Hard Light Productions Forums
Community Projects => The FreeSpace Upgrade Project => Topic started by: Sab0o on January 06, 2011, 03:31:30 pm
-
Somehow out of nowhere, I find myself; modelling this ship.
(http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/9264/arty3.png)
to do:~
modelling:
Add more detail to the bottom.
Steal a cockpit from one of the other FSU ships maybe.
???make less ****???, criticism and ideas please.
-
Add details to the engine pods, not sure what... but something to break those straight lines. (specially the ones that can be seen from the top view image)
-
This model looks pretty cool.
But I think the Artemis has a more organic shape. As Rodo says the pods should somewhat flow over to the body.
-
yes, they should be "fat" on the middle... not sure how else to put it.
-
Dont add too much detail to the engine exhaust nozzle as when playing in game the engine glow will mask out most of it anyway.
Nice job so far. :)
-
Something looks weird with the cockpit.
-
Would you hate me if I said that right now, this looks abhorent?
First off, stay away from modeling in triangles whenever possible. If you need a reason, I'll be happy to link you to the rationale behind that statement. Next, use the retail model as a base from which to derive any HTL model. The retail model may be low poly, but its form and shape are far superior to what you've got here any day.
-
Would you hate me if I said that right now, this looks abhorent?
First off, stay away from modeling in triangles whenever possible. If you need a reason, I'll be happy to link you to the rationale behind that statement. Next, use the retail model as a base from which to derive any HTL model. The retail model may be low poly, but its form and shape are far superior to what you've got here any day.
Thaeris, that is neither polite NOR constructive. Your suggestions may very well be sound for how you work, and I won't disagree with the notions.
BUT.
To each, their own. How different people work is how they work. And if you would like to continue making supportive recommendations to members who are taking upon themselves to do something, then I would greatly appreciate it being done in a much more polite tone of post. Especially in the FSU Forums.
Further, it is still a Work-in-Progress. And it is a work in progress by someone new to modeling for FSO (as far as I am aware). And I don't care to have new enthusiastic people discouraged by "well meaning" scathing commentary that is better left and reserved for a private conversation as a one-on-one to a more significant modeler.
I appreciate any one who helps and cares to share their opinions or processes or seeks to encourage the improvement of others. But there are right ways and wrong ways of doing it, and this is very close to the wrong way of doing it.
Would you hate me if I said that right now, this looks abhorent?
Lets try:
"Hmm, an interesting direction, I'm not sure I would have taken it, myself."
First off, stay away from modeling in triangles whenever possible. If you need a reason, I'll be happy to link you to the rationale behind that statement.
Lets try:
"You may find modeling triangles easy, but I have found that other methods might work better, for example {link} {link} or {link}"
Next, use the retail model as a base from which to derive any HTL model. The retail model may be low poly, but its form and shape are far superior to what you've got here any day.
Lets try:
"Myself, I'd load up the Retail model as a basis (if you haven't already) and try and follow that a bit more."
(point out some areas where the current wip may not match the appearance/form of the desired results or existing model)
And then end with maybe some questions about "how long did this take you? Might I suggest doing X in area Y or changes DETAIL Z to better fit with.."
-
Right, I must admit fault with regards to what you have to say here, Zacam. Furthermore and foremost, you have my apologies, Saboo.
In any sense, I do encourage you to take a better look at the form and flow of the retail model - the Artemis may maneuver terribly, but it is a rather attractive and sleek vessel. If you can capture that in a model, I'd say you were doing well.
-
I was so pissed when I flew it the first time because of it's handling :P
-
I like it.
It looks beefier than the IMO somewhat dinky original.
I also like the massive amount of ordnance on display :D
-
It's looking good, but I think the cockpit/nose looks a bit like it's been pinched inwards.
-
It's looking good, but I think the cockpit/nose looks a bit like it's been pinched inwards.
Yeah, it's got a bulb-y thing on it. Make it for like a cohesive round shape, maybe. :nod:
-
Yeah, I think it's intended to be more tubular, sorta like the head plate of an alien (the ones that look like zerglings and have a mouth on their tongue)
-
well I like what you've did, but I do no get the "OMG ARTEMIS!" feeling. I mean, I get the "OMG", but uhm, I lost the Artemis. I don't see it's original flow, which kinda made it beautiful. While I do agree that you don't have to follow the low-poly model directions to the letter, I think you went a bit too much here.
Also, I like most of the detail, but I think you should try some reworks on the cockpit, backfins and underfins.
With that said, I really hope you'll finish this one, the Artemis is a superb bomber and it deserves a high-poly!
Lots of luck!
-
OK it seems the main problem is that it doesn't looks enough like the original. I confess I wasn't looking at the original much whilst doing this. I'll see what I can do. Probablly means fully re-modelling the 'wings.'
(http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/3564/ergy.jpg)
:/
-
I think that little cap on those spikes is also throwing people off. To me, it looks very much like a detail added for the sake of adding detail, not like it's really needed.
-
Don't worry Sab0o, you already have half of the battle done, the model already has the shape, it's just missing the details.
Take your time, I have faith in you :yes:
-
(http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/8201/artemiscompareside.jpg)
(http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/5757/artemiscomparefront.jpg)
(http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/2344/artemiscomparetop.jpg)
Here we go.
-
you got the point:D
Let's see how this turns out:D
-
If it's supposed to be HTL Artemis, I think that it need major changes.
For Artemis Mk2, it'd be great, but it's too much of a change in design.
-
I once had a crack at making an Artemis, long ago. Then I got swamped with university work and the files went buried under a lot of backups.
I've been recently sifting through old files and found my Artemis attempt. Quite by coincidence, I see somebody else attempting a HTL of it. I agree with other posters that your efforts are... misguided. But that you made such an impressive model from scratch shows that you have talent.
For comparison, here's my very unfinished Artemis. Try to shoot for that. I'll happily grant you the model files if you want, as I am really terrible at greebling, or adding details.
(http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/4127/artemises.png)
(http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/3295/artemises2.png)
-
If i remember, that middle thruster was only on the advanced one. Haven't flow one in forever though...
-
The middle thruster is not actually there on either, but its on the texture. Well, at least IIRC.
Much like the Elysium's minithrusters (except those recently got promoted to real thrusters).
-
The middle thruster is a working thruster on the Artemis, as per the Retail model having a Thruster point there.
-
Zacam got there before me. :p
The normal Artemis has the middle thruster (and has done since retail). The advanced Artemis doesn't and only has three fins on the tail section.
-
Looking forward to this, so long as it's revamped to fit the original's shape.
-
(http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/8971/artemis.png)
Oh... the shape of the back of the wing isn't quite right...
I hope to make that detail in to a normal map btw.
-
I like it a lot except. . .
bunny face.
-
Muuuch better.
I'm not sure I like how the primary gun banks point out like that, but I don't hate them.
The main weapon/engine pods need to be a bit rounder and less rectangular from the top-down perspective. This'll help with the fuselage being too wide as it is.
Engine ports for the pods had a V indentation when viewed from the side on retail. Your model loses this. I feel that the indentation is part of the Artemis's feel, since it looks sort of like the overhang/engine shroud you see in the myrmidon. These things have more to do with the fact that the Artemis is a next-gen GTVA bomber, and should have more of a curvy feel to it seen in the myrmidon, deimos, etc. Your approach is too square (might just be because the thing's an early draft, in which case I speak too soon), and looks too old Terran to me.
You're right about the gimpy tail fins, so I'll let you fix them before I comment on them.
Are you considering a two-seater or single seater setup for the cockpit? I personally think 2seater makes more sense for such a long canopy.
But yeah, to reiterate, much much better. Look forward to see how it'll look!
-
(http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/2639/compareside.jpg)
going to bed...
-
Looks less like a massive gunship type thing (which was cool in its own right, don't get me wrong) and more like the Artemis.
-
(http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/1172/comparison2lol.jpg)
on second thoughts, give me comments whilst i sleep <_<
-
Okay, that is looking really good.
If I may suggest though, the section of the body where it joins into the "wings", while you are maintaining the retail shape there, I think it could stand with a little more of a smooth, rounded sort of join. This may also help with sculpting a smoother body shape (as the top-down is REALLY damn nice).
-
Looks awesome.
Are you also going to do the Artemis D.H.?
It differs only by a few details (only one fin on top, tail engine may also be missing).
-
There ya go.
Though, you kinda usurped me there. Ah well. Guess I'll need another project to sharpen my teeth on.
-
Sabooo this is awesome :yes:
-
Saboo, this has become much, much better. What I'd suggest now is making sure the canopy isn't too bulbous, and I feel that right now it is. The Artemis has a somewhat agressive shape, and you should strive to capture that feeling in your model. The canopy should be a little more rackish and low profile - the Artemis should look fast when you're done with it.
I'd thus summarize with this: The canopy should indeed come to a slight point at the front, and you should follow the retail profile as closely as possible while modeling; you should not expand the volume of the canopy outside of the retail mesh (with the exception of smoothing where necessary, if applicable). You'll also see a slight rise in the spine of the fighter aft of the canopy - I would suggest capitalizing on this aspect of the model as well, as it gives an agressive stance to the bomber.
:)
-
Nah, bubble cockpit is what this beast need.
-
...It's still a bubble canopy...
:wtf:
-
Hardly a major criticism, but I've noticed that you flattened out the bottom, rather than retaining the anhedral on the underside.
-
You haven't remade the tail fins yet :(
bunny artemis is bunnylike
-
I applaud! REALLY REALLY GREAT!!!
-
Thanks for the comments and suggestions. I hardly did anything to the tail or bottom yesterday. I guess I'll get on that now.
-
You're fast, that's already looking a lot better.
Again, take your time, we'll be here... lurking :D
-
Looks like now it's time to point out small details ^^
Here are more:
I the top view your engine pods don't vary in "broad'th" over much of their length. The retail engines steadily get slimmer over most of their length.
I think the general shape of the cockpit "bulb" is about right, but it's a bit too big. (almost twice as big as on the retail model actually)
-
(http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/2533/comparemore.png)
I think I'll do something else for a bit..
-
mmh. I find some of the hull details a tad gratuitous. I always thought of the Artemis as being sleek and smooth, and the greebles kind of interrupt the streamlined design of the ship. Especially the greebles on the top and underbelly...
Otherwise, great work. :yes:
-
I gotta ask, since I don't see anyone else who has: why did you chose to place the guns in what would seem to be the obvious spot for the bombs to come out of? I would have figured guns external addon, bombs in main hull, rather than looking the other way around. It's a bomber after all, it would have been designed around the secondary bays first and primaries second, and this just doesn't give that impression.
-
Because that is where the fire points are. I was a bit surprised too, but I'm not going to argue with the .pof
-
Indeed, they have to stay where they're at.
-
This is awesomesauce.
-
Yeah. If you look at the texture, there are a pair of triangular holes in the pods where the firepoints are also assigned. Odd that a terran ship uses triangular holes like that though. Seems Shivan to me (but supports the idea that the Ursa's guns should be triangular and not round)
-
Because that is where the fire points are. I was a bit surprised too, but I'm not going to argue with the .pof
wat
Dammit :v:! :(
-
I've found that it's actually really easy to generate normal maps based on high poly models, so I'm smoothing and adding as much tiny detail as I can to create an awesome normal map. Not much to show in pictures.
-
Outstanding!
-
(http://img602.imageshack.us/img602/4614/artebump.jpg)
Testing out my normal maps, and my minimal, terrible texturing.
That pilot must have such a good view... it's awesome.
I'm really going to need some texture artists.
-
Dude, seriously. Learn to [lvlshot].
-
It looks great except for the random greebling on the top (and I suspect the same on the bottom though it's not on the screenshot) which looks weirdly out of place.
-
I like most of it but the cockpit. Having a window below wouldn't be bad, except when it doesn't serve a purpose.
-
(http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/1268/artebumpunder.jpg)
The small panels you see there are on the bump map.
Anyone care to agree/ disagree with Snail ? Can't really get on with texturing until the model is final.
-
That improvised texture is hiding a lot of the details on the mesh, can you make a render without it so I can see the details on the mesh itself?
From what I can see now, the top and the bottom of the central body are kinda simple, you are allowed to play a lot more there and add stuff you might think will give an awesome look to the final model.
Another thing, make the primary cannons shorter, I don't think I like them sticking out that much.
-
(http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/8070/notmuch.png)
there's really not much there...
-
You could try adding stuff there IMO, not sure what, but I guess someone can toss some ideas.
-
You could stick some sensor apparatus in the bottom of the bubble, since it's pretty useless to the pilots as it currently is. Then again, it's just detail that nobody will really see in-game. Also, did you properly scale the cockpit seats to the ship? I get the feeling that they're a lot bigger than they should be, almost like they're built for people 3-4 meters tall.
I notice that you've kept the bottom surface flat instead of V-shaped, but it looks way too late to make a change that minor.
Could you do something with the lasers? I'm thinking it looks kinda weird, and a little bit like lego how the two cylinders protrude out of an otherwise perfectly rectangular hole. Maybe greeble it up to sorta justify all the empty space in the hole around the guns?
The rear fins don't really flow with the rest of the model. I think it's because you kept their shape pretty much the same while smoothing out and improving the body a lot more.
I don't think you need to greeble the hull that much. I've always gotten the impression that the Artemis is little bit like those one-man submarines. Pretty smooth all over, with no sharp corners and such. Speaking of which, you might consider making the join between the body and the pods a little less sharp. Especially on the underside, where you've got a stellar right angle going on.
-
Standing by my opinion that the top and bottom should be smooth, sans greebles. Detail can be reserved for the side bits without cowling... Also I'm sure the missile tubes would like to see a little more sweet lovin'. :)
Also I agree with Kolgena on the rear fins looking a bit rough.
-
(http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/2370/tailsm.png)
(http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/2530/tail2.png)
I think the tail is pretty good now.
(http://img816.imageshack.us/img816/8506/frontandstuff.png)
Any thoughts about this cockpit layout? Gotta have someone watching your back.
The dudes are smaller, but not realistic size. That'd be so small it looks stupid.
I also changed the underneath and the all the missile launchers. Guns are shorter.
-
Why on earth is the co-pilot lying on his back facing backwards??
-
(http://img816.imageshack.us/img816/8506/frontandstuff.png)
Any thoughts about this cockpit layout? Gotta have someone watching your back.
The dudes are smaller, but not realistic size. That'd be so small it looks stupid.
I also changed the underneath and the all the missile launchers. Guns are shorter.
Except... The Artemis has no rear turret, so it would essentially be pointless to have a co-pilot.
-
Except real life fighters today have a co-pilot and they have no turret. The Apollo in the opening cutscene of the first game has a co-pilot, and since it uses the same base hull that means the version we see in game does too.
-
Except plenty of real-life aircraft without automated turrets have two pilots. Dammit ninja'd!
Either way, looking good though I do think the copilot facing the other way is somewhat odd.
-
No, make the pilots realistic size. That would be rad. Assume they are 2m tall, which is what I think the rest of the fighters do.
I'm not sure I'm a fan of the backwards-facing pilot. It looks awkward, since the person is facing up, and not really "back". Plus, there's no turret, so looking backwards is pretty useless. [Edit: double ninja :(] Front pilot's seat is boss though. Great field of vision.
Overall, good. I do like how the bottom isn't just flat anymore. However, the whole thing needs more polies. It's so angular, especially the tail fins. (They look almost identical to retail right now, which is bad because retail was low poly) The surfaces will look fine with smoothing groups I think, but a lot of the edges can't be smoothed, and will look straight/angular. I'm not sure that something like that fits the artemis.
Guns still look lego-ish. I notice that the retail had the bank cut-out in sort of a cone/pyramid shape rather than a rectangular prism shape. Sloping it in more might help to fill it in? I dunno. Experiment and surprise us :D
(Btw, I noticed that you did a fair bit of what my post suggested. Maybe it was just coincidence, and you were going to do that stuff anyway, but by no means should you let anyone on this thread influence what you feel is right. I like to throw my suggestions out in bucketfuls, so that the creator/other people can consider them. I don't stick them out there hoping that they'll all be changed accordingly.)
-
Hmm. I'll probably make the second pilot face forward again.
I wanted to get the tail fin shapes right before I did anything else, I guess I'll have to use my imagination here..
The guns are triangle in retail you're right.. Seems fun. I'll see what I can do.
but by no means should you let anyone on this thread influence what you feel is right.
Last time people stopped commenting and suggesting.. I got way ahead of myself and wasted loads of time UV-mapping v.v Your posts are excellent.
EDIT: update: Guns. I also smoothed out the bottom, top, and made the fins look a little nicer/smoother.
(http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/4881/gunz.png)
-
The guns look different, yet they'll be shooting the same laser. Any reason for that?
Otherwise, I like the bottom one more because it's filling up the empty space in the recessed box a lot better. Aside from that, I still feel that the flow is broken with having tubes that stick out of a hole for guns. I'm not sure what can be done to fix that though. maybe (big maybe) recess the barrels much more, so it's kinda like the guns are protected inside the hollows or something.
Look forward to screenshots of the body.
-
I just noticed the Artemis' cockpit is HUGE! If cockpit view ever gets done for this the view will probably be stellar though improbable.
I actually round guns better but everyones entitled to their own opinion. Do what you think works best I guess.
-
Meh, I like rounded guns. Go better with the Artemis' sleek-ness.
-
(http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/6348/ambb.jpg)
(http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/6887/amback.jpg)
Lol ambient occlusion.
(http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/4941/arteagain.png)
I think the guns look pretty good.
-
I don't think there's much left to say except that you are an awesome person. Irrefutably so.
-
My only complain is marked in this image: (http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/6554/artemisak.jpg)
Like it's too "fat" or too "stretched cylinder like"... I haven't checked against the retail model, so I can't quite tell if what I'm saying is right or wrong.
Aside from that, the model is looking quite good now.
-
Maybe it could just be a result of orthographic projection?
-
I do think you need to make all the gun-points the same, because it looks weird how it is, especially considering it's a bank of four. Also they are modeled for the high-poly mesh, right? They have way too many polies on them as-is to work for a game-mesh of this ship's size.
-
(http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/3554/mutlicolouredcompare.png)
The rest is for you to decide.
I do think you need to make all the gun-points the same, because it looks weird how it is, especially considering it's a bank of four.
Damn, you're right. I guess I'll keep the bottom ones... Guess I should have done my research -.-
-
Hey, here's an idea, if you eventually make the D.H. version you could use the other guns on it so that your work doesn't go to waste.
-
I see, and to evidence I give in. :yes:
-
Hey, here's an idea, if you eventually make the D.H. version you could use the other guns on it so that your work doesn't go to waste.
:yes: on this idea. Please use the rounded ones for the white Aremis, and the triangular ones for the DH. It would make everything so much better!
-
Lol, I just removed the rounded one[i still have it d/w], but actually I agree, the triangular one would suit the D.H. more. meanwhile, have some upgraded greebles.
(http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/9051/indexba.png)
-
I think you could round out the edges of the hollow that houses the guns just a bit, so they're not knife-sharp.
Also, I think you've nailed how far they protrude out. One thing you could do is make the barrels a bit thicker. I think they might be a bit thin considering how big even a subach bolt is. As for polies, the guns could be normal mapped for almost all of those details, so it shouldn't be too big an issue.
Engine exhausts could use a little more detail, if just for times when you disable the bomber.
-
(http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/9189/lolstuylel.jpg)
(http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/585/buttngn.jpg)
Okay, what else?
-
This just keeps getting awesomer and awesomer. :yes:
I see an opportunity for greeblage and mechanical stuff under the exposed parts of the two wings/side booms where the fins meet the wing.
-
Ooh looking good.
-
The missile tubes could use some work, and the geometry where the pods connect to the primaries. Other than that, pretty nice job so far.
-
If I'm not mistaken, some of those small square missile tubes on the shoulders are (I think) tabled by default to shoot Cyclops. Even if they weren't, this thing still needs to have at least one pair of banks that look like they could fire bombs.
Hmm. Something for you to chew on:
The retail's textures suggest that the big pod greebles extend all the way to the engine exhaust, which makes the whole section look like it's an exposed part of the engine. The current greeble you have is great, and I like it, but I'm thinking what would happen if you added some deeper elements (so the greeble isn't restricted to the surface) and extended it more to the rear, particularly emphasizing some engine structures. I thought of this because I took a long look at your updated greebles, and was reminded of the cooling fins on a motorcycle engine.
I dunno. Now that I read that, it sounds like a lot of work, for not necessarily a result that's much better than what's already there. Doing deeper greebles might also wreck the sleek feel that you've captured so far. Up to you to decide.
-
See that little detail on the back fin... where the blue texture is?:
(http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/images/Gtfherculesmarkii.jpg)
Would it be possible to add that to those two fins sticking down on this model?
Just an idea.
Oh, and I must say this is starting to look so cool :D
-
Hmm. I'm not sure I'm for adding on an extra vent thing that clearly is absent in both the DH and the Artemis.
-
Extra vent thing?
-
The blue details like you see on the Herc being added to the pod/drop bars on the Artemis. The part that looks like it's a vent.
-
The missile tubes could use some work, and the geometry where the pods connect to the primaries. Other than that, pretty nice job so far.
...Which are so tiny, respectively retracted that nobody will recognize it in-game...
-
The engine pods on the retail model are less like a rounded cylinder and more ellyptical. You can see that in both the front and top view. I think that adds a lot to it's sleek look.
Another detail: I think in the original the holes where the primaries stick out were slimmer.
One more: You could make one of the primaries on each side upside down.
-
[/lurk]
Just a random idea... since the GTB Artemis and GTF Apollo were made by Han-Ronald Corp., and no other FS2-era fighters were made by them, perhaps you could somehow subtly imitate the Apollo design?
Unless you're too far along now...
Edit: also Artemis was Apollo's sister, so...
[lurk]
-
are the cables too thick?
On a serious note... polycount? You have an inordinate amount of detail between that greebling and the firing points. None of those details will be visible at greater than 50 meters or so... This thing's going to have to be extremely aggressively LODed.
-
I would rather have Aardwolf back, so please don't do that.
-
Including the glass and cockpit men, it currently comes to 16070 tris. It's much easier having to deal with too many than too few though. I'm not going to worry about it too much until it's 'ready.'
Thanks for all the comments.
Hmm. Something for you to chew on:
Wow, you really don't like my polycount huh. I might just have to do it now you said it.
-
NOooo what have i done
-
Alright, I'm rather tired of people who keep saying that polycount matters as much as it does. I know you're all going to think my opinion is absurd, but please hear me out.
There are several factors at work that inhibit performance in FSO:
1. The rendering engine itself.
2. Texture size and resolution.
3. And very last, polygon count.
What many people fail to understand is that your computer's GPU processes mesh data as a linked list of vertexes, not triangles. Using this, one could also say that vertex count actually matters far more than polygon count does, though because of the widely-accepted misconception that polygon count is a measure of performance, it's best to stick to it (because of the widespread use).
What actually matters about performance is the model's texture quality. Graphics cards have maximum texture resolutions for a reason (as well as a finite amount of VRAM to store these textures in--a list of numbers such as vertexes doesn't have as much of an overhead). Higher texture filesize (less compression), combined with high resolution leads to a higher impact on performance. The Hatsheput and the Cain/Lilith HTLs found in the Media VPs are good examples of these--the performance impact of having these ships in-game comes from the high resolution (and possibly filesize) of the textures. Normal maps count as textures too, as well as specularity maps (if any).
Polygon count has very little if anything to do with performance. Vertex count perhaps, but polygon count... not so much.
Aside from that, FSO's rendering engine isn't the greatest in the world; it has bottlenecks and performance problems that other engines do not.
-
I thought lots of details were going to be baked to normals anyways. At least, that's what the creator had said before he started.
I'm guessing that nowadays, FSO cares about poly-count even less, since it switched from a per-vertex lighting shader to a per-pixel lighting shader.
-
Yeah, I planned to do all the details with normal maps at first, but then i realized my polycount was way below every other mVP ship in it's class, so i figured I might as well get gratuitus with the polys. I can still do normal maps if needed.
(http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/1447/intrudehmm.png)
Dunno if it's worth continuing with this Lol. Oh and I upgraded the goofy looking engine.
edit: Nah, no point. Interesting though. May do some deeper parts, but nothing so extreme.
-
If you are going to use up your poly budget, please use it to fix up the tails, that is more important than all those tiny details that won't be seen 99% of the time.
-
indeed, dont add polys just for polycount. IF you can go low ploycount, then do so.
-
I thought lots of details were going to be baked to normals anyways. At least, that's what the creator had said before he started.
I'm guessing that nowadays, FSO cares about poly-count even less, since it switched from a per-vertex lighting shader to a per-pixel lighting shader.
That would be FSU, not FSO. I'm sure there are still plenty of engine limitations. And we don't encourage being wasteful of polygons, wether there is a reason for it or not. And yes, there is a lot of detailing that can be done rather well with a finely made normal map. But no normal map that the engine uses can make up for actual TRUE depth at the moment, especially when it come to lighting interaction. Having a genuinely recessed panel lighting wise (whether you are using pre-pixel or per-vertex lighting) will always look better than a panel that only "appears" to be recessed by a normal map, because at some angles or proximity, it is STILL a flat surface and there is nothing that can be done about it except for using higher OpenGL functions and geometry modification shaders, which require materials systems and which won't be available to anything that can't handle OpenGL 3.x/4.x or just doesn't have the grunt to pull it off.
So, while poly count (as triangles, quads, wetrs, normals whatever) _is_ still an important factor, it is NOT as rigid a constraint as some people tend to think of it as being. If you can do more with less, PERFECT. How the edges and faces are optimized and aligned when created is very important. But more importantly that that, is how well it is laid out texturing wise to achieve the best possible maximum result with the lowest possible resolution or number of maps to preserve and present clean and recognizable detail.
The important factor about meshes and how many polygons are present in it comes in the form of collision detection and interaction. And frankly, you can have a 2k malformed screwed up model (however GREAT it may look mapping wise) bring the system to a crawl and a well made and properly organized and optimized 20k mesh won't cause so much as a stutter.
And yes, polycount will be a factor for performance. Obviously, the Retail Colossus is going to be less intensive on a system than the High Poly Colossus, just in terms of the mesh. But in terms of efficiency for what gets stored in system and video ram, the new Colossus is more efficient than the Retail model will ever be.
We have plenty of Staff and Community members to help make sure that any model that get's used strikes the balance (as best as can be determined and on a per-model basis) to make sure that it is as in-game performance friendly as possible. But it is also MUCH easier to start with a higher-than-may-be-necessary detailed model and work it down into being in-game friendly than it is having to up-detail it later. And higher detailing for a release model means cutscene usage, $Tech Model anim remakes, stellar videos or render shots (like concept art, only more tangible) or any number of things.
-
Of course when I made that post I was exclusively referring to rendering engine overhead rather than physics calculations (which are a separate medium running on the processor rather than the GPU)--and as many programmers know, well-oiled game logic (such as AI, physics, and the like) are more important than visual assets.
-
Was my last post noticed by the model author? (1 page back, on the bottom)
-
The engine pods on the retail model are less like a rounded cylinder and more ellyptical. You can see that in both the front and top view. I think that adds a lot to it's sleek look.
Maybe a little from the top view. Unfortunately, at this point it would be practically impossible to 'fix' without re-modelling half the pod [with it's greebles on it].
Another detail: I think in the original the holes where the primaries stick out were slimmer.
really? Oh.
One more: You could make one of the primaries on each side upside down.
Actually did that. When I was using the triangle guns. For these, I chose both the same.
-
Do you work on this and D.h. simultaneously? :)
-
Fully uv-mapped.
to do:
- add more detail to hi poly model for normal map (normal maps are so cool)
- smooth groups
- uv map guns
- texture
- get some sleep.
I'll probably post some pictures tomorrow if there's something worth showing.
-
Anyone who would like to help texturing, dowload this. PM me with what you're doing to avoid anyone doing the same thing twice.
edit2:removed link
EDIT: My current progress:
(http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/8851/texturq.jpg)
Better than I expected I'd be able to do in a few hours.
-
Those textures look... off for some reason. I dunno why. Might just be the lack of the AO bake, or the noisyness of the base white texture.
What happened to smoothing groups? The thing looks like a nicely crafted wooden model that someone forgot to file/sand down.
Your plate separation lines aren't rectangular/bricky enough to look terran. The tops look almost like arctic camo right now.
Also, the red bits look like they should be more peach than what you have now.
But yeah, most of those things seem to be just because the screenshots are very very early WIP. I still like your model very much.
-
(http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/1558/smoothed.jpg)
new download link, though I doubt anyone downloaded the old version. Includes model with smoothgroups, my latest texture.
edit: **** this download, PM me if you want to help.
kolgena: yeah... yeah. I'm really not sure how good I can make it alone though.
-
I'd help, but I don't know squat about modeling or texturing.
I know a lot of the big contributors are already working on big projects though, so it might take some time for someone to volunteer to help you out.
-
After almost giving up due to frustrating things.. I.. finally managed to get some texturing done. 15h, 4096^2. A few errors, nothing too hard to fix.
(http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/1626/15htexture.png)
(http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/330/ntex2.png)
-
Wow, this turned out way better than expected! Bring the whole texture up to the quality of the gunpods and it'll look great. Keep it up.
-
4096^2?, that's too big for a fighter/bomber.
Try to make the details a little bigger, this way when rescaling the image those details aren't lost.
Also, the texture looks quite good right now :yes:
-
4096^2?, that's too big for a fighter/bomber.
Try to make the details a little bigger, this way when rescaling the image those details aren't lost.
Also, the texture looks quite good right now :yes:
It's a work in progress and it's always better to create maps at as large a size as possible because it's easier to scale down than it is to scale up.
-
I'm really looking forward to this. You have great stamina :)
But you can actually see that :v: pretty ****ed up the dimensions. The cockpit is so big and the pilots are pretty small (I guess they are about 2metres tall?) - not your fault though.
-
I'm really looking forward to this. You have great stamina :)
But you can actually see that :v: pretty ****ed up the dimensions. The cockpit is so big and the pilots are pretty small (I guess they are about 2metres tall?) - not your fault though.
Actually... that seems to be consistent with ships from both games. The Hermes has windows two meters tall and the doors are five, for example.
-
And the Valkyrie. What's the point of 2 meter tall canopy glass?
OT: Looks good. Very good, but I have nitpicks as usual.
Detail texture on the main body doesn't fit. I also realize that this criticism is mostly useless, since it doesn't look like you've started any details on the body yet. But for when you do, get rid of the wood grain and think ceramic/metal tiling.
Green glass. Yeah. You might consider making the diffuse alpha sorta greenish blue, and the specular map super strong green/blue, so it looks like sunglass material.
Char/streak marks on hull behind the engine exhausts. Especially the inner side of the fins.
(and of course AO bake. But that's the absolute last step, as I understand it)
-
Pretty much all of that is already planned, Kolegna. :). Check this out.
(http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/459/dayumg.jpg)
Man, I am so happy with how this looks.
-
I like how it's turning out, should be one of the more fun ships to fly with TrackIR.
-
(http://impulse101.org/images/captain-picard-full-of-win-500x381.jpg)
It's getting better and better. I can't wait to get my hands on the new mediaVP's :shaking:
-
I'm waiting until the next release to download and replay the FS2 campaign.
-
Bombing the hell outta cruisers will never be the same after a flight in this :D
-
looking good
-
What's with Kolegna being a common misspelling of my name? I can count at least a dozen people who have done that... Whatever :P
Wood grain's still there, but now you're painting decals on top of it :(
Black metal cockpit brackets look really really noisy. Like, even if we consider that they have ringing jpeg artifacts all over them :P
Some of the finer light lines on the pods are going to be nigh invisible when you downsize your texture from 4096^2. I'd say either thicken them up or darken them.
-
I'll have to go with Kolgena, I do not like the texture on the main body. I would've liked seeing something like on the pods, albeit with fewer panels...
-
Akshually, a lot of those lines will turn into normal map lines just fine, so they can stay for now and we can worry about them being on the diffuse map prior to publishing.
-
Do keep in mind, he's just barely started on the main body. :p
And at least the Artemis doesn't still look like it's made of broken eggshells anymore
-
Sorry to bother, but the fins on the back of the main body don't quite look right where they connect to the rest of the ship.
-
OK, it's currently in a state I consider very near finished.
And I feel like posting pictures. Click to enlarge.
(http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/1101/coolmx.jpg)
(http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/8684/topfn.jpg)
Notice how the vents are shiny inside.
(http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/8976/backlaq.jpg)
back vents arevery shiny.
(http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/7584/underback.jpg)
The slightly brighter part on the bottom there is due to the shine map. Looks really nice ingame.
(http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/7109/frontunder.jpg)
Shiny golden missiles.
(http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/476/greebz.jpg)
some bits are shiny.
(http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/5268/siders.jpg)
-
This Artemis be full of win -- More precisely, full of lovely polys, detailing, clean pretty textures and hard work. :D
I cannot wait to see the final version of the Artemis.
-
This is the Inferno Team and we approve of your work. You can expect a PM from us soon. ;)
-
Haha, that last shot really emphasizes how ridiculous [V] made the canopy sizes.
Overall: I like it a lot, but there are some details that I really want to see changed before release:
The top/bottom of the fuselage really need some detail. You should plate it up like the side pods (but with bigger plates/more spaced out lines)
I don't like the detail texture for the whole ship, but at this stage, I'm not sure what can be done about it. What it looks like now is some sort of plaster-of-paris or paper mache surface, instead of the shiny, sometimes rough, metal stuff we see on all the other Terran ships.
But yeah, gold missiles = *****in. Greeble panels = *****in. Canopy = *****in. Good work!
-
Don't worry, I doub't you'll be able to see that detail texture once it's resized.... on that note I'll probably need to make a smaller normal map...
(http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/4205/peww.jpg)
-
Where's the ambient occlusion bake? :P
Glass could do with stronger spec or env maps... seems a tad too see through. (I know that many of the other fighters have a translucent/milky instead of transparent glass texture... maybe look into that as an option?)
-
There seem to be smoothing errors, where the cocpit attaches to the body, and where the fins attach to the body,and at the back of the fins and around the center thruster.
And i agree that the bare part on the top needs, well ... something! I don't know what. To me it looks like if you had forgotten to add detail there, not deliberately undetailed. I have an Idea: Imagine hull plating on the undetailed areas, now imagine, that these plates don't have black lines where they connect, so if you don't look closely it's hard to see, that they are individual plates. Now, these plates are slightly curved upwards at the borders, so that they form a small edge, where they connect. If you fly around, firing missles, black missle exhaust is settling on the ships hull, you already added that around the missle banks. Imagine what happens if that missle exhaust is blasted over the small dges, formed by the plates. One side of the edge (the one facing to the front of the ship) gets darkened more then the other side of the edge. Just like snow or sand that only lies on one side of a mountain because of the wind. I imagine the resulting texture to be added to the "bare" sections. Very faintly, barely visible.
-
There seem to be smoothing errors, where the cocpit attaches to the body, and where the fins attach to the body,and at the back of the fins and around the center thruster.
And i agree that the bare part on the top needs, well ... something! I don't know what. To me it looks like if you had forgotten to add detail there, not deliberately undetailed. I have an Idea: Imagine hull plating on the undetailed areas, now imagine, that these plates don't have black lines where they connect, so if you don't look closely it's hard to see, that they are individual plates. Now, these plates are slightly curved upwards at the borders, so that they form a small edge, where they connect. If you fly around, firing missles, black missle exhaust is settling on the ships hull, you already added that around the missle banks. Imagine what happens if that missle exhaust is blasted over the small dges, formed by the plates. One side of the edge (the one facing to the front of the ship) gets darkened more then the other side of the edge. Just like snow or sand that only lies on one side of a mountain because of the wind. I imagine the resulting texture to be added to the "bare" sections. Very faintly, barely visible.
This idea is either really good, or really bad, or somewhere in between...
-
I think I'll get as many opinions as I can before I do any more changes. I just added an ambient occlusion pass..
(http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/6796/compareocc.jpg)
Yeah.. I guess it does need ..something on top...
-
Better. :yes:
-
I liked the fully transparent canopy :-/ I think it would make much more sense for the pilots to be able to see stuff how it looks like, not like if they were in the blue world :P
-
It's just dynamically polarized so the pilot never gets blinded - at least this would be the best explanation :)
-
Sounds ok for explanation, come to think of it we have our car's windshield covered with monomolecular layer of metal to do the same and it changes the color a lil bit, but i still like the transparent one :)
-
There are screens that are transparent on one side and opaque on the other, aren't there? I'd figure that's what all canopy in FreeSpace are like.
-
Yep, but not how any canopies are modelled. The Aries and Erinyes have clear yellow diffuse glass textures, which doesn't make sense either :P
Ideally, they'd have greyish, maybe slightly yellow, diffuse glass textures paired to really strong golden spec maps and strong env maps, or something like that. I'm just imagining that they'd be similar to the appearance of sunglass lenses.
-
Been experimenting a little, not much to show, but have a screenshot.
(http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/4072/pewpwezoom.jpg)
-
Oh right, our old Artemis had blue glow points on the tail fins. You could try to stick them on there and see how they look.
If you do, it'd be nice to texture in some sort of light as well.
I don't know if it's your lighting tags, but the hull looks really matte. I get a feeling that it should be shinier.
-
I dont think he has made a -shine yet.
-
Perhaps you can work on an Artemis D.H. WIP as well; after all, the only thing that is different in the vanilla is the tail region (three fins instead of four).
Good work on the Artemis, BTW. :yes:
-
I dont think he has made a -shine yet.
I suspected as much, but there's shine on at least the glass and missiles.
-
Wow this is awweesoooooome
-
Excellent, the only thing I could complain about is the red stripe being red instead of dark red/brown.
-
Also the contours of the stripes could use a bit of refining... Fine as they are now but if done differently they could accent the curves rather than run over them...
-
can you give the DH more of that flattened top of the hull that was present in the original model? Makes it look tougher in my opinion.
-
That would be contradicting canon quite heavily :-/ Most differences is in the inside, the outside should look more or less the same.
-
We should make all upgrades as close as we can to the vanilla ships.
-
True. To a point. The basic geometry (and ESPECIALLY the dimensions) should match as closely as possible.
Within those constraints (and an attempt to maintain immediate (if upgraded) means to identify the ship in question), I think one should feel free to explore avenues. Elements from concept art (as a canon source) is good.
But saying "Make it Vanilla, only Better" is sort of a mixed bag if it has to end-result look JUST like the Vanilla.
-
Personally I think the cockpit glass is too round atm... should be narrower, more pointed. I like that about the original Artemis, but the rest of your model is flippin' sexy.
Keep up the good work!
-
It's already UV'd and mostly textured, so I'm not sure if it's possible to consider such a change at this point. At least, bubble glass will result in less artifacts than pointy glass in TrackIR view, I imagine.
-
Bubble glass is fine, IMHO. It's an exercise of creativity that is welcomed on this mesh.
-R
-
(http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/8171/underbow.jpg)
(http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/4773/portbow.jpg)
(http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/9135/starbow.jpg)
(http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/7417/underaft.jpg)
(http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/8373/starbaft.jpg)
-
Bloody mother****ing awesome. Profanity necessary.
-
Aah, my shine map method is crap, I've just realised. Will fix and post some more after I eat something.
EDIT:
(http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/3319/port1c.jpg)
(http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/4869/understar.jpg)
Aye, that's a bit better.
-
Bloody mother****ing awesome. Profanity necessary.
QFT
-
Still looks like laminated paper mache, but at this point, I don't care if it does. I'll write it off as some new gen ablative armor or something. I want this in-game, like, now.
One minor gripe: Plates on the neck/head look reptilian, and the belly is very turtle-like.
Actually, another thing that you might want to consider: This Artemis (in its current state) will be the only HTL fighter so far that has no glow maps (except in the cockpit). It'll probably look fine without them, but in-game, it can be useful to stick something on them so that they're not invisible when lighting is low. Of course, I have no idea if that's already planned or what, but just judging by the diffuse, I'm not seeing spots that could have something mapped to -glow.
-
Snail, Ravenholme, Thanks.
Kolgena, thanks. :P You can stop being so picky now. While your input is good, I think this is a little much.
-
Like I said, minor gripe :P I could care less if you don't change those things.
-
Dear Sab0o,
:yes: :yes: :yes:
-INFTeam
-
Dear Sab0o,
:yes: :yes: :yes:
-INFTeam
/me likes this. :yes:
-
Gold missiles make it look like a pimped up Artemis. :lol: :yes:
-
I'm really digging that detail work on the main body. The bottom does kind of look like a turtle, but it's like a radical Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle, so it's all good. :yes:
-
Okay I don't care about the cockpit now. That's frakking awesome.
-
One minor gripe: Plates on the neck/head look reptilian, and the belly is very turtle-like.
lol, artemis got abs! http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/8171/underbow.jpg
-
Holy.... :eek:
If I'd be a girl I'd ask you to marry me :lol:. But no luck dude :pimp:
Still, looking fabulous!
-
Suddenly I have an urge to fly an Artemis for a change.
-
To be honest I just want to quadruple Slammer them summore. :nervous:
-
I made the panels a darker.. better? I can quite easily revert if you guys don't like it. I also noticed one of the options I was setting for my normal map was making it effectively look lower resolution. I also had a little experiment with glow maps.
(http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/9017/harder.jpg)
(http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/9675/targetty.jpg)
-
64th Raptors squadron doesn't look so dull anymore.
-
****in awesome
-
Nice! It looks better now that the plate darkness on the body and on the pods is the same.
(Another MINOR gripe: Could you try reducing the darkness of all the plates by about 20%? It might look a bit too noisy as it is now)
-
Posting another pic because I can and this may well end up being the final version. It's great how I can zoom ALL the way in and it doesn't get pixelated at all.
(http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/4320/gl0o0ow.jpg)
Time to start thinking about doing the debris, I think.
Kolgena: you won't see any 'noise' when it's in motion, or if your resolution is high enough to display all the pixels. Which it might be, when it's downsized.
PS. Glowmaps own
-
Awesome!
-
It looks good.
Stripes are still too bright red though.
-
The stripes are fiiiiiiiiiine. It looks fantastic, well done.
-
The cables are too thick.
No, but seriously, I jizzed in my pants when I saw this. Suddenly, getting shot down is no longer a matter of preserving my life, but also preserving the beauty of this ship.
-
I gotta say that the weird coloured dots on the cockpit supports look really tacky...
-
(http://i.neoseeker.com/mgv/272671-Blackfalcon/671/18/awesome1_display.jpg)
You earned it.
-
great job man... :yes: looks incredible!!!
-
Awesome!
-
Really nice work on this :yes:
-
I gotta say that the weird coloured dots on the cockpit supports look really tacky...
Haha, yeah. They remind me of a carnival ride, or even a merry-go-round.
I'm slightly concerned about how small some of those lights are. I mean, when they're 1 pixel big when we're that zoomed in, what'll happen when they're at sizes you usually see in game?
(It goes without saying that I already think this model is spectacular, and that these gripes are just for the sake of griping)
-
The stripes on the underside are "broken up" (how do you say that?) in some places, yet in others they arent. That's inconsistent. (just in case you didn't notice)
-
OK, I'll make the cockpit lights more subtle and cool. I've also completely re-done the bottom stripes. Thanks for the comment ION3.
-
This model is awesome. Are you planning on making a D.H. version?
-
I'm planning on finishing this damn thing and no furhter at the moment.
edit: update: Debris and LODs are pretty much done. Just need to add insignia, which shouldn't take long at all, and I'm done.
-
The Inferno Team uses VizUp for LOD creation; how do you make your LODs?
-
By deleting things manually. Did you get my PM?
-
By deleting things manually. Did you get my PM?
You should check out VizUp; I believe there's a lite version.
I have received your PMs but have not yet started playing around w/ the textures yet.
-
Sab0o, if you're at it, you could try some retexturing, and give us the old Hydra back! I'm attaching the files now
http://www.mediafire.com/?a5de1m19v8t9rrj (http://www.mediafire.com/?a5de1m19v8t9rrj)
-
Here's my start on the D.H. and comparisons with the current retail model and MVP texture (normal maps off)
Darker parts are where greebles/bare engine will be. Not quite sure how to execute at this point. Probably lots of normal mappage.
(http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/9113/dh1o.jpg)
(http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/5636/currentdh1.jpg)
(http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/9158/dh2h.jpg)
(http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/4050/currentdh2.jpg)
ktistai228:
maybe at some point, seems easy enough.
-
Sab0o, if you're at it, you could try some retexturing, and give us the old Hydra back! I'm attaching the files now
http://www.mediafire.com/?a5de1m19v8t9rrj (http://www.mediafire.com/?a5de1m19v8t9rrj)
I believe the Hydra should use whatever texture Sab0o comes up with for the D.H. Also, the original texture of Hydra look pretty dated IMO.
-
Sab0o, if you're at it, you could try some retexturing, and give us the old Hydra back! I'm attaching the files now
http://www.mediafire.com/?a5de1m19v8t9rrj (http://www.mediafire.com/?a5de1m19v8t9rrj)
I believe the Hydra should use whatever texture Sab0o comes up with for the D.H. Also, the original texture of Hydra look pretty dated IMO.
Which is probably why they were removed from the (first) SCP re-release of Derelict.
-
Sab0o, if you're at it, you could try some retexturing, and give us the old Hydra back! I'm attaching the files now
http://www.mediafire.com/?a5de1m19v8t9rrj (http://www.mediafire.com/?a5de1m19v8t9rrj)
I believe the Hydra should use whatever texture Sab0o comes up with for the D.H. Also, the original texture of Hydra look pretty dated IMO.
Which is probably why they were removed from the (first) SCP re-release of Derelict.
I agree, that most likely was the reason. I've always thought of the Hydra as an improved version of the D.H. This is the reason why I believe they should share the same texture.
-
I've always thought of the Hydra as the mass production version of the D.H., seeing as "Artemis D.H." ain't much of a name :P
-
A little bit of a history lesson. That Hydra I attached was in the original Derelict. At one point, when FSCRP got around remaking it, they though the Hydra reskin was kinda outdated, and just took it out. I asked Sab0o to update it based on his new model, because I'd find it cooler to have reskin as a Hydra than a table hack.
-
(http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/2235/isrdy4uv.jpg)
I think I'll start UV mapping soon. I'm taking this a lot slower if you haven't noticed.
-
I'm not so sure I like the cut-outs on the rear fins.
I suspect smoothing errors in that last screenshot on the greeble panel near the engine exhaust, but I could be wrong.
Otherwise, looking good.
-
I'm not so sure I like the cut-outs on the rear fins.
They're where the purewhite bits are on the fins of the current version, lights. I'm quite confident I can make them look good. Might change the geometry a little.
-
Looking good so far.
-
(http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/7260/textrr.jpg)
(http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/958/textr2.jpg)
Here's some progress, not really sure how good this looks.
Give me some words
P.S. I'm doing this texture at 2048^2, because my computer can actually handle it.
-
I think it's looking good so far.
-
You could probably do with some less panels (imagine having to assemble it), but it's looking very good overall :yes:
-
less panels on the green part and i think in the black panels should look like a naked motorcycle (with all internals showed)... However, great job!!
you're awesome!
-
Some of those white parts could flow better with the rest of the green panels. Most noticeably, on the top of the fuselage, it looks like someone took white pads and glued them over the surface.
Otherwise, looks really really good. I do wonder if you'll keep the missile tubes gold though. It might look slytherin stylin' with silver, but gold wouldn't look bad either.
-
Love the color...
-
That's a good looking bomber.
-
Very nice. Very nice indeed.
Request: Can you work on AthlonBoy's Boanerges next? I'm cleaning up his mesh at the moment and can send you my results.
-R
-
Here.
(http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/4112/moretex4.jpg)
(http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/857/moretex1.jpg)
(http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/1848/moretex2.jpg)
(http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/1108/moretex3.jpg)
No shinemap yet.
Everything is work in progress, tell me what you like and don't like please.
-
That's pretty damn gorgeous. . . It must have the skull from the original however.
-
Fan.
Tas.
Tic.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DV1fUwKMdAI
That is all.
-
Wow. Looks really good. But:
1. The skull :P Must have it.
2. Black greeble areas *might* benefit from having more detail. (Edit: Actually, the more I admire it, the more the greebles look like streaked tar :P)
3. See if you can get some of those red lights to cast ambient red glow to parts of the hull that the light could hit... Not sure how you'd do it though, but it would look particularly badass if pulled off properly.
-
(http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/4112/moretex4.jpg)
Fantastic work, or in the spirit of HLP, A1-SUPAR. Not sure about the bottom region however. The black machine parts (especially near the anterior end) look unaligned with the rest of the bottom picture in terms of shape and location. But other than that, INFTeam approves!
-
looking pretty slick, but it needs glowpoints in the exposed mechanicals
-
That is excellent, Sab0o. However, I think the exposed parts need to look a bit more like exposed ship parts - at the moment, it looks like scratched rock or something.
-
Question... why aren't there armored panels?
-
The black mechanicals (in lieu of seeing in-game with a shine map) look a touch OVER detailed. and not enough gray variance to suggest mechanical shapes.
Some of the body panel lines look like they are inverted, where I think they should be recessed, they stick out. Not a -bad- thing, just...disorienting.
MUST. Have. Skull. If not on the cockpit glass over the second pilot (where it originally is, if I recall correctly, can't be arsed to look right now) then "painted" on to the top surface behind it will suffice.
This is still f'ing awesome to see. Hell, I'd even put it in as-is, it's so sexy. (But OCD/Fan service/Retail Accuracy forbids me)
-
Could I ask then for a skull-less texture when the model's released? :)
-
Could I ask then for a skull-less texture when the model's released? :)
Traitor! You will pay! *Octaslash* :lol:
-
(http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/4931/peip.jpg)
3 lines of advice from VA, and you're set.
3. See if you can get some of those red lights to cast ambient red glow to parts of the hull that the light could hit... Not sure how you'd do it though, but it would look particularly badass if pulled off properly.
Indeed. I'll have to bake some lighting. Shouldn't be hard.
Question... why aren't there armored panels?
Elaborate.
-
It looks much more mechanical now. Good work. :)
-
it's amazing,,,however i quote zacam...the internal mechanicals seems a little bit confused
-
Wow this is really great work! :yes:
-
:thumbsup:
's about it, really.
-
Those mechanicals look waaaay better. Could we get a shot of the underside though? Since that is the part that has the greatest risk of looking bad.
-
Those mechanicals look waaaay better.
Agreed, nice work Sab' :yes:
-
Baking light is pretty awkward...
(http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/2540/l8bakeunder.jpg)
(http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/9387/l8bake.jpg)
-
As a real-life lighting engineer, you've gone too far in places.
The underside looks great. Well done!
The topside though - your temp lights were too high up off the surface, and probably too bright.
Bring them right down to touch the polygon that's your 'luminaire'.
The ones near the aft should not illuminate the body at all, just a glow around the edges of the recess. (For realism, only the recess itself in fact)
The ones near the cockpit are probably close to the right place, but they're far too bright. Try an 1/8th of the brightness
Other than that:
- I think you may have normal trouble in the guns - I see a lit polygon that's facing away from the lights.
- Hint: Use several lights in a line to get a rectangular glow. They are all a bit circular right now.
-
you've gone too far in places.
HE IS GEORGE LUCAS!!! :nervous:
-
Everything Tomo said.
But yeah, underside is seriously *****in, and the ambient lighting effects look great.
-
Hopefully it's noted that the ambient light glows should be placed in the glow map and not baked into the diffuse.
(I can't just assume that anything is common knowledge anymore, so if you already knew that/did it the right way, then carry on)
The intensity is a bit much, but you've already heard that. LOVE me that underside shot though, now THERE is some detailed mechanical that pretty much lays waste to anything else we have right now.
-
God I want to fly this thing's brains out
-
(http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/4374/shine1.jpg)
(http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/4637/shine2.jpg)
(http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/9529/shine3.jpg)
It's got a shine map now, and the greebles look really good with it. [Even more so in motion]
to do:
fix missiles they look weird
add glowy things in glow map
add skull.
-
That looks great. I take back any criticism I might have had
-
By glowy bits I hope you mean the ambient glow :D
You know, it's a damn shame that you only get to see this masterpiece once or twice during the campaign as a bonus unmentioned unlockable.
-
You know, it's a damn shame that you only get to see this masterpiece once or twice during the campaign as a bonus unmentioned unlockable.
Play Derelict; you blow up plenty of D.H.s
It will also be featured in Inferno.
Great job, once again. Any chance of texturing AthlonBoy's Boanerges anytime soon? ;7
-R
-
Jaw-droppingly gorgeous.
-
Ah luff it.
-
BP also features Artemis D.H. heavly, this will greatly improve the look of GTVA bombing raids.
-
That is one sweet looking bomber. I don't think creating a new texture for the GTB Hydra will be necessary. The default one will do just fine.
-
admit it
you'd hit it
also this kicks some serious ass
-
I'd still love to see a sharper profile on the canopy leading edge, but it's come a long way from the beginning.
Good show, Sir.
-
I'd still love to see a sharper profile on the canopy leading edge, but it's come a long way from the beginning.
Good show, Sir.
I disagree though, the Artemis has always had a giant bubble cockpit.
-
It had a giant bubble, but it did have some sharpness to it at the leading edge; this made for a sleeker, more agressive looking bomber.
In any sense, I admit this insight is pretty old and probably past the point of consideration for the time being. Again, great work, SabOo.
-
(http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/9004/skurr.jpg)
-
Skull is back!
-
Wow, nice.
-
The skull is back and more menacing than ever!
-
Badass.
-
Wonder how that will look with TrackIR. Some degree of awesome, no doubt.
-
That'll do, skull. That'll do.
-
(http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/2572/88803218.jpg)
What's this?? A there's a cool looking ship over there.
(http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/4967/83463356.jpg)
Wait a minute... It's bigger than I thought!
(http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/8128/64889452.jpg)
Woah thats a... big gun.
(http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/6284/87825815.jpg)
:eek2:
(http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/8931/87169894.jpg)
hoho.... ....woah look at those greebles.
(http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/1014/16222678.jpg)
tehehe
(http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/3748/44619143.jpg)
ooo.. Looks like a way in!
(http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/7581/29646759.jpg)
[O.O];;;;
...
<sigtau> SD Ravana, you are ****ED.
(http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/7698/ravanadh.jpg)
edit: Oh yeah... I'm calling it "finished" now.
-
:p
-
hahahahahah my god
-
GTD Artemis. :D
-
:lol:
-
Preview of cockpit view!
-
(http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/7698/ravanadh.jpg)
That's actually quite a nice shot if you don't consider the Artemis as giant-sized. Like they've just flown past the camera.
-
Wow the skull is fierce.
-
Sweet
-
That's actually quite a nice shot if you don't consider the Artemis as giant-sized. Like they've just flown past the camera.
They aren't giant in that one. :yes:
-
Death's Head indeed.
-
Zentradi !
-
...huh?
-
...huh?
The screenshots with the giant Artemis and the Ulysees flying around it, Zentradi alone are about 15 meters in height so even their fighter pods are the size of buildings.
-
(http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/4552/fincj.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQhbyZ-Ee6E
be sure to watch in HD.
Dunno if there's anything more to do now! You may see some kind of release soon.
-
Can't wait for that.
-
oh baby baby
-
The DH cockpit looks a bit too transparent. I'd love it to be a bit more opaque.
Nitpick, nitpick. Awesome job.
-
Dunno if there's anything more to do now!
Well, you asked for it :D I liked your very original thought a LOT. It felt like heavier version of Arty. If you could snap few turrets on it, meybe we would finally have something to replace ursa with as Boanerges really failed at that :)
BTW the skull ROX!!!
-
Niiice.
I also have nitpicks though, for the sake of nitpicking:
Oh no! Red ambient glows are no more. That's a shame.
Cockpit glass on the DH seems too transparent, but that may be lack of anything around for the env map to reflect.
(53rd hammerheads insignia is backwards, but I don't think that's your fault :P)
-
Niiice.
I also have nitpicks though, for the sake of nitpicking:
Oh no! Red ambient glows are no more. That's a shame.
Cockpit glass on the DH seems too transparent, but that may be lack of anything around for the env map to reflect.
(53rd hammerheads insignia is backwards, but I don't think that's your fault :P)
Actually I think the flipped insignia is my fault. Easy fix though.
I tried for hours to get that red glow looking right. Didn't happen, so.. well I left it in a minimal state (it's just very small)
As for the cockpit glass, that's easy to change as it has its own texture. I'll take look.
-
Your Artemis-models are simply adorable :yes:
-
That's not a word that'd come to my mind. :lol:
-
I really want to know how you got the skull to render on the cockpit glass without getting transparency issues. Is the skull drawn into a separate glass texture, or is it part of the main texture?
-
(http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/5848/57228670.jpg)
(http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/3482/releasek.jpg)
(http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/9312/wootb.jpg)
Since everyone wanted it so badly... :doubt:
http://www.mediafire.com/?bgki6fvxlwsz7pv
Beta version. Texture maps are size 2048^2 (not max for artemis mk1)
FS2 missions "Kings Gambit" for the vanilla and "The Sicilian Defence" for the D.H. (these are the only two missions they're in!)
(press ctrl shift + S in mission simulator to cheat for all the missions)
Please give lots of feedback! FSU will be testing, but help is always welcome!
-
:yes: Nice to see this rate of progress.
-
Seeing how awesome it looks now makes me feel silly that I felt even a slight bit skeptical at first.
-
Maybe I'm just weird, but I found your LOD3s hilariously awesome.
-
In-game, when you target an artemis, the cockpit glass is not drawn in the target box (bottom left corner).
I know the other ships get around this with black glass textures and stuff. Something similar might need to be done here.
Edit: The issue lies in the fact that the game uses LOD1 for the target box. The bomber's LOD1 lacks cockpit glass.
-
Could just get around that by specifying LOD0 as the target LOD
-
Don't think this was mentioned, but insignias hover away from the hull slightly.
-
Don't think this was mentioned, but insignias hover away from the hull slightly.
I suspect that's more due to a limitation of the insignia system. If you make the insignia flush, you get Z-fighting so they have to be slightly away from the hull to avoid that.
-
If it's visible in game, then they could be lowered a bit.
-
Edit: The issue lies in the fact that the game uses LOD1 for the target box. The bomber's LOD1 lacks cockpit glass.
LOD1 shouldn't even have a modeled cockpit, let alone transparent glass. The glass area should be mapped to a part of the texture that's dark and shiny.
Could just get around that by specifying LOD0 as the target LOD
This is almost always a bad idea, as it defeats the purpose of LODs. If your LOD1 doesn't look acceptable at the size rendered in the target box, you need to fix the LOD1, not circumvent the system.
-
Spent today re-doing LODs and debris for both models. I thinkhope I can call them finished now. I'll probably fix up the boanerges as well soon.