[jr2]

I think for lightspeed you'd just modify the jump effect to produce a SW style jumpout/in

[colecampbell666]

Updates?

[brandx0]

Here:

[Titan]

when are you planning to add the huge turbolazer mounts? 
lookin good.

[brandx0]

This model is proceeding in stages, the first stage is getting a basic hull, the second is to split it off into 2 models, one for the ISD I and one for the ISD II.  The Turrets will come in the second stage

[starlord]

no real changes hull-wise between the 1 and 2, are there? Also, are you going to use this for the tector?

[brandx0]

the ISD 1 has a bit of an underbite, different greebles on the bridge, a different comm tower, different engines, different turrets and different sensor domes (The current engines, comm tower, and sensor domes are there just to give it the impression of being a fuller star destroyer, they're all from the ISD 2)


And yes, I'll be using this for the tector, I'll be removing the hangar bay and beefing up the armour a little bit.

[starlord]

Engine differences? I never noticed.

[brandx0]

The ISD 1 has flaps sticking out the back as baffles, while the ISD2 has an extra ring section directing the exhaust

[starlord]

Just a question, I don't want to flame, but do you really think the tector exists? What if the fact that the hangar wasn't displayed was just a mistake? It happened sometimes in starwars. (Of course, I could be wrong... but those reasons made you redimension the executor and eclipse and cross out supposed designs like the sovereign and giel's ship).

[chief1983]

Just a question, I don't want to flame, but do you really think the tector exists?

Heresy!  Actually, whether it was a filming goof or whatever, doesn't matter to me, I just like the excuse for another variant of the ship.

[brandx0]

As far as I'm concerned, if it's referenced elsewhere (which it is, in the Incredible Cross Sections book) then it exists.

And we didn't resize the eclipse, and we are using the official length for the executor, 19 km.

[starlord]

oh, one thing: Will we get to say hello to atmospheric missions, walkers, and all?

[brandx0]

Atmospheric missions are a goal far off on the horizon.  Walkers are, as far as I know, not possible in the current freespace engine.  If someone can come up with a way to make them work, I'll be the first one to step up and model an AT-AT

[jr2]

Well, come 3.7.0, Goobler's doing FPS support, so... xD

[brandx0]

Well when that comes, I'll get an AT-AT ready hehe

[starlord]

If the 158th is planning ground tanks, I suppose walkers can't fit in because they are animated objects, right?

Is there a possible way to animate objects in FS?

[ShadowGorrath]

That model looks amazing. Now even I'm interested in getting it.

[Vasudan Admiral]

If the 158th is planning ground tanks, I suppose walkers can't fit in because they are animated objects, right?

Is there a possible way to animate objects in FS?

Yes, but the kind of animation required here would be very difficult to do at all, and exceedingly difficult to do well.

It's not impossible, but certainly not yet practical.

[brandx0]

It'd be great if we had animation support in POFs, then you could just animate a walk cycle for your model and have the program look it up from the file.  Alas I don't think that'll happen