Hard Light Productions Forums
Community Projects => The FreeSpace Upgrade Project => Topic started by: Enioch on December 17, 2008, 01:51:00 pm
-
I've been reading this thread: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,57778.0.html
and it seems the argo has had less love than it deserves. :p
I've also done some searching, and I found that a couple of years ago there had been an attempt by FireCrack (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,38064.0.html); unfortunately the model was corrupted and it seems there has been no revival.
I dunno if I will ever be able to texture this; I tend to be overly meticulous and, if I take on its texturing as well, this thing will gobble up all of my free time. But I'm pretty sure that I will finish the model before New Year (we'll see if I'm mistaken) :p
IMPORTANT-> I am not familiar with the rules concerning HTL'ing of ships in this community. If there is a problem with me picking up something that somebody else was working on (though, keep in mind that it seems as if the Argo was abandoned), tell me so, and I will gladly scrap the model and let the rightful modeler finish the job.
As you can see, I was inspired by FireCrack to some extent. But then I added some of my personal touches! ;)
Currently sitting at ~3400 tris (less than 2000 polies). Optimized on-the-fly.
Feedback please?
-
Yey! The Argo!
Only thing I don't really like is the front, with the bulgy thing at the top and the rather strange docking ring. Apart from that, it's nice.
-
Yey! The Argo!
Only thing I don't really like is the front, with the bulgy thing at the top and the rather strange docking ring. Apart from that, it's nice.
I know what you mean..
I'm thinking about re-designing the front part. I hate the 'bulgy thing' as well, but it's part of the ship -it's on the original as well. I might 'change' it a bit though.
And I'm afraid I'll have to put my foot down on the 'strange docking ring'. Although it's not finished, I like it like that.
Still, if the majority votes for a change, I'll try it out.
-
you could replace that square part at the back and replace it with more smaller thrusters.
Good you picked this up I love this transport, hope to see it htl'd in a near future :D
-
Looking good! Excellent, in fact.
Try smoothing out those curved panels on the starboard side (second pic.) And for the docking ring, remember that the dockpoint has to end up flush with the hull of the dockee; having it inset like that isn't good.
The engines could use a few more sides. Bump them up to 16.
-
My 3 suggestions would be:
1) As has been said, the front dockport looks a bit out of place - the texture indicates a rounded part to it which I'd say would help considerably. I'd love to see some interesting greebling around it too. :D
2) More rounded and probably chunkier engines - octagons look a bit out of place. I'd suggest something a bit more like firecracks engines in terms of shape (FS doesn't really use booster rocket type engines), but with better and more interesting recesses for the actual glow.
3) Overall greebles and recesses - moar! :D The greebles in the recesses on the starboard side are great, but the port side looks a bit empty compared to it. (This may be because you've not finished yet?) Some deeper reaching recesses and more pipe and gadget details would be great.
Anyway, overall it's looking very very nice. Keep it up. :yes:
-
:o
HTL Argo!
-
Gotta back up the majority consensus here - I like the direction the greebling's going and all that, but I think the dockpoints, both the sets of 2 and 3 on the left and right and the main one on the front - should be round. Other than that, though, looking good.
-
You could replace that square part at the back and replace it with more smaller thrusters.
I will, probably. But rounded many-sided engines tend to gobble up tris, so this will be the last thing I do -I prefer to save up tris for the greebling.
Try smoothing out those curved panels on the starboard side (second pic.) And for the docking ring, remember that the dockpoint has to end up flush with the hull of the dockee; having it inset like that isn't good.
Panels: check. Front dock: not check. I intend to greeble docking clamps into the 'ring' around the dockpoint. There's got to be a way the Argo can attach itself onto other ships' docks...
The engines could use a few more sides. Bump them up to 16.
Right.1) As has been said, the front dockport looks a bit out of place - the texture indicates a rounded part to it which I'd say would help considerably. I'd love to see some interesting greebling around it too. :D
Working on it.
2) More rounded and probably chunkier engines - octagons look a bit out of place. I'd suggest something a bit more like firecracks engines in terms of shape (FS doesn't really use booster rocket type engines), but with better and more interesting recesses for the actual glow.
Right. I'll see what I can do.
3) Overall greebles and recesses - moar! :D The greebles in the recesses on the starboard side are great, but the port side looks a bit empty compared to it. (This may be because you've not finished yet?) Some deeper reaching recesses and more pipe and gadget details would be great.
I'm still working on the port and bottom sides, although the bottom is nearly done. Trust me, I'll greeble it as much as I can. But I think I ought to leave a few large flat surfaces, to represent the ship's armor.
:o
HTL Argo!
Yeah! Imagine that! :p :D
I think the dockpoints, both the sets of 2 and 3 on the left and right and the main one on the front - should be round. Other than that, though, looking good.
No. No. NO! :beamz: (j/k)
I thought so too, until I had a look at the textures on the original Argo. The dockpoint is clearly hexagonal. And though I've changed a lot of things (mainly the inclination of the dock-bearing panels on both port and starboard side), I'm still determined to stay true to the original design. I might MSmooth it a bit, to bevel the sharp edges ( :drevil:) but the overall 'hexagonal-y' look will remain.
Long post, sorry.
And a couple more renders: the all-but-panel-rounding-finished starboard side and the WIP bottom.
[attachment stolen by Slimey Goober]
-
Hmm, I think I see what you're getting at, for the main dockpoint anyway. Maybe you could do something like this? (See attached)
The port and starboard ones I'm not convinced about though :p
Incidentally, that new ventral side - :yes:
Looks better than the Argo really has any right to.
[attachment stolen by Slimey Goober]
-
Getting better. The bulgy thing is still there, it's probably the bridge. I suggest the texturer puts some nice Aeolus-like window glowmaps there.
Don't add too small details, they're more efficient with normal maps. In other words, don't add details smaller than the ones you have now, those are good.
And IMHO, you can stick to the original four thrusters. Just make them somewhat rounder, like GalEmp said.
-
Hmm, I think I see what you're getting at, for the main dockpoint anyway. Maybe you could do something like this? *snip*
The port and starboard ones I'm not convinced about though :p
I was thinking something like this (see att.). And I'm not wasting any polies on the side docks -plus, I like them that way. One more bevel is all I'm ready to give them right now. I'll see about improving them later on, especially if the majority goes for it, but don't count on it. :rolleyes:
Incidentally, that new ventral side - :yes:
Looks better than the Argo really has any right to.
Praise, for the modeler, is sometimes worth more than gold. :D
Getting better. The bulgy thing is still there, it's probably the bridge.
I checked the original POF again. It's the communications subsys. So, I'm going to change it a bit, maybe put some recessed panels on it and slap some radar dishes, antennae etc.
And I'm sticking to four thrusters; I'll just change their shape a bit, to match those of FireCrack. I'm planning to greeble them around where they join the hull as well; I'll see if I got any polies to spare...
BTW, Is this still valid?
Fighters/Bombers - Less than 6000 Polygons
Cruisers/Freighters - 6000-12000 Polygons
Corvettes - 14000-18000 Polygons
Destroyers - 20000-24000 Polygons
Juggernauts - 24000 Polygons upwards
And by 'polygons', I take it he means post-triangulation, right?
[attachment stolen by Slimey Goober]
-
Hmm, I think I see what you're getting at, for the main dockpoint anyway. Maybe you could do something like this? *snip*
The port and starboard ones I'm not convinced about though :p
I was thinking something like this
I can live with that :D
Though you will have to be careful when you put the dockpoint onto the pof so that it's flush with the furthest faces of the hexagon rather than the flat face of the circular bit. Looks good though.
Those polylimits are more guidelines than solid limits, but they look fairly close to what you should be aiming for. And yeah polys=tris
-
Right. :D Feedback time.
Check out the render downstairs. What about the big flat surface on the port side? That little cubic lump on the middle-rear part (the one with the new shiny piping and modules) is the weapons subsystem.
(Just out of curiosity, would you place the only thing that keeps your two damn blob turrets working, on the outside of the ship where it gets only minimal protection? Why not paint 'SHOOT ME' on it as well? :hopping: Anyways [/rant])
Back to the matter at hand. Do you think I ought to greeble anything on the gig surface, or call it 'armor' and move on? If you think there ought to be panels, greebles etc, please be specific.
And do you like the new hydraulics on the front dockpoint?
I can live with that :D
Though you will have to be careful when you put the dockpoint onto the pof so that it's flush with the furthest faces of the hexagon rather than the flat face of the circular bit. Looks good though.
Those polylimits are more guidelines than solid limits, but they look fairly close to what you should be aiming for. And yeah polys=tris
Not sure what you mean with that 'flush' part. Please use simpler terms; English is not my first language and I often miss idioms.
And if I aim at ~9k tris, I still have ~4k tris to play with. Any particular requests (other than what you've pointed out so far)?
[attachment stolen by Slimey Goober]
-
A few flat areas aren't such a problem since detail can be added there with normal maps (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,56008.msg1133463.html#msg1133463).
By flush I mean... Hmm, image I think. See attached.
It's not something you'll have to worry about until the pof stage though, from a modelling POV it's irrelevant.
[attachment stolen by Slimey Goober]
-
Ah. Right. :D
I know about normal maps -the point is, should I greeble anything there? pipes? panels?
And now I get the 'flush' part.
-
Her new front airlock:
[attachment stolen by Slimey Goober]
-
That looks really intimidating. :eek:
Maybe you could reorient the X 45 degrees to make a + ? And/or make the corners of the hex a little softer.
-
Yeah it does seem almost Shivan to some extent. But definitely cool.
-
It looks epic. Keep it an X :P It looks cooler that way.
The bottom looks great too.
-
Now that's a mean looking forward dock. :D
It's all coming along nicely - good work!
-
Work In Progress.
You don't have to wait, but tinkering with your vp install directory will ensure you won't get as much help from the MediaVP staff if something goes wrong.
-
So long as you generally know what you're doing and put the maps/model/.tbm where they belong, you shouldn't have to worry about installing ships that aren't in the VPs. It's those people who don't know what they're doing that cause support-minded types all sorts of grief.
-
Wow, you all did like the dock, didn't you? ;)
Galemp: I could re-orient it, but to tell the truth, I like it more that way.
And HighMax: no, maps are still a long way away. I first have to fix her rather big and unsightly butt. Before I do so: any ideas on what I should make the engines like? Anybody?
P.S. When I'm done, I'm thinking of trying out my luck with the Zephyrus...
Then again, maybe not. :D
-
Fixed the 'bulgy thing'. Now it's a proper communications array. The radar dish is a separate object.
The front is pretty much finished, except maybe some smoothing, to
make the corners of the hex a little softer.
but that will come as a final touch.
Tell me what you think.
[attachment stolen by Slimey Goober]
-
I kind of liked the idea of sticking a small bridge on it somewhere, that was mentioned in the thread of the 'Argo that was'.
-
mmm nice detail over there with that antenna :D
-
I kind of liked the idea of sticking a small bridge on it somewhere, that was mentioned in the thread of the 'Argo that was'.
Well, I'd like to, but the top is 'communications'. I do have an observation window on the bottom though, if this helps. Check out the first pictures...
P.S. The file was corrupted and I had to revert to a previous backup. I found the issue and squashed it, but I had to rebuild the front dock; so there may be some slight differences from now on. Don't worry, though, I kept the design. :)
EDIT: Smoothed out the starboard panels. I think it's high time I started working on her engines. Unless you have something you want me to add...?
PLUS, I'm putting this on a vote: would you like a 'bridge' on the lower part of the dock-hex? Or should I keep the observation window? (check out the ventral side render).
[attachment stolen by Slimey Goober]
-
Don't forget to smooth the arc on the front panel, too! That's the most obvious indicator.
-
The observation windows are great. They look like a bridge already anyway :P
-
Looks great !
-
New rear & engines ;7
And I added some piping on her belly. BTW, what about that bottom dockpoint? I have NO idea where I should place it. I mean, I once read that the docks for HTL ships should be in the exact same position and have the exact same path, in order to prevent conflicts with :v:'s missions; is that true? I put the front dock in its proper place by importing the old POF into max and aligning the models, but I can't get a fix on the bottom dock's position... :mad:
Aside from the bottom dock and any smoothing I might do, I think I'll call it a wrap. Unless you have any requests? :cool:
[attachment stolen by Slimey Goober]
-
I request that you lend me a hankie to wipe up the drool you've caused me to get on my keyboard. :p
-
I still think that the engine part should be all filled with thrusters, that square thing doesn't look good...always asociated fast ships with large engines :P, and adding detail to that square part may be usless since the glow from the engines will probably cover that anyway.
-
Errm, could I just request a return to the evenly sized engines (configuration - not shape/detail) that were there before? Not only cos it's what the [v] model indicates, but because it just looked so much cooler that way!
As for docking points, their orientation normal-wise cannot be changed, but slight adjustments to the location of the dockpoint is fine.
-
Errm, could I just request a return to the evenly sized engines (configuration - not shape/detail) that were there before? Not only cos it's what the [v] model indicates, but because it just looked so much cooler that way!
OK, I'll go back to a previous save and change them. :yes:
As for docking points, their orientation normal-wise cannot be changed, but slight adjustments to the location of the dockpoint is fine.
[relieved]whew![/relieved]
-
There's a nice flat rectangle region on the bottom there. It should be fine.
-
Perhaps taking the larger thruster, move it down to the inner corner of the box area and then add another small thruster or two to fill in the emptiness. Or make another large thruster to go with the large one already there? Just my opinion and good luck! I really like this one too :) :yes:
-
IMHO, just stick to the original four equally-sized thrusters. They were nice.
Also, I think the radar dish may be a bit bigger. Apart from that, :yes:
-
Errm, could I just request a return to the evenly sized engines (configuration - not shape/detail) that were there before? Not only cos it's what the [v] model indicates, but because it just looked so much cooler that way!
IMHO, just stick to the original four equally-sized thrusters. They were nice.
Majority vote passes. How's this? (see att.) To be honest, the engines are not all exactly the same size, but they're pretty close; please don't make me redo them! :(
Perhaps taking the larger thruster, move it down to the inner corner of the box area and then add another small thruster or two to fill in the emptiness. Or make another large thruster to go with the large one already there? Just my opinion and good luck! I really like this one too :) :yes:
That was my original idea, but it would have been way too crowded. And I think that with a few good normal maps in there, this will more than suffice...
There's a nice flat rectangle region on the bottom there. It should be fine.
For the dock you mean? Yeah, I know, that's why I didn't greeble anything there. I'm working on it now...
P.S., I checked the original model and there's dockpoints only in the front and bottom. The extra port and starboard docks are there just for show, eh? :P
[attachment stolen by Slimey Goober]
-
Overall I would have used 4 evenly spaced larger engines as you had in the last pic of the first post, but I'd be ok with these ones if you really don't want to change them further. ;)
-
No, you're right. The spacing is a bit off. I moved the starboard engines around a bit to get a more symmetrical look. I'll post a pic when I finish the bottom dock.
-
Hey, have you done anything with the turrets yet? I'd like to see their upgrades.
-
Mesh+Smoothgroups done! :pimp:
No MSmooth modifier, I'm afraid, because it catapults the tri count to over 20k. See attachments for final version.
Changes: Scaled up the radar dish. finished the bottom dock. Slightly re-positioned the engines. Optimized the smoothgroups.
Hey, have you done anything with the turrets yet? I'd like to see their upgrades.
I haven't touched them. :shaking: Post Xmas, if you don't mind...
[attachment stolen by Slimey Goober]
-
And the bottom dock:
[attachment stolen by Slimey Goober]
-
Wow...you've managed to make the Argo look awesome :)
Nicely done!
-
It's very well done now. :)
-
Very cool :yes:
As for thebridge thin discussed before, I was under the impression that the rectangular thing on the flat forward facing area on the starboard side were supposed to be windows, no ? Because it would make sense to have some sort of bridge there for docking manouvers.
-
This is very good! :yes: :yes:
-
Well, you made arguably one of the least detailed models in FS 2 beautiful, so :D
-
If anybody wants to play around with it, here is the mesh, in .max and .obj formats. Any other format on request. :pimp:
Contains lod-0 for hull and radar dish.
If you find any issues, let me know.
P.S: I gave it a nasty texture, just to be able to export it and got it in-game. It seems like it's working well... :nervous: The version I'm posting is texture-free (trust me, you don't want to see my awesome mapping skillz... :ick:
[attachment stolen by Slimey Goober]
-
Good job, I love this ship :yes:
-
If anybody decides to have a go at texturing it, please let me know. I've got some turrets cooking and they need textures as well... :nod:
-
I like what you've done with this ship. :yes:
-
Good on ya man!
When I started on this I thought of giving each subsystem it's own destroyable mesh, you certianly have enough detail to go for that!
Either way, awesome job!
-
Good on ya man!
You sure you don't mind? :nervous:
When I started on this I thought of giving each subsystem it's own destroyable mesh, you certainly have enough detail to go for that!
Well, I've been thinking about it as well. The problem is that, until I get somebody to texture it, I'm not sure I should do anything to the mesh. I mean, right now, it's actually a blank piece of paper: you can chop it up, LOD it, debris it however you want (and feel like it should be done). I know I won't be texturing this (see first post), but if I find a texturer and he asks me to chop it up, I'll be glad to do so as per his instructions. :D
Until then, I'm working on its turrets. :p
-
...of which I present you the first (?) draft...
[attachment stolen by Slimey Goober]
-
Sexy turrets. Too bad they'll only ever fire blobs.
-
Very nice turret!
IIRC they do shoot flak in one mission...not sure though.
-
Yeah. Just ONE mission (I think it's the one where it's you VS a NTF Orion and an Argo). I always felt sorry for the poor transport... :P
Now, on a more serious note. I will freeze the modeling, until the Argo gets a texturer. There is really no point in me doing anything else at this stage, unless I get directions from a texturer. So, hands up anybody who wants to have a try.
-
I'm too busy atm, and not really talented enough to do it justice, but please make the model publically available prior to the official release, prior to the appointment of a texturer even. There have been lots of cases in the past where both new members and older vets (Karma collossus :() show off these amazing screenshots and then vanish off into the void of the internet for one reason or another. Post the model up and, eventually, it willl get finished, by someone, and used, so the work wont go to waste. :nod:
-
:wtf:
Well, the mesh is done and uploaded (see attachment a few post above). The turrets are missing, true, but they're really only an afternoon's work.
I might try to texture it myself, but it will take months (I'm a veeeeerrrrrry slllllllooooooooowwwww unwrapper and much too attentive for my own good :doubt:). And, truthfully, while I enjoy the modeling part, I really hate the tedious unwrapping (it takes weeks and I'm sure I'm doing something wrong, I just don't know what yet :D) and I regret spending so much of my free time. :ick:
So, please, get me a texturer and I will do the Zephyrus for you... :rolleyes:
-
Nice turret.
Yeah. Just ONE mission (I think it's the one where it's you VS a NTF Orion and an Argo). I always felt sorry for the poor transport... :P
I've always wondered why the transport was on the other side on the Orion: where the hangar was.
-
Very nice turret!
IIRC they do shoot flak in one mission...not sure though.
Yeah either the NTT Inspiration or NTT Venture in King's Gambit or Sicilian Defense, I forget which.
-
the mission you are talking about is the one where you blast the NTD Vindicator... the lighting in that mission makes the orion look incredibly awesome with all the lights on... trully like a city in space.
btw.. nice model,I can't wait to see it textured.
-
Enioch your amazing!
what a detail!
i cant wait to see any textured pictures of this babe!
-
i might be willing to it an unwrap but i have a feeling i will suck horribly at it :p
on the other hand... we have all the needed textures more or less... hmmm *ponders* this will be fun XD
in any case, can anyone explain me the point of triangulating the model for in-game use? it seems kind of... stupid a bit imho XD
-
Anyone attempting to texture-tile this argo will be shot. :p It deserves a lot better than that.
Also, triangulation is nessecary for the HTL enginem - it will do it itself if the model is not already triangulated. The only thing it really affects is the number of collision detection tests the engine does (it still uses the untriangulated mesh for that), and even that is only slightly increased unless you have an extremely high and extremely localised area of triangles that could have been quads.
-
i dont even know how to texture via tiles sooo :p
thanks for the explanation :) explains quite a bit.
-
Create a UV map or tile this and give me a POF model and we'll see ;)
-
i'll have something for you by new year, not related to this.
-
@pecenipicek: So, do I have a texturer, or not? :D
i might be willing to it an unwrap but i have a feeling i will suck horribly at it :p
I say try it. Why not? Hell, we only live once. (I just want to see it textured) :lol:
And here's the turret, in obj format. If you don't mind, please check if it's non-corrupted. The gwo exporter gave me a bit of trouble.
[attachment stolen by Slimey Goober]
-
could you give em in non-triangulated form?its easier to work with quads and triangulating doesnt mess up the uv.
-
Any UV manipulations you perform on quads that wouldn't mess up where a triangulated model would means that those quads should have been triangulated anyway because they're non planar. Besides - there should be a function to safely de-triangulate somewhere in C4D?
-
it rapes existing uv maps usually, and in general i find it easier to do unwrap with quads. sometimes the untriangulate works, sometimes doesnt, while manual untriangulation rapes uv's utterly.
the bit with "triangulating doesnt mess up the uv." referred to the fact that you can safely triangulate a model after unwrapping, the uv quads just get a diagonal line through them...
-
There should be no difference between quads and not-quads. If there is, then something is wrong, because internally all quads are triangulated at some lower level in order to be displayed. :) Here let me illustrate it:
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y184/VA--Twisted_Infinities/Misc/UVDistortion.jpg)
Here you have a quad that has had one edge shrunk in the UV projection - in a way that does not match the model. As you can see, you get heavy distortion from that.
Here's the same quad after triangulation:
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y184/VA--Twisted_Infinities/Misc/UVDistortionTriangulated.jpg)
It has exactly the same distortion, but the other way up because that just happens to be where the triangulation edge was added.
If you get any variations on this effect, then whatever program you're using is messing something up or cheating, because this is how the concept of UV projection on faces works at the GPU level, and this is how it'd appear in other programs or in-game. :)
-
what?? :wtf:
this part with the distortion getting flipped, i dont get it.
in any case, the problem is in c4d's way it adapts the uv's when a poly is manually untriangulated (poly by poly removal of diagonals...)
it doesnt anticipate the two tris as a part of a quad but takes the tri with larger surface area as the main poly. (in other words, you have a quad made out of two tris. you remove the diagonal thats taking up the quad, in the UV map, you dont get a quad, you get the larger tri acting as if its a quad...)
[edit] just to note, i have no problems with textures appearing properly after UV-ing and drawing in c4d.
-
In the first image, draw an imaginary edge diagonally opposite to the one that appears in the second image - what I'm pointing out is that whether the quad is triangulated or not, the exact same distortion will appear in this kind of circumstance. You'll notice that there is a significant shape difference between the mesh and the UV projection of that mesh - which is where the distortions come in. Whether or not you can see the distortion in your models simply depends on how different your UV co-ordinates are to the polys they represent.
The fact that you don't see it just means you yourself have been keeping your UVs relatively the same shape as the polys they represent in the model.
Basically what I'm saying is that there's absolutely no reason to use quads instead of triangles - because even when using quads you're actually still using triangles - you just can't see the diagonals. ;)
-
i have less to select. thats my main reason :p
[edit]quite a thread hijack, eh? :p
-
Noble enough cause and somewhat related topic though - and not really worth it's own thread. ;)
-
UV-ing should be worthy several threads over and over :p
i had to figure it out via bruteforcing it dammit :p
-
Good on ya man!
You sure you don't mind? :nervous:
nah, after being gone so long it'd be criminal to do so...