[Raptor]

My idea of what a Ursa Mark II could look like:





Current payload is 240 hornets and 20 (10+10) Helios torpedoes.  I'm aiming at making LOD1, UVmap it and create the texture, then use the map to detail up LOD0.  Also planing pilot + 3 gunners (nose, dorsal & ventral) in cockpit, so if someone could just recap how that is done... (I know it involves submodels, but I can't quite recall which parts need to be submodels)

[Unknown Target]

Looks good but those wings really don't do it for me. They mess up the profile and the whole "Big + Tough" look of the Ursa.

[Snail]

Yeah, the wings look bad. Why not just replace them with missile pods behind the chainguns or underneath the turrets. Also, there is another Ursa Mark II in Inferno which was based of someone called Scorpius' design which looks like this:




But I like your design much better. Makes it more intimidating.

[Taristin]

The top and side views need more shape to them on Raptor's.
The Inferno one would probably look much better with more FS-2-like Textures, rather than the old Ursa great-war-era skins. If you're going to do a modern "mk II" (Which is a cop out on naming) then do it right, IMO.

[Snail]

Should I delete this post?

[Raptor]

Well, it is still in development...

I'll have a look at it wingless...

And count me among those who are... dubious... about Inferno.

[Dark Hunter]

Not everyone shares your views on the Massive Mobile Plothole ^TM in Inferno, Snail, if that's what you're referring to.

@Raptor: Yay! Gatling guns!  

[Snail]

I think Inferno has less storyline than some campaigns (such as MT), but at least it doesn't have an Alpha 1 character (like BWO, one of the reasons I'm not an uber fanboy of that) and Fenris with invulnerable flags with BFReds stuck onto them (numerous ).

But I like Inferno because it has lots of medium-to-high quality ships, new ideas (such as secondary anti-cap armaments, the bomber PAC system, etc.), and most importantly, it's fun (well at least R1 was anyway)....

[Taristin]

Umm... Ive said nothing about Inferno here. I have said that if the model was supposedly made after the great war, as was the case with the Perseus, Erinyes, Ares, herc II and all the others, then the mapping scheme should match. As it stands, that Ursa II is a new model with old textures.
The Kurruk thing was a result of my own actions, and I hold no animosity or bad feelings for it. So, please Drop it, and Dont infer more out of my posts than what I actually say. Im not looking for any more trouble.

[Woomeister]

that Ursa II is a new model with old textures.

Nothing I can do about that since I can't make texture maps, so I used the ones that I thought would be easiest to match the mesh, which was the original Ursa ones.

[Taristin]

Ok. Im not saying that that makes it bad. Just that it doesnt match with a FS-2 fleet. It could very well match the Inferno fleet perfectly for all I know.

[Snail]

Sorry, Taristin, I deleted any reference to it.



Anyway, back on topic now, how will Raptor's Ursa II be textured?

[NGTM-1R]

When you make a Mark II, it generally behooves you to make the family resemblence a tad more obvious...

[Raven2001]

UGH!! Please dont use that model of mine... its old, clumsy and imperfect

[Raptor]

Only just had a chance to do some more to this... been focused on the Hera.




Narrowed the 'waist' (as it were), narrowed the leading intakes, did most on the extrudes/indents that I didn't do for the last set of images.  The red patches on the wings are areas I had planned to indent.

You know, I expected people to moan more about the engines than the wings...

[Snail]

UGH!! Please dont use that model of mine... its old, clumsy and imperfect

You mean the Inferno Mark II? Go protest to Woo. He's pretty adamant about that stuff but I think he'll be different if he gets something from the maker himself.

Only just had a chance to do some more to this... been focused on the Hera.




Narrowed the 'waist' (as it were), narrowed the leading intakes, did most on the extrudes/indents that I didn't do for the last set of images.  The red patches on the wings are areas I had planned to indent.

You know, I expected people to moan more about the engines than the wings...

The wings make it look non-solid. The reason why I liked the Ursa was because it was, esentially, a giant flying brick with a load of bombs stuck to it. That made it look tough and compact. However, the wings on the Mark II make it look less like a brick.

I don't see what's wrong with the engines. I like it, looks better than the original Ursa, IMO.

[Scorpius]

Wow.. I haven't seen that drawing in years. I'm surprised you guys still remembered it. It's kinda flattering actually  .

[Turey]

The wings make it look non-solid. The reason why I liked the Ursa was because it was, essentially, a giant flying brick with a load of bombs stuck to it. That made it look tough and compact. However, the wings on the Mark II make it look less like a brick.

Exactly. If it doesn't look like a brick and maneuver like a brick, it isn't an Ursa.

[Snail]

Wow.. I haven't seen that drawing in years. I'm surprised you guys still remembered it. It's kinda flattering actually  .

Actually, I found that on one of my Google travels. The drawing IMO is better than the model (no offense to whoever made it (Raven2001?))

[Raptor]

Okay, here's how it looks without the wings:



The missile pod itself is the same shape.  It's not yet attached, so the position can be altered a bit.

I personally like the wings, but I can see the point of 'no wings = compact'...

A close-up of the cockpit (such as it is, may be reworked a bit more on the leading edge):