[AthlonBoy]

Seeing as the Artemis from http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,34444.0.html seems to be dead in the water, I'm gonna have a crack at it myself. Here's a quick render of what I did in ten minutes.

I've only touched the engine; I'm trying to give it a smoother shape.

[attachment deleted by evil Tolwyn]

[Zacam]

The fun will be tackling (if necessary) the Artemis D.H. afterwards.

[Narvi]

The D.H is just a retexture, isn't it?

[Zacam]

The tail assembly and engine locations are different for starters.

Tail of the Artemis is a Quad X Fin design.

Artemis D.H. is a Tri Inverted Y.

So model wise, there is not all that much significantly different, but those differences will need to be maintained.

[High Max]

.

[Narvi]

Weird thing is that the tech description of the DH says that it is faster and more manueverable than the original Artemis, but the table specs between the two look almost identical if not identical. I noticed that a few days ago. By coincidence, this thread was created and started talking about the DH and Artemis pretty much being the same shortly after I checked the tables for that and other ships and noticed the Artemis and DH version are the same, spec-wise. Also, hitpoints = hull strength, right?

I always thought that was a bug that slipped through. Yeah, essentially they're the same bomber. But people think they're better.

I've heard it called "the placebomber effect".

[AthlonBoy]

Quick update.

Am I going in the right direction?

[attachment deleted by evil Tolwyn]

[Dilmah G]

Looks similar to the Artemis we have now...well what was I to expect anyway

But yeah, looking good

[AthlonBoy]

The King is dead.

Long live the King.

[attachment deleted by evil Tolwyn]

[Galemp]

Uhm.

[Narvi]

Those are just initial textures, I take it? Haven't finished the model yet?

[AthlonBoy]

Those are the old textures. You don't think I'm sticking with those, do you?

There's a lot of detail in the textures that I can model from.

[Rodo]

I don't really like that bulb coming down from the cockpit tip... what's that? the glass melted because the pilot stared to the star too much?

[AthlonBoy]

I don't really like that bulb coming down from the cockpit tip... what's that? the glass melted because the pilot stared to the star too much?

I hate it as well. It makes absolutely no sense to have a canopy curve around like that. But that's what the original Artemis had.

Do I have any votes to make the cockpit look sane? Or should I stick to Volition's concept?

[peterv]

My opinion is to make Volition's point of view even better (hope than you will not ask what that means).

[Herra Tohtori]

It might be beneficial for visibility reasons you know. There are some bombers with glass noses even on our history; the drooping nose doesn't make much sense but hey, we're talking about FreeSpace, things that "make sense" are a minority report here.

It would make some sense if the pilot was positioned similarly to the new Ulysses cockpit, or even leaning forward face slightly down. How tall is the cockpit? Does it fit a human being standing, or does it require seated position?

[AthlonBoy]

Small update.

I put in the cockpit for a sense of scale. Turns out there's more than enough room for two pilots.

[attachment deleted by evil Tolwyn]

[blowfish]

Nice work.  One thing though, is that those indentations on the sides are a little more jagged than they should be.  They don't have to follow the texture exactly, and I think straight or smooth sides would look better.

[High Max]

.

[The E]

Well, for one, most FS Bombers have a crew of two. I guess having a copilot/EWO/WSO on board makes it easier for the pilot to concentrate on getting the bomber where it needs to be in order to attack its target most efficiently. True, with sufficiently advanced tech, this could be done by a computer, but I guess that computers in the FreeSpace universe aren't advanced enough to do the job efficiently. Maybe the Pilots feel its easier to trust a human to do the job correctly.