can do while still in sketch-up? I've never built a game mesh before, so I'm not exactly familiar with the process.
Oh and should I edit the pipes in the head, they are 14 sided as of right now.
-
Oh and should I edit the pipes in the head, they are 14 sided as of right now.
Yeah, that might be a good idea...
In terms of other things you can do while still in SketchUp, just make sure all of the geometry is stable. i.e. no excess internal faces etc...
EDIT: 2000th Post!!! :pimp: Can't believe I missed it earlier :(
-
IMO you're rushing it. There's still some areas that could use some more poly detail: main engine, underside of the head etc
-
Yeah, I'm playing around with a few ideas in those areas but I haven't liked the results thus far. The current textures leave little inspiration for those spots that can't be handled by normal mapping. I am however open to suggestions.
-
Added some detail to the main engines and the head. I'm still not happy with the head. What do you all think?
(http://img376.imageshack.us/img376/9813/freighter02pic10ff7.jpg)
By brotherbryon (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/brotherbryon) at 2008-10-06
-
The head definately needs work
Edit: The two little thrusters on the main engine pod in the back are bothering me... they seem kind of out of place. Are they there in the retail poseidon?
-
Getting much better :) Watch that upmost engine too
-
Hey, I think I know what you can do with the underside of the head!
Loading ramp. Like the Imperial Shuttle, from Star Wars. Have a big ramp that drops down so passengers and freight can be loaded on board.
At least, that's what the texturing should imply. Notice that the Hermes and the Ursa have doors on them so passengers and crew can board.
-
Hey, I think I know what you can do with the underside of the head!
Loading ramp. Like the Imperial Shuttle, from Star Wars. Have a big ramp that drops down so passengers and freight can be loaded on board.
At least, that's what the texturing should imply. Notice that the Hermes and the Ursa have doors on them so passengers and crew can board.
/me agrees.
-
I really didn't like how the head was shaping up, so I scraped it and started over. I'm already further along in the rebuild than I was before. Amazing how fast things go once the basic shape feels right. Good suggestion about the loading ramp but I'm not sure it would go to well with this model. The legs would need to retract or fold in order to make it practical. Before I read your suggestion I had already added a recessed docking ring to the underside of the head. Quick question, just how much detail should I add to this thing?
-
Knock yourself out. 8000-9000 polies max. I mean, most of it CAN be done with normal maps, but still, the satis has 8k polies IIRC
-
I just checked the retail thruster and the small ones do exist, just in a slightly different configuration. The lager thrusters are on the bottom with the smaller thrusters on top. Should I change my model to match or do you all like it better this way?
Not sure how it translates to pollys but I'm approaching 1800 faces in sketch-up.
-
Faces in sketchup are entirely differant. They're triangulated on export. I expect it's around 8000 polies now myself, but you can't be sure until you export it. The fact is that it doesn't really need much more detail. Also, I like the changed engines.
-
Yes keep the engines as they are... you don't have to stick 100% to the original :P
-
I don't know if any of you will be in favour of this but ... well
Now looking at the model I would really love to se some long and thin aerials coming out from the back, right between the lateral thrusters, I mean one for each side of course, but I don't quite know if that is possible or even acceptable with the cannon thing.
Looking forward to see this model finished, always thought this was one of the most beautiful ships in the retail game.
-
Did some tweaking on the engines, kept the configuration for the main engine but made the small thrusters larger and added additional thrusters to the engine pods as they are in retail. Rebuilt the head from scratch and added detailing to it and a few other places. I think the view ports are a little big and could use some adjustment but other than that its shaping up rather well. This thread is getting a little pic heavy, should I remove some of the older pics or leave it as?
(http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/4483/freighter02pic11aa8.jpg)
By brotherbryon (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/brotherbryon) at 2008-10-08
(http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/5702/freighter02pic12zv7.jpg)
By brotherbryon (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/brotherbryon) at 2008-10-08
(http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/1884/freighter02pic13ww7.jpg)
By brotherbryon (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/brotherbryon) at 2008-10-08
-
Very nice!
As for the number of pictures, its fine. They're not all on one page, after all.
-
I like that new front end; it looks nice and bulky. :)
-
I'm reminded of the Icarus ship from the original Alien. :) The new front is wonderful.
For those smaller thrusters you've added, they're smaller so you can reduce the number of sides yet again. You can get away with 12 or 16 sides on those. Those skinny little bevels you have on the very edge of the back of the thrusters are also probably adding about 400 quads just by themselves.
-
We almost have a winner here :)
Now its the arms that look under-detailed in comparison with the rest :P
-
Thanks for all the feed back. I've made adjustments to the size of the view port. All the thrusters have been reduced to 16 sides already but I'll try to make the smaller ones 12 sided this evening. For the bevels are you talking about the lip around the outer edge? Not sure what else to do with the arms as they have to have a flat surface for the turrets, besides I kind of like the solid look they have now. I think I'm over the poly budget right now but will not be able to tell were I stand until its converted. Any one know a quick way of finding out?
-
It's great man! Keep up the good work, I like it very much!
-
Can't help you out when it comes to sketchup, because I never used it, sorry
As for the arms, just some minimal detail will suffice, maybe having them in the following shape when they're seen from below:
_
_/ \_
|_ _|
\_/
Fear my skillz :P
-
I think I'm over the poly budget right now but will not be able to tell were I stand until its converted. Any one know a quick way of finding out?
A good general rule is to find out SketchUp's polycount and then multiply it by about 2.5 to 3 to figure out the final polycount.
-
So by that reckoning I should be sitting somewhere between 6500 - 7000 now that I have eliminated some the excess pollys in the engines. Quick question when you go to export the model where should the ship sit in relation to the axis? I played around with exporting and got it into truespace but the ship was facing a completely different direction and the whole back end was below the plane.
-
The axes should be at the center of the model.
-
Bryon, once you're finished, just give it to me or blowfish and we'll handle conversion. Then we'll have to find someone to texture it... *looks at FS king and begins coughing uncontrolably* :p
-
freespaceking's textures (or at least the ones I've seen, which may be out of date) are kind of ... weird. There are odd little doodads and things that weren't in the original.
-
Sitting at around 7000 pollys. What do you all think, Final?
-
Looks great. :)
The one thing more I would recommend you do is remove the teeny tiniest details, as those will work better as normal maps, but that's just a minor thing.
-
Looks great. :)
The one thing more I would recommend you do is remove the teeny tiniest details, as those will work better as normal maps, but that's just a minor thing.
So lose the two panels on either side of the top engine and the 4 vents on either side of the hull?
-
It looks nice. A thought: rather than adding those 2 (4, counting both sides) additional engines on the sides of the side-pods, what about something else to fill the space but not an engine (too many engine glows can look kind of funky).
-
The engines are good as-is IMHO.
-
So lose the two panels on either side of the top engine and the 4 vents on either side of the hull?
No I more meant the tiny little square indents on the outside of the arms - anything bigger is fine, but normal mapping on the tiny bits would look like a little glitch if you could see it at all.
-
Looks gorgeous, get it ingame :D
-
Ok, I've removed the small the indent on the arms and extended the trench to cover the space. I'm thinking of removing the panels on the sides of the top engine as they are probably better handled by the normal map any way. I'll hold on to it for a few more days and If I can't think of anything else send it on to blowfish. Should I do the cargo container as well? It doesn't look like it would need too much more than better textures which I don't know how to do at the moment.
-
Don't remove everything that isn't smooth hull; some of us are stuck without normal maps for the foreseeable future. :p
-
Those 4 panels are kind of skinny and don't protrude out from the hull significantly. They look kind of out place unless I was to go around the entire hull adding slightly raised panels. Besides removing them will give whoever decides to texture this thing more room to play with. That and there is plenty of other details to look at so a few raised panels won't be missed.
-
Unless there are any objections this will be the final. I will send it on to blowfish for conversion tomorrow.
(http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/1319/freighter02pic17xp7.jpg)
-
Still need someone to UV and texture it...
-
No objections from me :P
-
Sent, check your email blowfish. If you notice anything that I could do to make future conversions easier let me know.
-
It might not look exactly like the original, but I think it's a real improvement, and a casual player would never notice the differences. :yes2: :yes2:
-
Sent, check your email blowfish. If you notice anything that I could do to make future conversions easier let me know.
Got it :)
I'm going to reduce the number of sides on some of the curves (especially the smaller ones, but it's great work overall :yes:
And I can provide it in pretty much any format imaginable for whoever wants to texture it.
-
I don't think any one is going to be able to get around to texture and mapping this thing until after the final release of the media VPs are done. Unless of course if freespaceking or Jadehawk want a crack at it. That being said I've started playing around with another mesh and have come to a dilemma. I know I probably pushed the bounds of artistic license with this model and was wondering how much of the basic shape I can change on another model. There are whole sections of the model I'm now working on that just don't look practical at all without a complete redesign of the basic shape.
-
It depends on how craptastic the original model is, and your personal taste. For two extreme examples of artistic license look at the GTFr Triton and the SFr Dis.
-
Which model is it?
-
And let us see what you are doing so far. Personally I don't have any problem at all with artistic license in the HTL versions of the original FS models, as long as it resembles the original in a way.
Others will completely disagree with me though :P
-
Which model is it?
That's a surprise but I promise you shall not have to wait long. For now I have the sections in question roughed in as they are in the original, but they look like hell. I'm going to concentrate on squaring away the rest of the model first and then put it up for suggestions.
-
I just hope it's not one that's already been done.
-
According to the MediaVP Asset status thread it is not.
-
(http://a.imageshack.us/img822/8023/freighter02pic18.jpg) (http://img822.imageshack.us/i/freighter02pic18.jpg/)
(http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/4420/freighter02pic19.jpg) (http://img839.imageshack.us/my.php?image=freighter02pic19.jpg)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
I've imported the model into Blender, cleaned up any mesh errors I could find, and reapplied smoothing. I've attached a zip file containing the model in Blender, .3ds, and dae formats. Not sure how well the Blender exporter works so please use .3ds and dae formats at your own discretion. Please let me know if you find any problems with the mesh so I can make corrections. Thank you and enjoy.
[attachment deleted by ninja]
-
Oh man, **** yeah!
-
Good work... I'm having an urge to see this one UV'd :D
-
Freakin' wewt!
-
Woooooo!
-
Ironically, our recent explosion of asset development will not see light in MVP 3.6.12.
It might mean that 3.6.14 will come without too much delay! (or one can hope)
-
Well, the first bit of it (Hattie, Cain, Lilith) will, right?
-
Well, the first bit of it (Hattie, Cain, Lilith) will, right?
Yes.
-
I'm glad to see these ships being redone and you guys are doing such an awesome job at it too! WELL DONE! :yes: :yes: :D
If this is UV mapped, please take your time and do it right. As a Texture, it irks me to no end trying to work with a UV map that was done without the texture person in mind. Stretching, weird shapes that make it hard to match surface tones, textures and markings.
I have walked away form UV maps that just made the texture's job nearly impossible and not worth our time. Please don't see this as a rant as it's not. Just some reminders from a texture's point of view as we really do want your hard work to shine through so everyone can be proud of and impressed with your work. I know many of you deplore making UV maps, but you know well this is the make or break point in all your hard work and yes it takes a long time. So if you ask me, take as much time as you can to get it right the first time out so you never have to see this point again :yes:
Jadehawk
-
Ironically, our recent explosion of asset development will not see light in MVP 3.6.12.
It might mean that 3.6.14 will come without too much delay! (or one can hope)
could always just do a MVP 3.6.12b
-
I'm doing your container at the moment.
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=70904.0
You want to have any influence?
There is an issue that has been brought up in my thread. The docking mechanism of my container clips through the Poseidon's hull. This can either be ignored, or I can recess the docking mechanism, or you can create some kind of rail for the mechanism on the Poseidon. What would you like?
[attachment deleted by ninja]
-
I was actually the one who suggested recessing the docking mechanism and I think that would be the easiest solution to implement (At least for me anyway). Or it can be ignored, I doubt any one would ever really get close enough to notice it.
-
I was actually the one who suggested recessing the docking mechanism
Lol.
2 Points:
1. I looked at your docking arms and thought they could still use more detail in that area.
2. I think it's both more realistic and more canon not to recess them.
I the end all solutions are fine. So if you want to do something with your arms tell me, otherwise i might recess them.
-
I think having some little channels for those bits to slide through would be hypercool
-
And totally weird looking for when it carries anything except that cargo container.
...unless someone wants to completely remake all the carriables of the poseidon :D
-
But when does it ever carry anything else? Other than the civilian pod, and how often is that?
-
Is that actually the case? I thought it could carry a variety of containers. If it only ever picks up the TAC-1 (I think that's what it's called), then the slots would actually look pretty awesome.
-
It grabs Shivan cargo in a mission or 2...
-
OK, I've made a channel to hopefully accomodate your docking mechanism but can't be sure of the dimensions. Do you work in blender, if so I'll send you the file and you can check them out and let me know or you could make minor adjustments and send it back. All you would need to do is push or pull the faces along an axis until they fit snug. They are nothing fancy, actually might of trimmed off a few pollys getting rid of the recessed area I had there previously.
Edit: Never mind I see that you posted the model in blender format, I can check for myself. Might not get to until Monday though.
-
The docking mechanism is slightly higher than in retail on my model. If that causes problems i can take out the armor plate below it and lower the mechanism.
-
No problems, I was able to recess the channel far enough with out any complications. I'm thinking of raising a small guide rail in between the two plates.