[TrashMan]

Old images removed. Look down.

I'm having trouble deciding how to do the right side - specificly the hangar part.
the left one is lower and much like the normal Orions one, and for differnce purposes I feel the other one should be different - maby higer or something. Maby I should extrude the whole blue textured area (as I did on the other sde to add those light running along the edge and hangarbay) or just hte lowe part of it.

Gah!

[Galemp]

Uhm.

See my comments on your 'Typhoon' thread. Better yet, see everyone's comments in that thread.

[StratComm]

Galemp, you've preempted me.  I was going to wait a little while before the criticism set in, but since we're not going to be listened to anyway I might as well go ahead, since my concerns with this mesh are actually quite different from those on the "Typhoon"

Trashman:

• Asymmetry is your friend.  More to the point, asymmetry made the Orion what it was, and not having that awkward imbalance takes it from looking like an imposing warship to a block in space.  That imbalance was what made the original Orion cool, and it's gone
• Decide which textures you're using.  If it's the Orion textures, use the Orion textures.  If it's Deimos textures, use Deimos textures.  If you're going to use whatever that blue light map is, use it exclusively.  Stop mixing them.  You've made the shell of an Orion that you're working on look like Frankenstein, a clumsy and lumbering monstrocity, not the great hunter that the ship is named after.  That really goes for all your models to a degree; the runway lights map is not windows and should not be used as such.  Ever.  And bring back the Orion turret maps, they ruled.
• Textures again.  Well, texture alignment and UV mapping.  Look at that big blob of non-aligned blue map behing the fighterbay.  That should not be like that or you shouldn't be showing the model mapped.  Box map it if you have to, just don't show us things with warped and distorted textures.  It makes our criticisms that much harsher.  However, there are other issues that I fear you will not be touching, such as the completely mismatched tile scale on pretty much every map (again, most notable around the fighterbay where you've got very highly tiled polys touching very sparcely tiled ones of the same texture).
  
• Detail, detail, detail.  The detail in the original Orion is gone in a lot of places (square fighterbay instead of the angled one that's canon, for no good reason, and the larger size makes the whole ship look smaller, not the bay bigger, the reduced extrusion past the fighterbay, in fact the whole fighterbay area in general but the nose is not right either) and a lot of things look like just flat poly walls that really shouldn't.  For all the space it takes up, the sensor array is extremely sparce.
• Turrets.  I'm not going to say more there.

If you're going to replicate the fighterbay on the other side, do it in a way that is noticably different from one side to the other, while making both still good.  A series of angled launch ramps rather than the one landing ramp (see a Nimitz carrier) would be interesting, for starters.  It does not need two parallel launch ramps which serve no purpose beyond the cool factor anyway.

EDIT: And you're doing this backwards.  The right side should retain the canon-style fighterbay completely, the left one should be changed.  I knew the better-looking fighterbay looked wrong, but I just figured out why.

[Trivial Psychic]

I won't re-itterate what Galemp or Stratcomm said, whether I agree with it or not, save for the ideas about different launch ramps.  Strat's idea about the multiple angular launch ramps sounds cool, but it got me thinking about different possibilities.  If you wanted to keep the ramps parallel to the centerline, you could instead create 2, with staggered hights.  One would start as far back as the current one, but sit about halfway further up on the fuselage, and end halfway towards the end of the current one.  Beneath it, a lower ramp would start, and go the rest of the way forward.  Or you could keep them both on the same level, make 'em about 2/3 the length of the current one, but half as wide, then have one start near the hull, while the 2nd starts further back on the hull, but further out from it, parallel to the inner one.  A different idea would be to make one side (such as the above) primarily a fighter and bomber launch bay, but make the bay on the opposite side much larger with internal space, designed more for transports to dock in.

[Black Wolf]

Basically what Galemp and Strat said, though with an additional point - please, please get rid of that big patch of deimos lights texture on the back part. Looks shocking.

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by StratComm

*Asymmetry is your friend.  More to the point, asymmetry made the Orion what it was, and not having that awkward imbalance takes it from looking like an imposing warship to a block in space.  That imbalance was what made the original Orion cool, and it's gone

Iknow - I'm trying to make both sides different - the grebling on both sides is totaly different for instance and I want ot make hte hangarbays different too:D

*Decide which textures you're using.  If it's the Orion textures, use the Orion textures.  If it's Deimos textures, use Deimos textures.  If you're going to use whatever that blue light map is, use it exclusively.  Stop mixing them.  You've made the shell of an Orion that you're working on look like Frankenstein, a clumsy and lumbering monstrocity, not the great hunter that the ship is named after.  That really goes for all your models to a degree; the runway lights map is not windows and should not be used as such.  Ever.  And bring back the Orion turret maps, they ruled.

I'm still experimenting with the textures. The Deimos light one I will remove as I'm trying ot reduce the number of maps used, but hte blue window like one...I don't know..looks really great on the right.

*Textures again.  Well, texture alignment and UV mapping.  Look at that big blob of non-aligned blue map behing the fighterbay.  That should not be like that or you shouldn't be showing the model mapped.  Box map it if you have to, just don't show us things with warped and distorted textures.  It makes our criticisms that much harsher.  However, there are other issues that I fear you will not be touching, such as the completely mismatched tile scale on pretty much every map (again, most notable around the fighterbay where you've got very highly tiled polys touching very sparcely tiled ones of the same texture).

I will fix hte UV mapping of course - this was just to show the shape and ask for adivice. You really ought to know better than to think I would leave it like that

*Detail, detail, detail.  The detail in the original Orion is gone in a lot of places (square fighterbay instead of the angled one that's canon, for no good reason, and the larger size makes the whole ship look smaller, not the bay bigger, the reduced extrusion past the fighterbay, in fact the whole fighterbay area in general but the nose is not right either) and a lot of things look like just flat poly walls that really shouldn't.  For all the space it takes up, the sensor array is extremely sparce.

ERm..the lft hangarbay is angled, so I though making the other one different. Besides, it allready has more polys than an orion, so it's not the question of detailes.

I too think the right fighterbay is too hihg but I can't decide what to do with it

*Turrets.  I'm not going to say more there.

you don't have to - those are placeholders for me to remeber the position of turret. Teh ship will get brand new ones.

If you're going to replicate the fighterbay on the other side, do it in a way that is noticably different from one side to the other, while making both still good.  A series of angled launch ramps rather than the one landing ramp (see a Nimitz carrier) would be interesting, for starters.  It does not need two parallel launch ramps which serve no purpose beyond the cool factor anyway.

Angled launch ramps...hmmm.....dunno about that but might be a good idea...

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by Trivial Psychic
I won't re-itterate what Galemp or Stratcomm said, whether I agree with it or not, save for the ideas about different launch ramps.  Strat's idea about the multiple angular launch ramps sounds cool, but it got me thinking about different possibilities.  If you wanted to keep the ramps parallel to the centerline, you could instead create 2, with staggered hights.  One would start as far back as the current one, but sit about halfway further up on the fuselage, and end halfway towards the end of the current one.  Beneath it, a lower ramp would start, and go the rest of the way forward.  Or you could keep them both on the same level, make 'em about 2/3 the length of the current one, but half as wide, then have one start near the hull, while the 2nd starts further back on the hull, but further out from it, parallel to the inner one.  A different idea would be to make one side (such as the above) primarily a fighter and bomber launch bay, but make the bay on the opposite side much larger with internal space, designed more for transports to dock in.

Yeah, I se what you mean...darn it...that might ruin hte right side grebling right infront of the fighterbay  which I like very much.
Maby if I switched the sides and made a replica of hte left hangarbay on hte right side and then re-did hte right one liek you said....hmm...

[StratComm]

Originally posted by TrashMan
ERm..the lft hangarbay is angled, so I though making the other one different. Besides, it allready has more polys than an orion, so it's not the question of detailes.

I too think the right fighterbay is too hihg but I can't decide what to do with it

I really cannot stress enough that polycount is not an accurate measure of detail.  Sure, it's got more polys, but the way they are used is totally inconsistant with the model and manages to not convey even the same sense of scale and detail that the original model did.  We've been over this time and time again, and I really wish you'd stop quoting polycounts as a response to lack-of-detail criticism.  My comments about detail level stand.

As for the fighterbay, by angled I meant that the interior walls were not vertical, but slanted in from the bottom of the bay to the top.  Thus the top is narrower than the bottom.  There was no convincing reason to drop this detail.  And if you think the fighterbay is too big, just shrink the opening.  It won't kill you to have a little bit of a face there.

[TrashMan]

They don't.. this is not a [V] Orion and it doens't have to look like it. I'm not trying to make an Orion wiht just another fighterbay and strip on hte other side - which why you obviously want - since yu want hte left side of this ships to be indentical with the normal Orion.


EDIT: tehre' - i made some changes - one strip is shorther and has a longer hangarbay, while hte other one is longer with a more amorred, but shorter  hangarbay

[StratComm]

And now you're putting words in my mouth.  I never said make it the same.  In fact, I even said quite the opposite not a full day ago.  By no means make it a normal orion with an extra strip, that would be pointless.  Doesn't change the fact that it still looks considerably less interesting than an Orion even with the changes you made though.

The length variance doesn't stand out enough unless you see both sides at once IMO.  An asymmetrical ship should be immediately obvious as to which side you're looking at it from.

[BlackDove]

My advice is to stop wasting time on it, since Galemp's is the one true one. Your skills could be applied on so many better and useful things.

One.111

[Galemp]

He said it, not me!

TrashMan, why don't you download Hamano's modified Orion and see what he's done with that? It's a pretty interesting variation on the basic Orion with two fighterbays, and it might give you some inspiration on techniques and designs you could put to use.

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by BlackDove
My advice is to stop wasting time on it, since Galemp's is the one true one. Your skills could be applied on so many better and useful things.

One.111

There is no true Orion save the [V] one. That said I allready have a higer-poly Orion, thats not why I need.
The Orion Mk2 /Excalibur) is allready in my campaign Chapter 1, but since iworked on detailing some other ship I thouhg I give this one a try to and make chenges while I'm at it.

TrashMan, why don't you download Hamano's modified Orion and see what he's done with that? It's a pretty interesting variation on the basic Orion with two fighterbays, and it might give you some inspiration on techniques and designs you could put to use.

I have it on myHDD but it's not what i'm looking for.. It's a bit too big, it's totaly symetric and has WAY too much beam cannons..no to mention I never liked those beam clusters..

[Galemp]

I'm not saying you should use it, or copy it; just study it, look at how he's used limited polies to form details, and how he's used the mapping creatively.

[Trivial Psychic]

Originally posted by Galemp
TrashMan, why don't you download Hamano's modified Orion and see what he's done with that? It's a pretty interesting variation on the basic Orion with two fighterbays, and it might give you some inspiration on techniques and designs you could put to use.

Originally posted by TrashMan
I have it on myHDD but it's not what i'm looking for.. It's a bit too big, it's totaly symetric and has WAY too much beam cannons..no to mention I never liked those beam clusters..

Um... that model isn't symetrical.  It a standard Orion with 2 extra engine blocks and the nose thing... there's no left-side fighterbay on that one.

[BlackDove]

Originally posted by TrashMan
There is no true Orion save the [V] one.

Galemp's/Bobboau's is, it was the minute it was finished. The V one became outdated the second the new one was done.

Forget about it, and do something useful. God knows you have the talent.

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by BlackDove

Galemp's/Bobboau's is, it was the minute it was finished. The V one became outdated the second the new one was done.

Not for me...

Forget about it, and do something useful. God knows you have the talent.

UPDATE:

[StratComm]

to Imageshack.  

From what the itty-bitty preview can tell me the mapping is better (still not ideal).  The sensor array is still way to empty for the space it occupies though, and I'm afraid there is still something wrong with the nose.  Can't put my finger on exactly what it is, maybe it's the lower angle, but something there just isn't right.

[Sheepy]

Try offsetting the cannon under the nose to one side i think. Also i feel the hangers are still to similar, granted they are different in textures position, but the general geometry of them is to similar for my liking.

[TrashMan]

I'ts not imageshacks fault - I removed the old images to save space.

The sensor array is a separate object, os scaling it or adding more antenna is a simple thing - you don't have to worry about that one.

If you find out what's wrong with the nose, tell me.. maby it's hte blue strip below it?

@Sheepy -
Yes, hte geomerty is similar..I was thinking of perhaps making the left one a double-decker but it wouldn't really change that much.

that said, Im still in the proces of making different grebling on each of the hangarbays. Keep the commnets comming