Hard Light Productions Forums
Community Projects => The FreeSpace Upgrade Project => Topic started by: Hades on March 20, 2011, 02:08:14 am
-
Sup. I started working o the Ursa some today.
(http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm56/HLPHades/HTL%20Ursa/ursa.png?t=1300605069)
Thoughts so far?
-
OH ****!
I will never be able to convince myself to stay away from these huge, unsurvivable bombers if you keep make such a habit of making them look so awesome.
Truthfully though, the stuff you've been doing lately is pretty amazing.
Are you going to make the triple guns round?
-
Thanks. :)
Anyway, yes, the guns are round. You can see them in the screenshot, the three round cylinders.
-
Haha - I knew as soon as I saw the thread title - round vs. triangular guns are going to be the big issue in here. I have a sneaking suspicion, though, that there are actually round holes textured onto the front of the triangular guns - not sure, and unfortunately I don't have access to FS2 at the moment to check. But the shading on them seems to imply an intended roundness (http://rpggamer.org/uploaded_images/gtbursa.jpg) to me.
So far, I like what you've posted here Hades, looking forward to seeing more of the bulk as it takes shape.
-
While I can sort of see the implied curvature in the engine pods and the guns, the missile bays are a different story. Those, I believe, should stay big and square.
-
Let the haters whine and moan about the gun barrels... but I'm not so sure about the missile pods. The big, square missile pods were a major element of the original Ursa.
Other than that, looks good so far
-
Yeah, massive square bomb bays should remain so.
I'm fine with either triangular or round primaries though.
-
Yeah, I have no problem with round gun barrels (the triangles always did look kind of goofy), but you really don't want to smooth this model all that much as a whole. The Ursa is supposed to be nothing short of a giant flying brick, like a hunk of stone that someone carved out of a mountain. Streamlined and graceful it ain't. :p
-
Basically what everyone else is saying with regards to the missile bays. With the guns I actually like the triangular ones better, but really, it's not going to make that much of a difference. The way your modelling has been going lately, I'm sure this will turn out awesome regardless.
-
The amount of work you've been putting out is amazing. :yes:
Too soon to comment on the model for me, but I like the rounded guns.
-
Please no rounded missile bays.
-
I'd say to add a lot of details to the engines and guns, and leave the rest blocky. Except:
While I can sort of see the implied curvature in the engine pods and the guns, the missile bays are a different story. Those, I believe, should stay big and square.
Funny. I think the exact contrary. :)
:nervous:
-
Personally i don't care if the guns are round or triangular, but these seem to have lost volume somehow, i think they can be thicker, these seem too fragile for ursa.
OOOH Transparent hull! GO STEALTH TECHNOLOGY! :lol:
-
Well, remember one of the mainhalls shows an Ursa resting on its missile pods. I have a hard time imagining doing the same thing if the missile pods would be curved.
-
It doesn't make it impossible, though.
-
It doesn't make it impossible, though.
It does make it more inconvenient, though.
Surface area pressure vs. point pressure of a curved surface. Curved surface would require a hardpoint at the lowest point to bear the stress of the craft's weight. A flat area, on the other hand, divides the contact force to much larger area.
On the other hand, modeling in some sort of landing gear structure to the bottom of the bays could be done anyway.
For the record I'll say I would prefer more angular shape of the secondary bays and don't care so much if the guns are triangular, round or star-shaped.
-
Surface area pressure vs. point pressure of a curved surface. Curved surface would require a hardpoint at the lowest point to bear the stress of the craft's weight. A flat area, on the other hand, divides the contact force to much larger area.
On the other hand, modeling in some sort of landing gear structure to the bottom of the bays could be done anyway.
When dealing with a dam, however, curved surfaces are preferred. :p I like the idea of a landing fear structure, it has a lot of potential IMO.
-
Yeah but we're not talking about a dam.
-
There are enormous pressure differences obviously.
-
I was replying to a generalization, let's not derail this thread. :)
-
Well, in this case we have some :v: concept art for reference.
(http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/images/Jotun.PNG)
Granted, the Jotun was based on this. But it clearly has a lot of elements that made it into the Ursa: The angular intakes on the front, the other set of intakes on the engines, the off-center triple-barreled gun... and big blocky missile pods.
Of course, this being your model, I'd say do whatever you think works best... seems to have worked for most of the other models you've made recently, despite the many pages of "OH NOES, YOU MADE IT ALL WRONG" comments in each and every thread ;)
-
Also I think the gunbarrels are okay round (though I would prefer them triangular) but they need to be a little bigger.
-
Can't say a lot with what's displayed currently, but what little is looking pretty good so far.
-
When dealing with a dam, however, curved surfaces are preferred. :p I like the idea of a landing fear structure, it has a lot of potential IMO.
Snail has a point.
Dams are curved because the load of water pressure is spread evenly on the surface.
Arch structure can withstand higher even load than a rectangular structure - this is why long bridges, aqueducts and viaducts and all vault structures utilize the arch form. Both suspended and non-suspended bridges are usually built with archs as the carrying structure - either a rigid arch that the walkway or driveway is laid on top of, or arcs of cables which suspend the bridge itself.
Shorter bridges can be built as horizontal beam bridges, but archs are required for longer bridges.
This is more about how objects of different shape handle when laid on a flat surface, so let's make an example.
Let's compare two objects made of thin metal: a cube of 1 m^2 volume, and a sphere of 1 m^2 volume.
Both objects are filled with water, making their mass approximately 1000 kg plus the mass of the metal itself.
The surface pressure between the cube and floor is 1000 kg * 9.81 m/s^2 / m^3, which is 9.81 kPa; By comparison, the ground pressure of a human is typically around 60 - 80 kPa while walking, more when running, and so the floor has no problems with this kind of stress. Furthermore there are practically no deforming forces subjected to the cube, so stress to the object itself is minimal.
On the other hand, surface pressure in the case of the sphere is infinite in case of ideal sphere, which means that the sphere will definitely distort at least some in order to get a non-zero contact area between the sphere and the floor. If we assume that the sphere deforms so that the round contact point is 2 cm^2 in area, that makes surface pressure as high as 49.050 MPa, which means that first of all the stress to the floor is higher, but also stress to the object itself is significant.
For these reasons, it would be best to use flat underside as the landing platform of an object as massive as an Ursa. Of course you could reduce artificial gravity on hangar decks but that'd present other complications, and any non-zero gravity will still mean flat underside of an object laid on surface will cause less stress on the surface and object both, compared to a case where the weight of the object is carried by smaller contact points.
I rest my case. :drevil:
Also, angular pods are a pretty distinctive feature of the Ursa. Smoothing it out might make it look subjectively better, but that'd be the equivalent of giving A-10 a facelift because it's so bloody ugly... and still calling it the A-10 afterwards. :p
Whatever you do, though, as long as end result gives same overall impression as the Ursa, it'll work out.
-
This looks great, though TBH, I'd like to see progress on the new Deimos, since it's current HTL has really bad texturing and in dire need of an upgrade.
Current HTL Ursa isn't very bad.
-
The Ursa is a FS1-era craft, designed in a hurry to carry the Harbinger bomb. It's a crude and efficient design. I think the style you adopted with the Medusa is much more suited for this craft that the one you've adopted for the Deimos. Curves will never fit the spirit of the Ursa.
-
Herra Tohtori just lived up to his custom title. Very informative post, sir. Thank you.
-
I will give a more definitive opinion once I see a little more progress, but for starters I think that concept art piece could be used to model the intakes that way.
-
ITT - Structural mechanics
-
My opinion is that the overall blockiness should be retained, though some edge-rounding is not out of the question .
-
Good job Hades so far :yes:
While I'm not up to redoing one of these Historical models, I thought about it just to learn how they are built 3D model wise. Cant wait to see more progress!
On a second note, where can I get a good render for my 3D models? I'm using Wings 3D, but also have Blender that I have not used yet. Is there a plug-in Render for it? Just askin! :D
-
Hades, just an idea. Triangular gun barrels the cut to cylindrical at some point before the muzzle. :)
-
Good work on it so far, Hades :) Though I'd like to see the main missile banks remaining square as well, a slight bevel will do.
Could someone explain to me why triangular barrels would look cool? I'm not seeing that.
On a second note, where can I get a good render for my 3D models? I'm using Wings 3D, but also have Blender that I have not used yet. Is there a plug-in Render for it? Just askin! :D
Blender can render by itself, no plug-ins required :P
-
Because something about the triangular barrels on the current Ursa just looks good, maybe because the Ursa is very blocky and angular with very little rounded sections.
-
Hades, just an idea. Triangular gun barrels the cut to cylindrical at some point before the muzzle. :)
That's kind of a cool idea. Have just the base of them be triangular, then the main barrels be cylindrical. It'd be a nice homage to the original shape. :)
-
Triangular muzzle brakes would also be an acceptable option.
-
Yes I think that would look better, a cylindrical base and then ending in a triangular shape, with small cuts on the middle of each of the triangular faces.