Hard Light Productions Forums
Community Projects => The FreeSpace Upgrade Project => Topic started by: AthlonBoy on March 29, 2009, 08:00:48 pm
-
Seeing as the Artemis from http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,34444.0.html seems to be dead in the water, I'm gonna have a crack at it myself. Here's a quick render of what I did in ten minutes.
I've only touched the engine; I'm trying to give it a smoother shape.
[attachment deleted by evil Tolwyn]
-
The fun will be tackling (if necessary) the Artemis D.H. afterwards.
-
The D.H is just a retexture, isn't it?
-
The tail assembly and engine locations are different for starters.
Tail of the Artemis is a Quad X Fin design.
Artemis D.H. is a Tri Inverted Y.
So model wise, there is not all that much significantly different, but those differences will need to be maintained.
-
.
-
Weird thing is that the tech description of the DH says that it is faster and more manueverable than the original Artemis, but the table specs between the two look almost identical if not identical. I noticed that a few days ago. By coincidence, this thread was created and started talking about the DH and Artemis pretty much being the same shortly after I checked the tables for that and other ships and noticed the Artemis and DH version are the same, spec-wise. Also, hitpoints = hull strength, right?
I always thought that was a bug that slipped through. Yeah, essentially they're the same bomber. But people think they're better.
I've heard it called "the placebomber effect".
-
Quick update.
Am I going in the right direction?
[attachment deleted by evil Tolwyn]
-
Looks similar to the Artemis we have now...well what was I to expect anyway :P
But yeah, looking good :)
-
The King is dead.
Long live the King.
[attachment deleted by evil Tolwyn]
-
Uhm.
-
Those are just initial textures, I take it? Haven't finished the model yet?
-
Those are the old textures. You don't think I'm sticking with those, do you?
There's a lot of detail in the textures that I can model from.
-
I don't really like that bulb coming down from the cockpit tip... what's that? the glass melted because the pilot stared to the star too much? :P
-
I don't really like that bulb coming down from the cockpit tip... what's that? the glass melted because the pilot stared to the star too much? :P
I hate it as well. It makes absolutely no sense to have a canopy curve around like that. But that's what the original Artemis had.
Do I have any votes to make the cockpit look sane? Or should I stick to Volition's concept?
-
My opinion is to make Volition's point of view even better (hope than you will not ask what that means).
-
It might be beneficial for visibility reasons you know. There are some bombers with glass noses even on our history; the drooping nose doesn't make much sense but hey, we're talking about FreeSpace, things that "make sense" are a minority report here.
It would make some sense if the pilot was positioned similarly to the new Ulysses cockpit, or even leaning forward face slightly down. How tall is the cockpit? Does it fit a human being standing, or does it require seated position?
-
Small update.
I put in the cockpit for a sense of scale. Turns out there's more than enough room for two pilots.
[attachment deleted by evil Tolwyn]
-
Nice work. One thing though, is that those indentations on the sides are a little more jagged than they should be. They don't have to follow the texture exactly, and I think straight or smooth sides would look better.
-
.
-
Well, for one, most FS Bombers have a crew of two. I guess having a copilot/EWO/WSO on board makes it easier for the pilot to concentrate on getting the bomber where it needs to be in order to attack its target most efficiently. True, with sufficiently advanced tech, this could be done by a computer, but I guess that computers in the FreeSpace universe aren't advanced enough to do the job efficiently. Maybe the Pilots feel its easier to trust a human to do the job correctly.
-
Vote to keep the two pilots and make the canopy make sense.
Apart from that, looks great!
-
Also, please don't pitch the seated cockpit model forward that much. It makes the pilot's position look more than a bit awkward...
-
I think it was more of a concept then anything else to prove that 2 pilots can indeed fit. I doubt he is going to use the base cockpit model because it simply wont work very well.
-
Nah. If it's alright with the guy who made the HLP Ulysses, I'm gonna copy that cockpit seat and pilot, and adapt it to the Artemis. Then, I can use the other cockpit for the navigator.
Haven't been doing much modelling, Valve finally got back to me about my account. All sorted now.
-
that model looks nice... I've always hated the artemis because it sucks so bad... but with this... I might get to use it some times.
hey could you add some kind of detail on the upper part of the body also? seems kinda empty there.
-
It might be beneficial for visibility reasons you know. There are some bombers with glass noses even on our history; the drooping nose doesn't make much sense but hey, we're talking about FreeSpace, things that "make sense" are a minority report here.
And those bombers had piss-poor targeting systems. :P
-
The artemis looks like it's coming along well. In the fs1 intro video the apollo bomber variant had a crew of two. A crew of two in other bombers can make sense in this light.
As for the bulb canopy not making sense. Several ww2 bombers have canopies similar to this. Idk y, maybe the extra visibility was a necessity for bombing runs.
-
Nah. If it's alright with the guy who made the HLP Ulysses, I'm gonna copy that cockpit seat and pilot, and adapt it to the Artemis.
Alright with me.
-
Nah. If it's alright with the guy who made the HLP Ulysses, I'm gonna copy that cockpit seat and pilot, and adapt it to the Artemis.
Alright with me.
HTL*
-
HTL*
HTL, HLP, HPL, HTT, jumpin' jimminie... What in the heck does HTL mean, anyhow?
-
It refers to "Hardware Texture and Lighting," the technology that makes high-poly models possible. While a technically inaccurate term, it has become standardly used to reference high-poly models.
P.S. — Why is it my comments in these threads always get buried before they can be read? :(
-
.
-
As for the bulb canopy not making sense. Several ww2 bombers have canopies similar to this. Idk y, maybe the extra visibility was a necessity for bombing runs.
I have also seen it in 2D space shooters like R-Type and maybe others.
It's there in bombers mainly used in a low altitude bombing role. But then again a good visibility of the battlefield is good in an FS2 environment
-
It refers to "Hardware Texture and Lighting," the technology that makes high-poly models possible. While a technically inaccurate term, it has become standardly used to reference high-poly models.
P.S. — Why is it my comments in these threads always get buried before they can be read? :(
...really? Such an old name to be used for such high standards of art.
-
Actually its "Hardware Transform&Lighting", meaning the act of transforming spatial coordinates of 3d objects to the 2d view you see on your screen, and of course lighting.
-
It's there in bombers mainly used in a low altitude bombing role. But then again a good visibility of the battlefield is good in an FS2 environment
Low altitude bombing role. Sort of like getting in close to capital ships.
-
...really? Such an old name to be used for such high standards of art.
Art? No, no, there's no art here. This is a game. (I hope Taylor will read this :pimp:)
-
.
-
The large canopy is a) canon and b) looks cool. Therefore it should be used. Also, we have no reason to believe that the visible spectrum of light is Shivans' primary way of sensing things, or that they can even see that spectrum at all...
-
Also there's no such thing as jokes on HLP.
HLP is very serious.
And definitely our fighters are what the future fighters supose to be (unmaned first of all).
Now than i'm thinking of it, FS2 is not even a game. (Somebody must inform Taylor about this).
-
Idea for the Artemis DH: Since it's supposed to be faster and better than the normal Aretmis, you should make it's engines a bit bigger than it's counterpart. A: because it's missing the center engine, and B: it'll probably be cool.
-
It is called graphical art and is a term used for games on computers. I saw it on wikipedia. You can even look up terms like HTL there.
Also, it doesn't make sense to have a large canopy in FS2 fighters/bombers because the tech is far into the future and you would have computers and screens with camaras on the outside of ships. These days, we don't have bulb canopies on ships, right? Also, making the canopy too big probably reduces structural integrity in the window. I notice the Shivans don't use windows, or at least they use something that doesn't look like a window.
We don't have bubble canopies because the bombadier need not lie down and use a Norton Bombsight. And low altitude attacks by fighters these days don't involve flying mere feet above ships and dropping torpedoes on them, requiring a full 180 degree view.
There is little evidence to believe the screens thing is present on fighters/bombers in FS2. Maybe one of the six o'clock view but nowhere else I don't think.
It's there in bombers mainly used in a low altitude bombing role. But then again a good visibility of the battlefield is good in an FS2 environment
Low altitude bombing role. Sort of like getting in close to capital ships.
Exactly.
There's a difference between loosing an AMRAAM at 25 miles out while you're travelling at Mach 1.2 and flying a lumbering bomber in space where there's no ground/gravity where engagements take place between 10 metres to 2-3 kilometres.
-
Is it wrong that I think the idea of FS fighters have some sensurround 360 visual display is hilarious? In another thread someone said 'in space technology would mean xyz thing in FS wouldn't be necessary', which is a deeply amusing example of projection. We have a pretty good idea what combat is like in FS, and it's not beep-beep radar simulator. Trying to force too much 'lol for realz scifi' into FS is both a waste of time and possibly hurts the aesthetic. The game has basically no damage modelling, so the fact that fighters have a wide variety of cockpit layouts (with different combinations of visibility and vulnerability) is pretty much irrelevant beyond what we can speculate about design priorities - such as the notion of differing visibility required for different roles or layout tradeoffs. The way bombs in particular work in FS, the idea of 'low altitude' attacks and design ideas is pretty interesting, since before the Treb whore disarms the entire ship in seconds, firing bombs at long range is basically a waste of time.
-
Uh, what? :wtf:
-
Is it wrong that I think the idea of FS fighters have some sensurround 360 visual display is hilarious? In another thread someone said 'in space technology would mean xyz thing in FS wouldn't be necessary', which is a deeply amusing example of projection. We have a pretty good idea what combat is like in FS, and it's not beep-beep radar simulator. Trying to force too much 'lol for realz scifi' into FS is both a waste of time and possibly hurts the aesthetic. The game has basically no damage modelling, so the fact that fighters have a wide variety of cockpit layouts (with different combinations of visibility and vulnerability) is pretty much irrelevant beyond what we can speculate about design priorities - such as the notion of differing visibility required for different roles or layout tradeoffs. The way bombs in particular work in FS, the idea of 'low altitude' attacks and design ideas is pretty interesting, since before the Treb whore disarms the entire ship in seconds, firing bombs at long range is basically a waste of time.
Something pink is in the air.....like panties....lots of them.
Keep that htl artemis going though, looking great in short time :yes:
-
Something pink is in the air.....like panties....lots of them.
:wtf:
-
:wtf:
QFT
-
So to get things back on topic...hows the Artemis coming along? Looks superb in the last few updates!