[BlackDove]

No no SC.

I scrutinize[/i] you for your work. Bad SC. Making superior models only for them not to be like I want them to be in my super imagination of how things should be.

Honestly, I don't know why we haven't spanked you already.

[pecenipicek]

okay, to prevent any confusion here and possible "insults" flying my way.

i really appreciate the stuff you people did for FS2, most of you modelers made truly awesome models, and most of the models in the Media VP's are true to their feel. this rant is more directed to the guys doing some... unfitting models in the FSU section.

about the "do it yourself" way. i seriously thought of it. i actually am quite good at keeping stuff low-poly, but i terminally suck at texturing. i was thinking about doing either the Moloch or HercII, but i simply do not know how to get a decent outline to start with.

whenever i tried, i was cleaning up the mesh, and in the process almost always broke the UVW mapping. which oftentimes made me quit that.

perhaps i will try and do a HTL mesh. perhaps.

but, Prophet worded it the best. my whole feeling for FSU.

i know i can punt files out of the Media VP's if i want to. i seriously thought about that, but i didnt do it for the simple fact of being able to rant about it.  [end sarcasm ]

[Prophet]

I think that what MrBig101 meant with the "damage" thing was that old ships should have the kind of "worn out" look. Like how a new car is all shiny and stuff, but a 10 year old car does not shine and has perhaps small dents and such.


But about this model business... What the hell is wrong with you people?

When someone questions something here. Some people immediatley lash out with comments like StratComm up there. Can someone please point out to me where has someone given crap about the hard work he or someone else has done?

Did anyone considered the issues I presented? There are many questionmarks in my previous post. I want to belive that this is a place where people can ask questions and make comments about things. Instead those whe are brave enought to bring their opinions in to light are met with "do it yourself because you don't like what I am doing" -response. Even thought the asker has nothing against the hard work people are doing. Like pecenipicek's and my posts seem to indicate. You read them, did you?

if you don't like it, make your own.

I DO like them (HTL models), like it says in my previous post. And pecenipicek also seems to like them (mostly), if I am not misunderstanding. You read those posts, did you?

I will risk my sanity and ask one more question (yes I am quite insane).
What does HTL stand for exactly? Is it upping the polycount of the old design.
Or is it upping the polycount of the old design by adding/changing stuff that does not exist in the old model to make the model look cool in the eyes of some people. (That was not meant to be hostility towards the modellers. It would propably look cool in my eyes too, but if it is different it will bother me.)
Answer that and I will go away and leave those of better kind to make this community thrive without my tainting influence.


Prophet
- The miserable little bastard who doesn't like what the models around him are like and want's them changed regardless of what other people feel.

[WMCoolmon]

Considering that you claim to be some kind of good modeller, pecenipicek, why don't you just fix them yourself instead of whining months after they were made?

The models that are in the mediaVP were released because the authors felt that they were done, or got tired of working on them and handed them off to someone else to finish. There are actually a couple of models that haven't been released (By Nico) because he never felt that he finished them. (ad actually, he definitely did listen to people...he was who I first thought of when thinking about how to respond to this thread. In working on the Moloch, he received some complaints about the double-prow he'd given it, and so made teh gap between the front thingies smaller.

Edit: this kind of thing pops up ocasionally, when a HTL model is made, but generally it's in the context of doing something about it...not "the texturing is WRONG". But altogether, since you aren't really complaining about the mediaVPs, and not complaining about models still in development, I'm not sure I see what this thread is supposed to do except generate negativity against new models. Because obviously, you can't please everybody with the same model designs.

[CP5670]

But about this model business... What the hell is wrong with you people?

When someone questions something here. Some people immediatley lash out with comments like StratComm up there. Can someone please point out to me where has someone given crap about the hard work he or someone else has done?

Did anyone considered the issues I presented? There are many questionmarks in my previous post. I want to belive that this is a place where people can ask questions and make comments about things. Instead those whe are brave enought to bring their opinions in to light are met with "do it yourself because you don't like what I am doing" -response. Even thought the asker has nothing against the hard work people are doing. Like pecenipicek's and my posts seem to indicate. You read them, did you?

I so expected the usual indignant responses to show up at some point.

I will risk my sanity and ask one more question (yes I am quite insane).
What does HTL stand for exactly? Is it upping the polycount of the old design.
Or is it upping the polycount of the old design by adding/changing stuff that does not exist in the old model to make the model look cool in the eyes of some people. (That was not meant to be hostility towards the modellers. It would propably look cool in my eyes too, but if it is different it will bother me.)
Answer that and I will go away and leave those of better kind to make this community thrive without my tainting influence.

It stands for hardware transform and lighting, a feature that was added into video cards a few years ago, but makes no sense at all in this context. I hate that name "HTL models" myself. High poly models is much more appropriate. I guess they are supposed to add details to the originals (like stuff that was previously part of the textures) while still sticking close to their overall design/shape.

As I said earlier, I think all the currently finished models are pretty good in this respect (not sure why the new Orion and Hecate are taking the flak, as those look pretty close to the originals to me), but there were some WIP models posted around the forums that change the basic shape of the original, which is going too far in my opinion.

[StratComm]

You know, that "indignant response" as something that I'm more than happy to step up and take.  I do get very tired of people sitting up on their high horse saying how little things fit their idea of what is and is not Freespace when I, along with everyone else who's been contributing to the Media VPs, want to do just that.  I think people have a hard time remembering that what is done whan a ship is given a full high-poly treatment is not to preserve the original lines exactly, but to do what the modeler thinks the original artist would have done had had effectively unlimited polygons to work with.  And I'll get on this rant again; I keep seeing polycount trumpeted as either a huge benefit or some huge cost; the reality is that polycount is not that big of an issue as long as you aren't trying to use wireframe.  There are now 8k+ poly asteroids in mv_models, and I have not yet heard a peep about performance issues.  Period.  The difference between a couple of hundred polygons is really insignificant.  But that's not even my point; I don't mind AT ALL to have models critiqued when they are in WIP, but don't rant on something that's already done.  That's all I'm saying, and all I feel that needs to be said.  To everyone involved in this discussion.

[aldo_14]

I think that what MrBig101 meant with the "damage" thing was that old ships should have the kind of "worn out" look. Like how a new car is all shiny and stuff, but a 10 year old car does not shine and has perhaps small dents and such.

They kind of have that already, though.

[CP5670]

You know, that "indignant response" as something that I'm more than happy to step up and take.  I do get very tired of people sitting up on their high horse saying how little things fit their idea of what is and is not Freespace when I, along with everyone else who's been contributing to the Media VPs, want to do just that.  I think people have a hard time remembering that what is done whan a ship is given a full high-poly treatment is not to preserve the original lines exactly, but to do what the modeler thinks the original artist would have done had had effectively unlimited polygons to work with.  And I'll get on this rant again; I keep seeing polycount trumpeted as either a huge benefit or some huge cost; the reality is that polycount is not that big of an issue as long as you aren't trying to use wireframe.  There are now 8k+ poly asteroids in mv_models, and I have not yet heard a peep about performance issues.  Period.  The difference between a couple of hundred polygons is really insignificant.  But that's not even my point; I don't mind AT ALL to have models critiqued when they are in WIP, but don't rant on something that's already done.  That's all I'm saying, and all I feel that needs to be said.  To everyone involved in this discussion.

Sorry, but that makes no sense. Isn't the whole FS upgrade project basically a perpetual WIP? I don't see how anything can ever be finished to absolute perfection in that sense. There is always room for improvement. I generally make any suggestions I have in the model's WIP thread, but sometimes one might not notice the thread and only see it in the game after it has made into the vps.

I see your point about the polygons though, and the new asteroids are fantastic since they actually look way better than the originals in the game. It's more an issue of whether the polys are being put to good use than their actual quantity.

[aldo_14]

Sorry, but that makes no sense. Isn't the whole FS upgrade project basically a perpetual WIP?

I'd say no, with the caveat that completion is very much down to individual satisfaction.  But I don't think there's any way you could run any sort of project if individual pieces of work were never signed off as completed.

[GodisanAtheist]

Probably not the right place to post, but on the topic of "damaged older ship textures":

- Remember, even through this is 200-300 years in the future, these are still spaceships and space is still space. Fighter craft here and now require an ungodly ammount of maintanance to make sure they are in working order, and rest assured any noticable dings and dents are going to be worked over before ANYONE thinks about flying that plane.

The rules that apply to cars and other less sophicticated equipment does not apply to spaceships and their ilk, or even modern fightercraft.

On Topic:

-Although I respect and understand the topic creator's qualms, I really must salute the Hi-Poly modders for their work and in keeping so much with the original feel of the ship designs. I imagine working on someone elses design is probably MORE difficult than building one of your own, since you're working within boundries set by the game and legions of rabid fans (of which, I'm sure, you are the most rabid). There has not been one reworked model that I have not liked.

[Axem]

I've noticed the biggest rumblings are with ships that are heavily tile mapped. The Fenris pretty much had its own map already, as do all of the fighters. But the Orion and Hecate, all they had going for them was the now relatively low poly design, nothing really to go on. So there people see, in different ways, how it could have been improved. On the Fenris you clearly see a part that should be greebled, but on the Orion, it's not clear at all what parts should be extruded or redone.

[Solatar]

The title of this thread shows nothing good could come out of it. I mean..."A rant upon some upgraded ships people have done in their spare time and released to the community without compensation out of the goodness of their hearts". Yeah...those bastards...taking away from the feel. It's not their fault, it's your fault for downloading the models. I could understand a "dicussion on HTL ships" or "some criticism" but good God...a rant over how some of you don't like free stuff you don't have to take. A rant...

[WMCoolmon]

Sorry, but that makes no sense. Isn't the whole FS upgrade project basically a perpetual WIP? I don't see how anything can ever be finished to absolute perfection in that sense. There is always room for improvement. I generally make any suggestions I have in the model's WIP thread, but sometimes one might not notice the thread and only see it in the game after it has made into the vps.

I see your point about the polygons though, and the new asteroids are fantastic since they actually look way better than the originals in the game. It's more an issue of whether the polys are being put to good use than their actual quantity.

Well...what's the solution then?

I'm not saying that the opinion is bad, just that it seems like it'd (this thread) be a little discouraging to the people who spend hours working on the models, and doesn't seem to serve much reasonable purpose besides...

Edit: Clarification.

[Taristin]

But about this model business... What the hell is wrong with you people?

When someone questions something here. Some people immediatley lash out with comments like StratComm up there. Can someone please point out to me where has someone given crap about the hard work he or someone else has done?

Stratt's point was this: "Where were all of these opinions and complaints when the models were being made?"
And he's right. Modellers get such little feedback from the community when we're showing off models, and as a result we finish the models as we think they might look. Then everyone start's flailing their arms and screaming herasy because it differs a little from the 500 poly model that was in game.


Another of my peeves is when people take a model that has little to no detail on it (Orion, Aeolus, etc.) and compare the high poly job it gets to that of, say, the Fenris, which has the best and largest maps of any ship and that lets you *clearly* see what should be added to it.
Those kinds of posts aren't helpful... If people don't want any divergence from the initial design they shouild stick with the original models. Anything we do to try to add detail and interest to the meshes is almost always met with people screaming that the meshes are changing too much. And it's annoying at times, frankly.

[CP5670]

I'd say no, with the caveat that completion is very much down to individual satisfaction.  But I don't think there's any way you could run any sort of project if individual pieces of work were never signed off as completed.

But if there is an otherwise legitimate gripe about a model, should it not be considered just because a model is already in the vps? I don't see why this should matter at all. And in practice it doesn't anyway; content in the vps is updated all the time. I'm sure that, for example, the Orion engine placement issue I mentioned earlier will be fixed at some point given that it alters gameplay.

On a side note, one thing I just noticed is that the rearmost big turret on the Hecate (a model that I think is otherwise very well done) is too small compared to the others. I think I can guess what the justification for this was, but it's based on what is almost certainly a small Volition bug in the original ships.tbl, so maybe it should be changed to be the same size as the others like it was in the original model.

Well...what's the solution then?

I'm not saying that the opinion is bad, just that it seems like it'd be a little discouraging to the people who spend hours working on the models, and doesn't seem to serve much reasonable purpose besides...

I would respond to the criticism on its own merit instead of bringing up all the attitude. I don't think the two posts under scrutiny were just complaining about everything and really deserved this sort of response (well, pecenipicek's comment on the Erinyes was definitely OTT, but most of the other points made were still worth discussing), even though I don't agree with what they're saying as far as the current models go.

-Although I respect and understand the topic creator's qualms, I really must salute the Hi-Poly modders for their work and in keeping so much with the original feel of the ship designs. I imagine working on someone elses design is probably MORE difficult than building one of your own, since you're working within boundries set by the game and legions of rabid fans (of which, I'm sure, you are the most rabid). There has not been one reworked model that I have not liked.

Agreed.

[Singh]

Hi poly FS model upgraders > Pecenicepek

If you want to complain - go make them yourself and see how hard it is to pick up from where left off.

(I've actually tried it before, so dont say I dont know)

[Col. Fishguts]

Modellers get such little feedback from the community when we're showing off models, and as a result we finish the models as we think they might look. Then everyone start's flailing their arms and screaming herasy because it differs a little from the 500 poly model that was in game.

Keep in mind that only the people who don't like a new model will start a ranting thread about it. The majority of people who like it will download it quietly and use it, a few will post some praise in the release thread. The supporting masses stay quite.

If you want to know what the opinion of the community is on something, make a poll.
And I'm referring to the old poll that was started by TrashMan about his new Orion vs. Bob's/GE's Orion vs. 's Orion. The result was clearly in favour of the version that is now in the media_vp, although a lot of people are complaining about it.

I've seen to many good modelers being turned down by rants from a few people.

Everyone needs to remember: All the modelers here are working on this for free in their free time and sharing it with us out of their generosity. No one is forcing you to use any of their work. If a modeler decides that the Orion should have a huge pink bunny rabbit on the bow, he's free to do that.

[pecenipicek]

Considering that you claim to be some kind of good modeller, pecenipicek, why don't you just fix them yourself instead of whining months after they were made?

Whining? Months after its been made? let me remind you i was banned for a better part of this year and the fact that i will not actually modify any models made by anyone here in the modelling sense. (perhaps fixing some textures, but for general taking care of models and getting em to work correctly in FS2, well, i dont have the patience to mess around with the POF-data...)

The models that are in the mediaVP were released because the authors felt that they were done, or got tired of working on them and handed them off to someone else to finish. There are actually a couple of models that haven't been released (By Nico) because he never felt that he finished them. (ad actually, he definitely did listen to people...he was who I first thought of when thinking about how to respond to this thread. In working on the Moloch, he received some complaints about the double-prow he'd given it, and so made teh gap between the front thingies smaller.

you're making it sound like i said that some models should be removed from the media VP's, whilst i made no such claim

Edit: this kind of thing pops up ocasionally, when a HTL model is made, but generally it's in the context of doing something about it...not "the texturing is WRONG". But altogether, since you aren't really complaining about the mediaVPs, and not complaining about models still in development, I'm not sure I see what this thread is supposed to do except generate negativity against new models. Because obviously, you can't please everybody with the same model designs.

i know that you cant please everybody.

Hi poly FS model upgraders > Pecenicepek

If you want to complain - go make them yourself and see how hard it is to pick up from where left off.

(I've actually tried it before, so dont say I dont know)

are you challenging me to try to upgrade some FS model?

i know how hard it is, you think i didnt try it at least once in these almost two years of my 3D working?


my entire point to this thread was that altough some modelers missed the original feel a bit, and some models have a "bit" bad texturing job, most of the models and textures in the media vp's are capturing the FS feel to it quite nicely, some are thoroughly great.

my problem is more with the models that put details that simply arent there. okay, "artistic freedom" and all that, but where do we draw the line?
also, for giving comments about the models while they were done... well, i was kinda... banned from here and when karajorma said to me that everyone banned was unbanned, i decided to come back. i would have commented gladly whilst they were being made. if i could.


now, a little question for anyone doing hi-res textures, how do you people do them actually? what my limited grasp of PS tells me, it looks like the textures were first enlarged and then whoever made them fixed all the jagged edges that came to be. just my thought

[Flipside]

From what I can remember, Lightspeed used the originals as a template, and actually rebuilt the texture from the bottom up, so the main image isn't enhanced as such, simply used as a template

Not sure though, you'd have to ask lighty.

[pecenipicek]

From what I can remember, Lightspeed used the originals as a template, and actually rebuilt the texture from the bottom up, so the main image isn't enhanced as such, simply used as a template

if so, i'm very afraid