Author Topic: Hobbs's WIP (Read 100762 times)

hobbs · « **Reply #520 on:** June 17, 2013, 12:20:14 AM »

no

lol i dont like tri-nacells (rules!!!)

but i did think maybe a pod...

see what comes to me lol

WileyCoyote · « **Reply #521 on:** June 17, 2013, 12:21:31 AM »

I hope those windows are not modeled in....

nxadam1701 · « **Reply #522 on:** June 17, 2013, 12:44:52 AM »

Quote from: hobbs on June 17, 2013, 12:20:14 AM

no

lol i dont like tri-nacells (rules!!!)

but i did think maybe a pod...

see what comes to me lol

Quad-nacelles. Lol. Nah just kidding.
A pod. Hmm.
Maybe keep it like this and a variant can be made later.

Lionus · « **Reply #523 on:** June 17, 2013, 03:45:07 AM »

Maybe a Titan-style pod? Seems like it would be good size and shape for this one?

Nighthawk · « **Reply #524 on:** June 17, 2013, 06:03:19 AM »

tri-nac would be a cousin of the Tiburon class

it's nice so far... dunno about the 10 decks.... the Galaxy saucer is, what, 20 decks high?

although if you make it a section 31 scout, it would fit the role.

hobbs · « **Reply #525 on:** June 17, 2013, 07:24:37 AM »

i decided its going to be a science specific ship

Vortex · « **Reply #526 on:** June 17, 2013, 09:40:28 AM »

Image on reply 514 ain't showing up now. Grrr. Must be a photobucket issue because it does it with some images that I upload as well. Fortunately I got a look at it on my phone earlier at work. :p

Looking good Hobbs. My only suggestion right now would be to scale up the secondary hull a bit. Everything is seeming to scrunched up to the middle to me.

hobbs · « **Reply #527 on:** June 17, 2013, 08:01:47 PM »

more updates....

i have been advised i should start texturing the windows rather than modelling them... that will happen on my next project.... for this project i will continue doing it all wrong

FarShot · « **Reply #528 on:** June 17, 2013, 08:13:05 PM »

...and here's one of the many reason you should texture them. They're not following the contour of the hull, one of the things Voyager got wrong too.

hobbs · « **Reply #529 on:** June 17, 2013, 08:16:04 PM »

Quote from: FarShot on June 17, 2013, 08:13:05 PM

...and here's one of the many reason you should texture them. They're not following the contour of the hull, one of the things Voyager got wrong too.

no but they are where i want them lol

moed · « **Reply #530 on:** June 17, 2013, 10:10:27 PM »

Quote from: FarShot on June 17, 2013, 08:13:05 PM

...and here's one of the many reason you should texture them. They're not following the contour of the hull, one of the things Voyager got wrong too.

I've seen windows on real seafaring ships of today not follow the contours of their respective hulls, and it looked totally fine.

Also, as for Voyager... ship still looked darn good to me.

I agree with you that generally speaking, following the contours of the hull looks more correct and balanced, but I see where Hobbs is going with this design and IMO it's all good.

FarShot · « **Reply #531 on:** June 17, 2013, 10:49:21 PM »

What I mean is if you look in the side view, windows should generally be level. If not, either you have some really weird decks or people have to really crane their necks to look out.

FarShot · « **Reply #532 on:** June 17, 2013, 11:27:04 PM »

Case in point, the Intrepid:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/83575522/BCC/intrepid-deckage.jpg

Nighthawk · « **Reply #533 on:** June 18, 2013, 01:30:57 AM »

Quote from: hobbs on June 17, 2013, 08:01:47 PM

i have been advised i should start texturing the windows rather than modelling them...

well, you know,... it's not like they're adding about 8 more faces per window or anything...

16 if you add some indentation.... 30+ if you add some beveling...

hobbs · « **Reply #534 on:** June 18, 2013, 05:46:32 AM »

like i said best learn the texturing thing wouldn't want to be different to the rest of the universe of modellers

Vortex · « **Reply #535 on:** June 18, 2013, 05:59:59 AM »

It's not a case of being the same. If you we're doing a CGI model for animation or still renders, modeling windows in would work great, but for a game, it adds to many polices and creates lag. It can be done on large windows such as the constitution refit, but for the rest, texturing is better.

King Class Scout · « **Reply #536 on:** June 18, 2013, 10:04:11 AM »

modeling in the windows is pretty much Hobbs' tradmark. figuring out HOW to draw the windows into the texture challenges some people. I still can't get mine to look right, frankly.

hobbs · « **Reply #537 on:** June 18, 2013, 10:17:24 AM »

thanks KCS i always thought so too lol

also im bit confused...

its best not to model in the windows due to lag but then every one else does loads of modelled in "greebbles" bits that add to the ships detail... doesnt that do the same?

Nebula · « **Reply #538 on:** June 18, 2013, 11:55:45 AM »

Quote from: FarShot on June 17, 2013, 11:27:04 PM

Case in point, the Intrepid:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/83575522/BCC/intrepid-deckage.jpg

Try this on the Studio model Voyager not the CGI one. xD

FarShot · « **Reply #539 on:** June 18, 2013, 12:07:22 PM »

Studio model is a bit better, yes. But it also was not used much beyond the first couple of seasons as I recall. Regardless, my point remains the same - windows should be level. Anything else makes no sense.

Even if there are models out there that have hundreds of greebly bits (can't think of many), that's not the point. In a game engine, every single polygon and ounce of texture space should be used with optimization in mind. Modeled windows give so little return for the thousands of polygons they add.

News:

Author Topic: Hobbs's WIP (Read 100762 times)