Hard Light Productions Forums
Community Projects => The FreeSpace Upgrade Project => Topic started by: Dragon on March 25, 2015, 12:56:10 pm
-
Yeah, pretty much this. The only problem are the angled missile pods, which contradict not only the original model, but also some mainhall images where the bomber clearly sits on those pods. Ursa is used in a few cinematics, so having a disconnect such as that would feel weird, IMO.
-
Yeah, pretty much this. The only problem are the angled missile pods, which contradict not only the original model, but also some mainhall images where the bomber clearly sits on those pods.
Yeah but the angled ones look better, and that's more important.
Hades: The beams the leg engines are attached to looked better when they weren't angled.
-
They don't and it isn't, IMO. It's also important to maintain consistency. Unless someone wants to remake all the cutscenes and mainhalls with angled pod Ursa, I'd rather have them rectangular. And even then, I'd like it better with rectangular pods.
-
Hades thinks they look better, and so do most of the people he's asked about them. That matters more.
And if you think this is not retail enough, you should have seen some of the stuff he and I discussed.
-
It will be jarring in comparison to cutscenes, simple as that. Ursa features prominently in Bastion's mainhall as well. We'll see what other people in this thread will say, but I think that the rectangular pods are an important part of the look, as well. At least you're not trying to do something bizzare with this design, but I think that detail should be reconsidered.
-
Angled pods look aestetically pleasing... which an Ursa shouldn't be. The Ursa is supposed to be edgy and ugly, so I too would prefer the rectangular pods even before considering cutscenes and mainhalls.
-
Yeah, I prefer the rectangular ones.
-
I gotta go with the rectangular pods opinion on this. Not for canon reasons per se, but rather I don't think that they really fit with the rest of the design language. They make the Ursa look flimsy when seen from the front. Maybe if you didn't angle them so much (effectively ending up with a chamfered box) or if only the interior sides are angled, it could change the overall feel.
Also, I wouldn't mind seeing the side barrels having the signature triangular shape, that was quite a unique feature in the Ursa, IMO.
But I'm liking how it's coming along otherwise :)
-
Well, I really don't care about keeping closely to the originals, as long as the silhouette is the same and it still looks like the old ship somewhat. As I said, I think the pointed bottoms look odd for what the ship is.
My main thing is that, I do sort of like rounding off the lower part of the pods, but I think it needs to have some sort of broad, flat surface on the bottom. A chamfered rectangle would be great, but right now it looks more like a pentagon with the bottom point chamfered.
Now that I think about it, just losing the inside slope would make the ship look more properly bulky (to mirror the shape on the top of the bomber), and reinforce the fact it lands on those boxes.
-
Yeah, something like that would work. It'd keep the angular theme Hades has going while making the pods look more like the Ursa rests on those things for ages.
I also noticed the top intake things? I wonder what Hades is gonna do with those. I remember them being on the MediaVPs and retail Ursa, but flatter.
-
i love how dragon's comments are as always literally just "waaah i don't like it and i don't understand how people can have different aesthetic preferences to me cater to me only pls"
Did you actually bother to read what I said? From what it sounds like, you never did. This is not about anyone's "aesthetic preferences". This is about not having the ship changes shapes between the mission and cutscene. He's not making this ship from scratch, Ursa is a well-established design present in various places outside gameplay. It is supposed to be the same ship both here and there, making such a big, noticeable change is a bad idea (especially if you're not going to redo CBanims featuring it). Which you'd have known if you bothered to read my posts.
Plus, people seem to be inclined towards rectangular pods. So it's not just my opinion, looks like that is actually the preferred configuration. Seeing as it's supposed to land on those pods, I'm hardly surprised. Making the pods like this takes away from the "flying crate" aesthetic of the Ursa, in addition to creating inconsistencies within the game.
-
I didn't really mind the pods at first but I've come to prefer having them with flat bases. It's the basic concept of the Ursa, after all: a big rectangle full of bombs.
-
I like the new style of pods, I had completely forgotten that they were big blocks and looking back on it, I don't think it destroys the look of the ship. You're not going to mistake the Ursa for anything new, the profile is still unmistakable. Now I do think perhaps the "bevel level" (trademark pending) could be reduced a bit, but for the sole reason of having more of those beautiful extra large bomb exit ports.
When you're modelling you need to have a consistent design scheme or else the end result is an unbalanced mess. If the core of the ship has nice bevels and slopes, and then suddenly the bomb bays are giant rectangles, they stick out like sore thumbs. Also the new shape of the bomb bays matches with the rear engines, they all have a slight taper to them. The angled intakes that are directly above the bomb bays also complete a sort of symmetry to the engine block shape.
Whatever Hades does, the end model is going to look a lot different than the one in cbanis or mainhalls, if he keeps it more blocky or not. It's just the price we pay when we upgrade models. No one complained that the Orion or Arcadia looked too different than in the pre-rendered materials before. It's just progress!
And I don't quite get one of the reasons that it needs large flat bomb bays because it lands on them. Have you seen how relatively tiny landing gear is on planes? The bomber isn't going to tip over or anything.
-
I mean, I'd ask what the rest of the ship needs bevels and slopes for before I'd use them as a justification for putting them on the bomb bay.
-
Because bevels look good. Stuff without bevels don't look "industrial" or "boxy", it just looks badly modeled. Look for any hard surface modeling example and you'll find tons of beveling.
-
I don't mean small bevels on corners to keep them from being infinitely sharp right angles, I mean this weird obsession with making every model from retail look like it's been through a rock tumbler.
-
Breaking up right angles is a really good way of adding more visual interest to a simple shape.
-
Right, but it's not the only way and it gets boring when it's used exclusively.
-
Whatever Hades does, the end model is going to look a lot different than the one in cbanis or mainhalls, if he keeps it more blocky or not. It's just the price we pay when we upgrade models. No one complained that the Orion or Arcadia looked too different than in the pre-rendered materials before. It's just progress!
Nobody complained because they don't. Neither Orion nor Arcadia have radical departures from the designs seen in pre-rendered materials. Indeed, one of the greatest things about the Arcadia is that it's wonderfully detailed, but does not really contradict cutscenes in which it appears. I think that angled pods are too much of a departure.
Well, that, and I guess I'll have to agree with PH (however unlikely it seems ;) ). Many models FSU models have been "smoothed" as a way of making them look more detailed. Bevels on the corners to keep them from being perfect right angles are good. Beveling the hell out of the model to make it look more "visually interesting", on the other hand, is something that is easily overdone. It's not too bad on other models (though there were some cases where it was, but people complained enough for it to get fixed), but Ursa just plain suffers from it.
Another thing is that it makes Ursa look more modern. Which is a bad thing, IMO. Ursa always had a very crude look, like a crate full of bombs. It goes well with its handling and role. Anything that detracts from that look, like pronounced curves, triangular bomb bays and such is not needed there.
-
So yeah, yet another case of "not retail enough".
-
It's almost like it's an important aspect of upgrading a model!
wait nope better just sycophantically whine about the polish hate brigade on irc
-
So yeah, yet another case of "not retail enough".
I don't care about retail or not retail. I just think the sharpess of the pods looks odd and could be improved by increasing the surface area of the bottom.
Thinking something could look better is not the same as saying it could look more retail.
-
It's almost like it's an important aspect of upgrading a model!
wait nope better just sycophantically whine about the polish hate brigade on irc
It's significantly less important than you think it is. Some of Volition's ship designs are ****, and I certainly understand Hades' desire to make them less ****. There comes a point where blind adherence to 17 year old models makes the whole endeavour pointless. You really ought to try 3d modeling at some point. You'd see how annoying these kinds of restrictions are.
I admire his restraint here, actually. I wouldn't have stuck to the original nearly as much. You see why I don't do FSU work.
So yeah, yet another case of "not retail enough".
I don't care about retail or not retail. I just think the sharpess of the pods looks odd and could be improved by increasing the surface area of the bottom.
Thinking something could look better is not the same as saying it could look more retail.
Which is why i wasn't addressing you. I was talking to Dragon, and now Phantom Hoover.
-
Which is why i wasn't addressing you. I was talking to Dragon, and now Phantom Hoover.
Ah, well OK then.
I put myself in the camp that we shouldn't be tied up too much by retail.
I hope Hades chimes in soon. I'd like to hear what he thinks (compromise, minor modification, leave it as it is, STFU everyone for reasons)
-
It's almost like it's an important aspect of upgrading a model!
wait nope better just sycophantically whine about the polish hate brigade on irc
It's significantly less important than you think it is. Some of Volition's ship designs are ****, and I certainly understand Hades' desire to make them less ****. There comes a point where blind adherence to 17 year old models makes the whole endeavour pointless. You really ought to try 3d modeling at some point. You'd see how annoying these kinds of restrictions are.
Well, if so, he should've started an "Ursa Mk2" project in modding. FSU's job is to upgrade :v: models, not redesign them. So far it's been doing a great job at that, too, so it's not like it's impossible to make pretty models while staying true to the old designs.
I did try 3D modeling, but not remaking an existing model. The latter is a significantly tougher job, exactly because of the restrictions imposed by the original. This model would've gotten a much better response if it was not supposed to replace the Ursa. However, it is, so more criticism is to be expected. If you want to ditch the restrictions, why make a remake at all? It's not like a completely new bomber wouldn't be welcome. The point of the remake is keeping to the design of the old one, while increasing model quality.
-
I'd rather like the pods to be kept rectangular. Because that is a significant change to the original shape. Sorry but that's not an improvement of existing element. It's a total redesign. Like other guys said. In Mainhalls and cutscenes Ursas have flat bottoms of the pods. It is somehow used as a landing gear.
Other things to discuss IMO are the cannons. You made them round while they were always triangular, which was making them very original and specific to that particular ship. Simple, round muzzles look very generic. It would be better if they were replaced with detailed triangular cannons (or at least please make some kind of triangular cage around muzzles or triangular muzzle breaks)
However I very like the engines and the fuselage. That goes in good direction :)
GL with the rest of work
-
It's significantly less important than you think it is. Some of Volition's ship designs are ****, and I certainly understand Hades' desire to make them less ****. There comes a point where blind adherence to 17 year old models makes the whole endeavour pointless. You really ought to try 3d modeling at some point. You'd see how annoying these kinds of restrictions are.
It's not actually an objective fact that :v:'s designs are ****; it's your opinion, and while I'm happy to respect that opinion I'm sick of you and Hades constantly dismissing anyone who saw something of value in the original model that's been lost as mindless haters. Somehow most of the other modellers in FSU manage to turn out designs which are faithful to retail, so forgive me if I don't believe your charge that it's an inevitable part of the project.
-
The cutscenes are inconsistent with retail(just look at the Appollo in the FS1 OP), not to mention that the whole game looks different in cutscenes. Engines and trails(in MediaVPs) look nothing like the cutscenes, all the craft handle differently, the Sath in MVPs2014 looks nothing like the Sath in the cutscenes, the Lilith looks different from retail(to differentiate it from the Cain), the Rakshasa is a lot blacker than in retail and the cutscenes.
And this still looks like the Ursa, the shape is still there. Now it's up to personal preference whether you prefer the bomb bays to be rectangular or not(I personally think rectangular ones would look better) but I really don't think "looking like retail" should be the #1 goal.
-
Guys, chill out, please?
The model looks good for now and relatively early WIP. To be honest, changing the base of that thing is the simplest modeling task I have ever witnessed, so if you want to change it on your own, that's fairly easy once the model is out.
In the meantime, criticizing Hades so much will probably just make him ragequit. Sure, you can raise your concern if some design choice is not of your liking, but in the end it's up to the modeler to decide. And having a two page discussion on a single detail before he even gives us an update is ridiculous. You should have seen the version with straight engine pods which IMO makes more sense than this spread out thing. He's really restraining himself here. At the end of the day, he's doing this for fun and freely giving us the fruit of his labor. Having people argue so strongly for a simple detail is not my definition of fun.
And saying all :v-old: models are good is crazy. Go check the Bast, the Aten or the Bes and check their upgrade. Oh, right, there's no Bes upgrade because it's so ugly nobody can come out with an interesting interpretation. I'm talking vasudan here, 'cause I know those models as the back of my hand.
-
You might be right. Maybe a mod should split the thread into a new one about Keeping consistent with retail or whatever. The discussion, I think, is tangential as the bomb bays are hardly the ultimate point here.
-
It's significantly less important than you think it is. Some of Volition's ship designs are ****, and I certainly understand Hades' desire to make them less ****. There comes a point where blind adherence to 17 year old models makes the whole endeavour pointless. You really ought to try 3d modeling at some point. You'd see how annoying these kinds of restrictions are.
It's not actually an objective fact that :v:'s designs are ****; it's your opinion, and while I'm happy to respect that opinion I'm sick of you and Hades constantly dismissing anyone who saw something of value in the original model that's been lost as mindless haters. Somehow most of the other modellers in FSU manage to turn out designs which are faithful to retail, so forgive me if I don't believe your charge that it's an inevitable part of the project.
You're right, it's not an objective fact that some of Volition's designs are ****. Just like it's not an objective fact that Hades' modifications are too much. But if Hades thinks the Ursa looks like ****, and he wants to make it better, and he thinks this helps, well, I'm afraid his opinion trumps yours, because he's the one actually making the model.
You can give it a go yourself, you know. Hell, if that's too much for you, you can just design your own missile pod and modify this model once it's done. That's a trivial job.
Well, if so, he should've started an "Ursa Mk2" project in modding. FSU's job is to upgrade :v: models, not redesign them. So far it's been doing a great job at that, too, so it's not like it's impossible to make pretty models while staying true to the old designs.
This is not an mk2. This is still 100% an Ursa mk1. If Hades had wanted to make an mk2, he wouldn't have restrained himself nearly as much as he has. Slightly different missile pods don't suddenly make this an mk2.
-
Using different solid is not an upgrade. It's a total redesign. In Ursa's case it's breaking the original shape significantly. Especially if you look at it from the front. That's all I can say for now. I like the fuselage and the current beginning of the engines. But I completely don't see the reason for changing the pods that much. Saying with full honesty: I hate them.
But the final decision goes to Hades.
-
Guys, chill out, please?
The model looks good for now and relatively early WIP. To be honest, changing the base of that thing is the simplest modeling task I have ever witnessed, so if you want to change it on your own, that's fairly easy once the model is out.
Sorry, but this is just not feasible. Most people will not be able to "change it on their own". Unless you mean tweaking the model and re-releasing it. Also, when more detail comes in, this might not be so easy. Oh, and let's not forget about the UV map, which would be messed up if you tried changing a model around like that. This just doesn't work, the change needs to be made now, before the model is finalized further.
As for the Vasudan models, both Bast and Aten do keep in line with the outlines of the originals. The Bes does need some love, but I think it's more because of the fact that it's not a very important ship (freighters were always getting the short end of the stick with regards to upgrades).
Well, if so, he should've started an "Ursa Mk2" project in modding. FSU's job is to upgrade :v: models, not redesign them. So far it's been doing a great job at that, too, so it's not like it's impossible to make pretty models while staying true to the old designs.
This is not an mk2. This is still 100% an Ursa mk1. If Hades had wanted to make an mk2, he wouldn't have restrained himself nearly as much as he has. Slightly different missile pods don't suddenly make this an mk2.
This is why I'm not saying just to make it an Mk2. It's neither here nor there, too different from the original to work as a replacement, yet not different enough to be a different ship. It could work as a variant of the original Ursa, at best, but passing it off as the original design is a bad decision.
I'm afraid his opinion trumps yours, because he's the one actually making the model.
Sorry, but it doesn't. He's not making a model for himself, or for his own mod. He is contributing to a community project. As such, "haters gonna hate" does not apply here. Models intended for FSUP should take into account the opinions of the community, and as you can see, there's quite a bit of opposition towards the redesign.
-
And there's quite a bit of support for it. You weren't around on IRC when he showed it to us.
-
Sorry, but it doesn't. He's not making a model for himself, or for his own mod. He is contributing to a community project. As such, "haters gonna hate" does not apply here. Models intended for FSUP should take into account the opinions of the community, and as you can see, there's quite a bit of opposition towards the redesign.
And how many times do we have to repeat that just because a model was made as a replacement for a retail model or a model in the MVPs, there is no obligation on the part of FSU to include it in an MVP release?
Whether or not this model is MVP-worthy is a discussion that will be held once it is finished, or reasonably close to being finished, not sooner.
-
I want to put in my two cents here as well.
@ Aesaar First of all, faithfulness to retail should be the number one priority imo. And making a ship from a standpoint of the ship is **** seems like a very wrong position to do it from. This should be a labour of love to improve an existing model, not make sweeping changes to it because it's ****. Change too much, and if we use this as an example, it wouldn’t be the GTB Ursa anymore, it would be Aesaar’s GTB Ursa. It would have less :v: and more Aesaar about it. It wouldn’t be the GTB Ursa made by :v: it would be Aesaar’s version of it.
About the launchers, I too would be in the camp to keep them close to retail with the flat base for the Ursa to sit on, though I won’t be fussed if it stays the way it is, it’s not a drastic enough change to wreck the feel of the ship for me, I look at it and still see the GTB Ursa. Purely from a model standpoint than a retail accurate standpoint, I don’t think it makes the model better or worse. I don’t see the need to have changed it.
If you’re making a model as a personal project or to put into a mod that you’re creating by yourself, then the only opinion that matters is yours.
If you’re creating a model for a project that has a team, then the opinions of the team are also relevant.
If you’re creating a model that is for the Freespace Upgrade Project, then everyone’s opinion matters. Because it changes the core gameplay for all of us. You’re not making the model for yourself. You’re not making the model for a single mod. You’re making a model for the whole community, so it should meet with the community’s approval.
Who did he show it to on IRC exactly? People he knew would approve, his buddies, or everyone on IRC at the time? Now it’s been opened up to the whole community, and the trend is that the launchers would be better being changed to the look and function of the retail design. I can’t see this discussion on IRC. I question why even do IRC first at all when you could do it to the whole community, as it’s ultimately the whole community who should be deciding the fate of this model since that is who it is being created for.
@ The Dagger
I don’t think anyone’s piling on Hades. He’s not even in here yet to be piled on. The thread has got heated because people are being made to feel their opinion doesn’t matter or matters less than the opinion of certain people, largely thanks to Aesaar. And that retail faithfulness matters less than Aesaar’s subjective opinion on whether a model is **** or not. Without him, I reckon the atmosphere in here would be much more friendly.
@ The E
So it’s okay for IRC to comment on the model when he shows it to them, but when he shows it to us in a discussion thread we should just shut up and wait because it’s “too early” even though he has chosen to open the model up for discussion at this time? Better to voice our concerns now, than further down the road when he has wasted time and energy on something if that something isn’t going to be there in the final product or is going to cause his model to not get used as an Ursa upgrade.
-
Yeah, pretty much this. The only problem are the angled missile pods, which contradict not only the original model, but also some mainhall images where the bomber clearly sits on those pods. Ursa is used in a few cinematics, so having a disconnect such as that would feel weird, IMO.
I.. Wut? The Ursa is in one cutscene, FS1 Endgame. It would take me only about 2 days to re-render the scene with new models. Big deal. If (and that's a big if considering the history) this model gets textured and finished anytime soon... then I'll re-render the cutscene.
The Ursa is not in any cbanims as far as I can remember.. but admittedly at 400+ anims in to my Mad-Awesome CBAnim career (do I get paid for that?), I can't recall it being in any.
Mainhalls... man.. if only someone had remade the mainhalls with source files for a re-render. Oh wait... I could even add landing struts like the fighters used if I really had to! But I doubt it.
-
So it’s okay for IRC to comment on the model when he shows it to them, but when he shows it to us in a discussion thread we should just shut up and wait because it’s “too early” even though he has chosen to open the model up for discussion at this time? Better to voice our concerns now, than further down the road when he has wasted time and energy on something if that something isn’t going to be there in the final product or is going to cause his model to not get used as an Ursa upgrade.
No, it is perfectly OK to discuss it here and now. But you should keep in mind that, no matter how this thing looks now or how it will look in the future, it is not guaranteed that it will be in the MediaVPs. In this thread, I see a lot of people coming at it based on the assumption that this model will definitely be in there, and criticising it perhaps more vehemently than is actually warranted. This is making the discussion more hostile and more confrontational than it should be.
-
Ah, gotcha. Thanks. :yes:
-
I'd like to see how much content would ever be completed if everyone in the community had to be happy with it at every stage of development. Considering the success rate of design by committee projects design by internet argument aught to yield a huge success.
If you want to add feedback that's great but accept that your opinion is your own and doesn't necessarily override the person doing the actual work. If you find their results unacceptable you can certainly go ahead and make your own. As The_E keeps stating nothing is set in stone till its been accepted into the code. This means that trying to relentlessly hammer away at the person in the creative process is both unnecessary and rude.
-
Since everyone knows and agrees that My opinion > Your opinion; I will grace you all with my super important opinion on this delicate subject.
I don't care oooone bit about depature from retail designs and such, but I'm not super fond of how the missile pods are right now. I'm not saying they should be retangular, but I feel that right now, they are too pointy.
So 509123 hours in paint later, this is my suggested change regarding the missile pod. Among several other very important suggestions.
(http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/s490/kingspoon/Untitled_zpsx0lwlcgv.png~original)
-
Yes, I like that better with the wider base both for being closer to retail and looking much more believable for the ship to be resting on and just for looking better retail or not. I think it makes a real difference.
-
Wait... the original didn't have a tophat?
-
Yes, I like that better with the wider base both for being closer to retail and looking much more believable for the ship to be resting on and just for looking better retail or not. I think it makes a real difference.
It would be an improvement, but I'd rather see it fully rectangular, with two torpedo ports per pod. Here, the less streamlining, the better. Rectangular pods look simpler and more primitive, which, IMO, is a good thing for this ship. It has been designed shortly before the end of the Great War, with the sole purpose of carrying as many bombs as possible. The original design got that across very well. To put is simply, boxes are easy to manufacture.
The Ursa is not in any cbanims as far as I can remember.. but admittedly at 400+ anims in to my Mad-Awesome CBAnim career (do I get paid for that?), I can't recall it being in any.
I'm pretty sure there's an Ursa tech CB anim, for starters. I seem to recall there being at least one more, related to the plan to kill Lucifer. Though I may be misremembering that one.
That said, if you really are going to remake those scenes (and mainhalls), I would be willing to agree with more changes. However, care still needs to be taken not to spoil the model. Ursa is a quintessence of utilitarian, crude approach to bombing, and it should stay that way.
-
@ Aesaar First of all, faithfulness to retail should be the number one priority imo. And making a ship from a standpoint of the ship is **** seems like a very wrong position to do it from. This should be a labour of love to improve an existing model, not make sweeping changes to it because it's ****. Change too much, and if we use this as an example, it wouldn’t be the GTB Ursa anymore, it would be Aesaar’s GTB Ursa. It would have less :v: and more Aesaar about it. It wouldn’t be the GTB Ursa made by :v: it would be Aesaar’s version of it.
[...]
If you’re making a model as a personal project or to put into a mod that you’re creating by yourself, then the only opinion that matters is yours.
If you’re creating a model for a project that has a team, then the opinions of the team are also relevant.
If you’re creating a model that is for the Freespace Upgrade Project, then everyone’s opinion matters. Because it changes the core gameplay for all of us. You’re not making the model for yourself. You’re not making the model for a single mod. You’re making a model for the whole community, so it should meet with the community’s approval.
Faithfulness to retail might be your #1 priority, but you're not the one modeling anything, are you? The #1 priority should be that a modeler has enough creative freedom that he actually wants to make an upgrade. This is why I don't do work for FSU. I don't want to just upgrade Volition models. I want to make the ones I dislike into something I like. This is why the StarSlayer versions of the FS2 GTVA fighters Hades and I are making aren't meant for the MVPs. I don't want to make Volition's Herc2, and I don't think Hades wants to make a carbon-copy of Volition's Ursa.
If I have to choose between getting a ship of mine into the MVPs or making a ship I'll actually like, I'll choose the latter every single time.
Until modelers start being paid, every single model made and posted here is a personal project. There are no exceptions. Whether or not a model is included in the MVPs is a community decision. However, design choices concerning the model itself are made at the exclusive discretion of the modeler. At no point in the process is a modeler required to care about your approval. Seeing as how no one else cares enough to make their own Ursa, it's either this one or keeping the current MVPs one. That is the only place where the community has a say.
If you don't like the direction a model is going, and the modeler has heard and dismissed your input, tough. Make your own model. You are entitled to nothing.
Who did he show it to on IRC exactly? People he knew would approve, his buddies, or everyone on IRC at the time? Now it’s been opened up to the whole community, and the trend is that the launchers would be better being changed to the look and function of the retail design. I can’t see this discussion on IRC. I question why even do IRC first at all when you could do it to the whole community, as it’s ultimately the whole community who should be deciding the fate of this model since that is who it is being created for.
What a wonderful attempt to delegitimize opinions you don't want to deal with. If, as you say, everyone's opinion matters, then the opinions of people in #bp (where Hades presented it) matter just as much as those in this thread. Deal with it.
Spoon: I actually quite like your modified version of the missile pod.
-
What a wonderful attempt to delegitimize opinions you don't want to deal with. If, as you say, everyone's opinion matters, then the opinions of people in #bp (where Hades presented it) matters just as much as those in this thread. Deal with it.
I can't respond properly right now because I have to go, but I assure you I wasn't trying to do such a thing. I'll respond properly when I get the chance.
-
I think the flat missile pods give the profile a really strong bottom edge, and that really works with the general concept of the model.
-
I like the spoon-refined pod best because it seems to echo the rest of the ship's angles better than the pointy one without being devoid of any interest like the retail one. Go Bears.
-
Hm, maybe you should stay with the angular bottom of the pods. Round ones are... even more inappropriate. What happened to the engines?
-
Can I just say that topics like this are why we can't have nice things? And I say that as a guy who tends to value faithfulness to retail pretty strongly.* Seriously, let's all take a massive chill pill and maybe wait for Hades to, y'know, actually make a single reply before going all ape****.
*(Amusingly I didn't even register that the part in question differed substantially from retail until it was pointed out.)
-
@ Aesaar
Right, where were we...
This is gonna be easier than I thought it would be. The rest of your post, there's nothing for me to dispute there, I agree with you on all of it. And it also makes me see better where you're coming from I think.
About IRC, I wasn't trying to say anyone's opinion was worth less, the point I was trying to make was that if he exposed the Ursa to a favourable and or isolated segment of the community, then the response from there might be different to the response from the entire community. And that we can't actually see the IRC discussion, only the one in here. We don't know why Hades has gone in this direction, or why the people in IRC saw the change as superior to the retail model.
I wonder if there's a clash here between you thinking Hades' right to make the model however he pleases is being stepped on while we have felt as if our right to an opinion on the model is getting stepped on.
I can't speak for others, but as long as I (and everyone else) get a fair say in whether a model goes into the MVPs that's all I want. I wouldn't want him to be forced to make his model a certain way to fit in with the desires of the community.
-
The GTB Ursa appears in 1 CBrief in FS1, in act 3 M4, reaching the Zenith. And even then it's just a model of the Ursa with background text, probably not that hard to remake.
Also, Hades isn't even part of the BP team. If we were talking about Steve-O's or Aesaar's models maybe you'd have a point but why would #bp be biased towards Hades? It's hardly isolated or favourable in this case, it just happens that people who spend time there liked it more than people who browse the FSU forums. And neither group is representative of the community at large.
-
The GTB Ursa appears in 1 CBrief in FS1, in act 3 M4, reaching the Zenith. And even then it's just a model of the Ursa with background text, probably not that hard to remake.
Also, Hades isn't even part of the BP team. If we were talking about Steve-O's or Aesaar's models maybe you'd have a point but why would #bp be biased towards Hades? It's hardly isolated or favourable in this case, it just happens that people who spend time there liked it more than people who browse the FSU forums. And neither group is representative of the community at large.
If it's an FS1 or FS2 ani, I've remade it and have the source files. Hell, if it's a non-single-frame ani at 660x300, chances are that I made it and have the source files...
-
Also, Hades isn't even part of the BP team. If we were talking about Steve-O's or Aesaar's models maybe you'd have a point but why would #bp be biased towards Hades? It's hardly isolated or favourable in this case, it just happens that people who spend time there liked it more than people who browse the FSU forums. And neither group is representative of the community at large.
IIRC, he might be a tester. They don't get a badge (I'm one too, though not a very active one). Also, BP in particular is biased towards "creative freedom", which is known since they let Aesar strip their most important models of nearly all of their distinctive features. :) It's exactly the place you'd want to go to when trying to "sell" a remake that drops an important aspect of the original. Fortunately, this community also has people who find the original :v: designs shouldn't be meddled with.
-
While Dragon is as usual being a jackass about this, it's definitely true that #bp is not a good indicator of the overall opinion about big changes to models. The Herc 2 'upgrade' got nothing but praise there from everyone except me, but when it was posted to the forums a lot more people thought it was too divergent from the original.
-
Can anyone explain to my why some people in this discussion are being rude and/or insulting to each other over a model they had no hand in making themselves?
Just drop your opinion with a polite reasoning why you think so and be done with it. Getting all agitated over it will help noone. At best it's going to accomplish nothing and at worst it could end up with Hades stopping to read this thread and thus deprive yourself and us others of the chance to have some input on the development or it could even frustrate Hades into abondening this project alltogether.
I'm sure noone wants either of those things to happen, so please stay reasonable and polite.
-
I've never seen any thread where model creator did the "ragequit" so far. Of course, sometimes there were some ****storms but in the end people carry on. The whole point is that a lot of people are trying to force their own ideas. So far we said what we think about some parts of the model. Now I'm waiting for what hades has to say about it ;). At least some justification why did he choose to make parts like missile pods or side cannons that way.
-
This is actually very old problem regarding artistic freedom and following original lines. And it will continue till all canon ships have 2-3 alternate versions to match every taste.
I can understand the point of artistic freedom in case of alternate versions of existing ship, just like Hades and Aesaar presented in their Herc II... That is cool, but different than standard Herc II and it's quite hard to be acceptable as default HTL model in next MediaVPs release. And the reason is very simple. For example, torpedo racks of original Ursa were boxy, so making them the way that Hades did is exactly where artistic freedom breaks the rules of upgrading canon design. MVP models should improve original designs, not change it. That's the point of FSU. Personal preferences and tastes do not count here, no matter if new side cannons and torpedo racks of Ursa looks good or not.
Some of team members of some projects claimed their ideas as more important than than project original goals... And look how many archived projects we have today. Some of them exactly because of that.
-
The whole point is that a lot of people are trying to force their own ideas.
With that I very much agree, with a caveat that "a lot of people" includes the modeler in this case. :) The point of FSU is not to invent new designs. It is to upgrade old ones. Ideally, we'd have :v: feedback on what they originally intended the ship to be. Lacking that (concept art can help, but can sometimes be so different from the original that they're not much help), we have to guess off the original shape and textures. This requires a certain amount of creative work (and freedom that comes with it), but going overboard with it results in the model stopping being an upgrade and becoming a variant of the original at best. Figuring out which part of the design is not always easy, too. Ursa's guns could conceivably have been made triangular to save polies (small structures, large poly gain in comparison to round). Pods, on the other hand, almost certainly weren't (large structures, small poly gain compared to triangular).
Also, I wanted to say that artists are not gods, nor is "artistic vision" the greatest good for which one can abandon everything else. Just because something is pretty, hard to do or intricate doesn't mean it should not be criticized for flaws that it might have. That something took a lot of effort doesn't mean it's any good. It is particularly unpleasant to be told when that happens, but sometimes, even a lot of hard work might produce something that turns out not to be worth it. It happens and is a possibility every time one undertakes anything that requires hard work. Nobody is perfect, but with enough criticism, they can get pretty close. :) IMO, the critic/editor/feedback giver is just as important as the artist when it comes to creating something truly great, and negative feedback is more helpful than positive (the former indicates area of possible improvement, the latter indicate lack of such areas, if anything). A lot of people (some artists, but their fans too, perhaps even more often) seem to be taking negative criticism as a personal insult of some sort, but it's actually more useful than praise.
-
You don't like it, we know. You have lots of reasons, we know. You have already exercised your right to voice over your opinion. But Hades is doing the model and he will do as he pleases. If you don't think it qualifies for the Mediavps, you may exercised your right to ask for the model not to be included. But he has the right to experiment. If you have followed any of his other developments you'll see he often reworks his models quite a lot, so this WIP may change substantially. Being so visceral in your critique at this point isn't helping your cause, you are just being disruptive. Now can you exercised your right to remain silent so that we can move on?
And what's with the puritanism here? Hell, the blue Levies must be killing you if you think this is a big departure from the original. For me, there's not a big departure here. If he was doing something totally new and different and calling it an Ursa, I'd agree with you. But you won't even notice this change while helping those Ursa survive. And each time there's a new model it's the same thing. The Medusa? the pods shape is not good. The Deimos? too curvy.
If you guys have such a strong vision of :V: aesthetics and time to argue about it I recommend you to open your modeling program of choice and do something. I'm sure you want your opinion to be heard. But from a modeler point of view, a lot in this discussion strikes me as ungrateful nitpicking and complaining. The guy is gifting you hours of work and you hate him. Back-seat modeling is not a good thing. You are going beyond criticism. If I was Hades, I'd drop this.
-
I note that the missile pods have now been rounded off, which kind of clashes with the hard angles on the engine cowlings directly behind them.
-
This is actually very old problem regarding artistic freedom and following original lines. And it will continue till all canon ships have 2-3 alternate versions to match every taste.
I can understand the point of artistic freedom in case of alternate versions of existing ship, just like Hades and Aesaar presented in their Herc II... That is cool, but different than standard Herc II and it's quite hard to be acceptable as default HTL model in next MediaVPs release. And the reason is very simple. For example, torpedo racks of original Ursa were boxy, so making them the way that Hades did is exactly where artistic freedom breaks the rules of upgrading canon design. MVP models should improve original designs, not change it. That's the point of FSU. Personal preferences and tastes do not count here, no matter if new side cannons and torpedo racks of Ursa looks good or not.
Some of team members of some projects claimed their ideas as more important than than project original goals... And look how many archived projects we have today. Some of them exactly because of that.
Personal preference always counts. Modelers are doing the work for free. Until you start paying them, they can do whatever they damn well please with the models they're making. If you don't like that, then the only place where you have a say is whether or not the model is included in the MVPs.
If the MVPs have no room for creative freedom, then the amount of people making new models for them is going to drop. If something kills the MVPs, it won't be modelers. It'll be people who cry "not retail enough" and drive people of talent away because they feel entitled to a say when they themselves contribute nothing. And if that happens, FSU will deserve to die.
Also, Hades isn't even part of the BP team. If we were talking about Steve-O's or Aesaar's models maybe you'd have a point but why would #bp be biased towards Hades? It's hardly isolated or favourable in this case, it just happens that people who spend time there liked it more than people who browse the FSU forums. And neither group is representative of the community at large.
IIRC, he might be a tester. They don't get a badge (I'm one too, though not a very active one). Also, BP in particular is biased towards "creative freedom", which is known since they let Aesar strip their most important models of nearly all of their distinctive features. :) It's exactly the place you'd want to go to when trying to "sell" a remake that drops an important aspect of the original. Fortunately, this community also has people who find the original :v: designs shouldn't be meddled with.
And most of the people like you don't give enough of a **** to start modeling themselves. Who do you think is going to win this fight?
Here's the thing you don't get: At no point is your "contribution" necessary. You can cry "not retail enough" all you want, but your input really isn't needed for the model to be made. You can and will be ignored, and no one will notice. You could stop posting entirely, and no one would notice. These threads are a courtesy. They are not required. Nor are the MVPs.
FSU depends 100% on the people making models for it. In no way does it depend on you or anyone who claims to "safeguard the purity of Volition's designs". And if it's you that FSU listens to, then people will simply stop making models for the MVPs. The only ones who stands to lose here are people like you.
BTW, having seen what you call "distinctive features", you're paying me a wonderful compliment.
-
Mix all thread for the GenDisc level of conversation regarding the GTB Ursa has been split here.
-
I'm a bit of a purist for these things, so if it were up to me, I'd probably have made the missile launchers rectangular.
Fortunately, it is up to me! And everyone else, too. Those missile bays are fairly discrete pieces of geometry. Once the model is out, if the shape proves to be to much of a problem it's an utterly trivial job to replace or reshape them. Honestly, it's an hour, maybe two, from go to whoa to change from angled to straight sides, including any changes the UV or texs might need. It won't be an issue.
Anyway, missile pods aside, my initial impressions were pretty positive. Looking forward to seeing the engines fleshed out.
[EDIT]Ninjaed by Zacam. Will reassess where this post belongs shortly.
-
Sigh
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=75164.0
-
Here's the thing you don't get: At no point is your "contribution" necessary. You can cry "not retail enough" all you want, but your input really isn't needed for the model to be made. You can and will be ignored, and no one will notice. You could stop posting entirely, and no one would notice. These threads are a courtesy. They are not required. Nor are the MVPs.
FSU depends 100% on the people making models for it. In no way does it depend on you or anyone who claims to "safeguard the purity of Volition's designs". And if it's you that FSU listens to, then people will simply stop making models for the MVPs. The only ones who stands to lose here are people like you.
BTW, having seen what you call "distinctive features", you're paying me a wonderful compliment.
I did some modeling (don't think I ever released anything here, certainly nothing playable), but I'm certainly not good enough to make replicas. I know my limits. Aside from the fact I've mostly moved on to KSP modding (lost interest in FS for a long time, as you might figure from my activity lately), I'm not that good of a modeler and I never pretended otherwise. What I really never managed to figure out is texturing and UVing complex shapes. I know that I couldn't make a replica, so I don't make them. It's even harder than making something with complete creative freedom, and I'm not even too good at the latter.
FSU doesn't only depend on modelers (though it does need them). There is an Ursa already, and it doesn't look that bad. FSU really depends on players, fans of FS who are actually going to use the models in question (modders don't even play much outside of testing, usually their own creations. I've had this happen to me, too, in two games, no less). Some of them have respect for :v: and their vision of FS. Many also have fond memories of playing FS, with all its design quirks. It seems to me that most peoples' positions are either "don't care if its one way or the other" or "it's better to keep true to :v:". Positions that actually advocate changing stuff over keeping it the same (as opposed to being fine with it either way) are much fewer in numbers (TBH, this stance seems pretty much confined to modelers themselves, for some reason...). In the end, a much smaller group of people "loses" if :v:'s vision is respected.
The question here is: Is FSU making its own game, or trying to improve on FS2? IMO, its crucial that FSU keeps being an upgrade, not a remake. It fixes bugs and makes the game prettier, but makes no fundamental changes in gameplay, designs or missions. Ideally, there would be no arguments like this. If you like FS2, you should like FSU at least equally as much. FSU has always been an upgrade project, not a reimagination project. Now, I can't say I wouldn't play the latter (there were some missions done in that vein, better remakes of retail missions), but the "U" in FSU stands for "Upgrade" and I'd prefer it to remain that way.
-
You know you CAN just play with previous versions of the mediavps and curate your own collection of upgraded assets, only keeping the one's you like, correct? There is a lot of middle ground between making all of your own models and only using mediavp assets, to the point where I suspect most long term FSO players use their own collections of assets on top of the mediavps, I know I do.
I don't think this Ursa is a radical departure, but for every model there will be someone who doesn't like it. It seems like you've been that someone an awful lot lately - and I'm not saying that as a dark critique. Perhaps you'd be happier if you started with the 2012 version of the mediavps as a template and made your own mod from there.
Certainly I think its unrealistic to have a community such as ours, in which these modelers have grown up and come into their abilities around the FS modding scene, and expect them to model nothing but the same greebled low definition ships over and over again. As time goes on, if upgrades keep on being made for this game, the upgraded models will gradually become more and more different compared to the originals, because in terms of artists abilities, average system ability, and aesthetic taste will continue to change I don't think that's something that anyone can fight, or should.
This should probably be split off from the main thread into the bombed thread.
-
(TBH, this stance seems pretty much confined to modelers themselves, for some reason...)
most likely since we do the actual modeling it gives us the perspective of having taste
(http://i.somethingawful.com/u/garbageday/2015/Avatars/taylorboom.gif)
-
I can definitely see the argument for keeping things somewhat near what the original model was, especially considering cases when it's labeled as an upgrade of an existing model, but the not canon enough nitpick does get old.
Of course at the same time, its also wearying for someone who ISN'T the modeler to keep bashing the, old models suck, change EVERYTHING button.
-
(TBH, this stance seems pretty much confined to modelers themselves, for some reason...)
most likely since we do the actual modeling it gives us the perspective of having taste
(http://i.somethingawful.com/u/garbageday/2015/Avatars/taylorboom.gif)
Don't be a dick about it Hades.
-
As has been previously mentioned... A model that can be be a part of FSU does not guarantee it will be. I don't care if the modeller is part of the FSU team. We have turned down models before for various reasons and we'll do so again if we need to.
Stop assuming the model will be a part of the MediaVPs and stop using FSU as a reason for whatever criticisms. Then perhaps everyone can be much more objective.
-
Well, my view of it is that if someone is posting it in Freespace Upgrade rather than elsewhere, they are showing a desire to have it included in which case some comments regarding how well it fits in with the MVPs is valid. It just doesn't need to be the same constant, "not close enough to original" nitpicking. Being posted in FSU doesn't guarantee inclusion, but it does indicate the desire for inclusion, which is just as relevant.
If it isn't supposed to be sent to the pass to be checked over for possible inclusion in MVPs then it would be posted elsewhere as, "hey I made this thing"
-
That's true. My point was more directed at Dragon's leading to an argument about what the FSU is all about...
FSU doesn't only depend on modelers (though it does need them). There is an Ursa already, and it doesn't look that bad. FSU really depends on players, fans of FS who are actually going to use the models in question (modders don't even play much outside of testing, usually their own creations. I've had this happen to me, too, in two games, no less). Some of them have respect for :v: and their vision of FS. Many also have fond memories of playing FS, with all its design quirks. It seems to me that most peoples' positions are either "don't care if its one way or the other" or "it's better to keep true to :v:". Positions that actually advocate changing stuff over keeping it the same (as opposed to being fine with it either way) are much fewer in numbers (TBH, this stance seems pretty much confined to modelers themselves, for some reason...). In the end, a much smaller group of people "loses" if :v:'s vision is respected.
The question here is: Is FSU making its own game, or trying to improve on FS2? IMO, its crucial that FSU keeps being an upgrade, not a remake. It fixes bugs and makes the game prettier, but makes no fundamental changes in gameplay, designs or missions. Ideally, there would be no arguments like this. If you like FS2, you should like FSU at least equally as much. FSU has always been an upgrade project, not a reimagination project. Now, I can't say I wouldn't play the latter (there were some missions done in that vein, better remakes of retail missions), but the "U" in FSU stands for "Upgrade" and I'd prefer it to remain that way.
That argument assumes the new Ursa's inclusion in the MediaVPs and then brings into question FSU as a whole. That is not, and will not be, what this turns into again. You may not use an unfinished model to start complaining about your individual problems with FSU. If you want to complain, start a new thread... or better yet, PM myself or Zacam.