[bigchunk1]

Ok, so last weekend I had this sudden and uncontrolable urge to model that one alien fighter from Independence Day since I was unable to find any such models available for download. You may be familiar with it, but for those who are not here is a video freaturing it. Also you can do a google image search for id4 attacker.

A few days later and I realise I am in way over my head, and don't really know how to continue. Here are some screenshots of the attempt:




In a frustrating way it looks off. Any advice for what to be looking at, or what to do next?

[FreeSpaceFreak]

Try 'set smooth', and add an edgesplit modifier. Also, you have some symmetry seams - enable 'do clipping' in the mirror modifier and move the vertices towards the x-axis until they stick to the centreline.

Then, could you render a side view? It'll make for a good comparison with 1:26 in that video.

[zookeeper]

Whatever modelling method you've used which causes it to look like crumbled tinfoil... don't. I bet smoothing won't do enough to fix it, either.

Not much more to say since you didn't even mention which app you're using.

[FreeSpaceFreak]

It's Blender, you can tell by the blue render-background (that's Blender default). And yeah, like zookeeper said, you may want to look into topology some... it also appears to have more polies than it actually needs, especially around the edges of the wings.

[QuantumDelta]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72OquYrUx1o&feature=player_detailpage#t=86s
Especially since the ship you're trying to model is actually a semi-spherical shape rather than the shape you've ended up with buddy ;o

[rhettro]

You have the massing right. What modeling technique did you use? I think a ship built with lofted curves would give you a smoother result.  If you want to work with what you have, you might want to export your model as a OBJ file and import it into the freeware program Sculptris (http://www.pixologic.com/sculptris/) .  There are tools for smoothing and polygon reduction.  Not great for rectilinear ships, but for ships with curves it is an option. Just beware that if your  polys are unjoined, Sculptris will push the polys apart.

[starlord]

now that's a nice idea!

I also recall someone having modelled the city destroyer, the attacker and the troop transport for bridge commander...

[bigchunk1]

You all seem to assume I actually have a modeling technique. I don't consider myself an experienced modeler, and much of the terminology is foreign to me. The initial mesh was created from a hemisphere and shaped out into a more saucer like configuration the bottom was extruded and scaled. Much of that tinfoil construction has come from manipulating individual verticies and connecting erratic triangle faces. I find it very difficult to do things this way, especially since I need to keep track of which face is connected to what verticies. Axem recently introduced me to sculpting in Blender (yes Blender has a sculpt tool) so perhaps I can use that instead of what I have been doing. I'm still green to the whole thing though.



This is what I get after following FSF's advice.

[Aardwolf]

Are you using reference images? You should be.

[bobbtmann]

I think the problem you ran into were too many polygons, too fast.

If I were making this model, I'd make it very low poly, just to capture the shape, and then I'd smooth it. It's much easier to work with a shape that only has a few vertices, rather than a shape that has a lot. It's also very hard to make a good curve by individually moving each vertex. When you smooth it, just use smoothing groups (or edge splits?) and you'll keep the necessary hard edges.

 If you would like, we could turn your ship into a learning tool. Make the ship as complete as you can, in under a hundred polys. The lower the better. Then post the result and we'll go from there.

[bigchunk1]

I think the problem you ran into were too many polygons, too fast.

If I were making this model, I'd make it very low poly, just to capture the shape, and then I'd smooth it. It's much easier to work with a shape that only has a few vertices, rather than a shape that has a lot. It's also very hard to make a good curve by individually moving each vertex. When you smooth it, just use smoothing groups (or edge splits?) and you'll keep the necessary hard edges.

 If you would like, we could turn your ship into a learning tool. Make the ship as complete as you can, in under a hundred polys. The lower the better. Then post the result and we'll go from there.

I like that idea. Do you think it would be easier to just start a new mesh?

[bobbtmann]

Yes. I used to always restart my models, since I tended to get carried away cutting, or discover that there was a simpler way of doing something.

[bigchunk1]

Redoing anything comes with a soft inner pain, but in this case I think it was the right thing to do. Things are now in proportion a lot more nicely.





What now?

[bobbtmann]

You should stick with quads in your model, at this point. That way the smoothing modifier will work well.

I don't know if this is what you're doing, but that top piece could be a separate sub-object. It could just intersect with the main fuselage, which is easier that manifold edging.

Here's an example. The image is not exactly right, but it hints at what's needed.

[attachment deleted by a basterd]

[bigchunk1]

Ok sorry master, but I got a little distracted from the cause. That front just looked terrible to me, so I worked on it a bit.



Still thinking about the best way of going back to quadrilateral faces. I probably will end up acquiring more polies in the process but I am assuming this is bad. I was going to extrude some extra verts along the midsection and connect them spiderweb style. Also still questioning the wisdom of going back to squares, after the realization that 4 points don't always form a 2d plane, but I'll trust your judgement as you've been right so far.

The top section was a separate object but I joined it to the main body object.

@Aardwolf, yes I am using reference images that Axem provided me. I have gone so far as printing them out and taping them to my monitor to align key vertices. I also browse other images to compare angles and get an overall sense of the shape. The nice thing about modeling the attacker is that there are plenty of nice images and physical models out there.

[bobbtmann]

Well, the trick to keeping the quads is to make your cuts in a big loop, like so:





Then you go to either the plan or elevation view, and pull the appropriate vertices into position:





Keep making loops and and moving the vertices:





Change the view:





Repeat what you did for the other view. It gets a bit tricky here, because yanking the vertices at this stage will create some weird angles. Just go back and forth from this view to the perspective, just to make sure nothing wonky is happening.





And before you know it you'll have a spaceship!





About the quads not being planar:

You're absolutely right about that. Quads usually have a bend in them somewhere. That's where triangulation comes in. You can edit the crease without actually making a triangle:

[bigchunk1]

Uhoh, I was thinking of how to convert the model I have to quads, unless that means I have another redo ahead of me.

[bobbtmann]

You can go from triangle to quad. You just have to find a rectangle in the triangles and delete one line, and then do that for every quad you want to make.

[FreeSpaceFreak]

For Blender, editmode, select two adjacent triangles and press Alt-J to join them into a quadrangle. And modelling with quads and edgeloops, as bobbtman says, is definitely good modelling practice. It'll be a great help during editing (no messy geometry to fight), unwrapping (no weird distortions) and LOD-ing (for which you can simply remove edgeloops).

I'm not sure if Blender allows you to edit the 'crease' of a quad... then again, if you need to do that, it may be worth adding another edgeloop there.

[Thaeris]

That's a neat feature Blender has which I wish AC3D had, that is, flipping the triangle edge on a quad without actually forming the triangle (if I understand you correctly... or, are you using Max?). Otherwise, it might be necessary to add more edge loops so that your quads will be flat (or otherwise called planar). An ideal quad is flat...