Yeah that's what I was trying to say Melak. I think he's missed that those bits are missing. It might have helped if his writing on the images he uploaded read like something approaching English!
** Pulls out the Bull horn and yells**
" OK . . OK . . put the crack pipes down on the ground and take 2 steps back"
you have got to be joking? what are you looking at . . . I know my English is bad but jeez . . .
Are you saying there is no strut behind the defensive sail?
it's too early in the morning for me to type this conversation . . . OMG. I suggest you look at every image of DS9 you can find over and over and over again (sober) and get back to me.:D
gp
but i still don't get how you understood what he meant...
You have to read that post a few times . . .
u know how u got the first pear that arches out to the next cylnderical area its straight from the center then it spreads out to the outer cylinder. like this
nice update... strange how every little part is still so familiar after about 4 years...
I know . . .
what I think it is, is that when we build stuff, we literally mull over every inch of an object, we almost live in every nook and cranny of a thing until we hash out the polygons. . . . that's the way it is . . .
Remember beveling the circular spheres inside the panels on the outside of the core section below the promanade deck? . . .
I know . . .
what I think it is, is that when we build stuff, we literally mull over every inch of an object, we almost live in every nook and cranny of a thing until we hash out the polygons. . . . that's the way it is . . .
Remember beveling the circular spheres inside the panels on the outside of the core section below the promanade deck? . . .
gp
sure... this was a challenging part for me back then, which took me about 2 hours... today i'd take me only a few minutes
No crits, GP, I'm just loving looking at your renders!
:insert all of my respect here:
No problem, Crits are good, I'd like to think I am receptive to crits . . .
but I tell you, if you gave me a crit I would take it well deserved . . . I am far from experienced at 3D I'm still just learning.
No problem, Crits are good, I'd like to think I am receptive to crits . . .
but I tell you, if you gave me a crit I would take it well deserved . . . I am far from experienced at 3D I'm still just learning.
gp
hahah... If I had some constructive crits, I'd give them! don't worry... :devil:
I just have no knowledge of DS9 to this extent... so it all looks good to me!
Sheesh- you cannot make this accurate at all since you are using polygons and CGI. In order to do it right, you gotta do it PHYSICALLY, by hand, in three sizes with conflicting details. Geez, and you call yourself fans?
Sheesh- you cannot make this accurate at all since you are using polygons and CGI. In order to do it right, you gotta do it PHYSICALLY, by hand, in three sizes with conflicting details. Geez, and you call yourself fans?
You know I was thinking of this the other day, I was going to start a thread (and an Argument I'm sure) about what "Canon" is.
In actuality, there is no such thing as Canon in reference to replication of something. This is impossible to do a 100% reproduction of anything. There will always, always, always be something different from what you are trying to replicate, even if there is a bolt out of place or you missed a bevel or a minor detail.
"Canon" in itself implies a 100% replica, anything less is not. if you tell me 'well' you can miss a few details and it is still considered exact, . . well who gets to judge how much detail you can miss before your replica falls from 100%?
The only way to replicate an object is to clone it, and even then it's not exact, this of course is dealing with the Physical. In CG your chances of 100% is way way way off. The only way to come close to "Canon" in CG is to copy paste or, have exact Blue Prints detailing everything down to a single point location in 3D space or . . . be the person who built the object in the first place.
Sketches from the internet, screen caps from the movie, pictures from my grandmothers wall safe . . . these things are not going to get you a 100% replication . . . ever.
gp
This Tirade was brought to you by gpdesigner, and in no way reflects on the current model he is building or was intended to be taken seriously
This Tirade was brought to you by gpdesigner, and in no way reflects on the current model he is building or was intended to be taken seriously
BWAaaa ha ha ha ha ha
*sigh* GP, evil laughs are ALWAYS "Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!" You NEED exclamation points, and it must be one long word.
The previous comment was an attempt at humor and should be taken as such. No offense or harm was intended towards GP or his excellent (if innaccurate j/k) work.
*sigh* GP, evil laughs are ALWAYS "Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!" You NEED exclamation points, and it must be one long word.
The previous comment was an attempt at humor and should be taken as such. No offense or harm was intended towards GP or his excellent (if innaccurate j/k) work.
ok . . you asked . . .
*update*
I was working on the details on the inside walls of the small docking collars.
I was getting brainfry trying to come up with greebles ideas. . . I will prolly have an aneurism doing the greeble for the sensor plates . . . Oh dear!
sensor plates . . those are next . . . . stand by
gp
Thanks everybody for the support and for looking in on my project . . .
right now I am putting together the sensor details, I will post progress when I have a few sensor bays completed . . .
gp
Hey everyone . . . I've been thinking about the sensor pallet details for a few days and came up with a concept I think will work. I ran into an issue because for a CGI model, the sensor pallet they built for the model was really not going to work. I know some of you may be saying I am crazy for thinking that but if you look at the way they detailed it, you will notice it is a bunch of random mumbo-jumbo that doesn't mean anything. that maybe fine for television where the moving shots last a tenth of a second, but for CGI stills, I needed to come up with something more defined and tangible.
To me sensors are for gathering data bouncing electro-waves of whatever off objects and gathering the returning info, so I modeled greebles that somewhat looked like they didi this job rather than the jumbo they built for the model in the series. I tried to keep some of the randomness displyed on the physical model but reused objects over and over again to show the objects actually did something. . . .
the problem is I don't like the finished result . . . I think I should make some of the objects larger and have less of them, but keep the amount of different items to a minimum. . . . if anyone has any suggestions on design or layout of the details I would more than happily weight them in the final outcome of what i do from here.
Thanks for visiting the mesh yall . . .
gp
Posts
but i still don't get how you understood what he meant...
" OK . . OK . . put the crack pipes down on the ground and take 2 steps back"
you have got to be joking? what are you looking at . . . I know my English is bad but jeez . . .
Are you saying there is no strut behind the defensive sail?
it's too early in the morning for me to type this conversation . . . OMG. I suggest you look at every image of DS9 you can find over and over and over again (sober) and get back to me.:D
gp
You have to read that post a few times . . .
the words I marked bold helped me a bit . . . .
I added windows . . . . no strut yet, I figured I will colbmista on his toes for a bit.
gp
nice update... strange how every little part is still so familiar after about 4 years...
I know . . .
what I think it is, is that when we build stuff, we literally mull over every inch of an object, we almost live in every nook and cranny of a thing until we hash out the polygons. . . . that's the way it is . . .
Remember beveling the circular spheres inside the panels on the outside of the core section below the promanade deck? . . .
gp
:insert all of my respect here:
sure... this was a challenging part for me back then, which took me about 2 hours... today i'd take me only a few minutes
No problem, Crits are good, I'd like to think I am receptive to crits . . .
but I tell you, if you gave me a crit I would take it well deserved . . .
gp
hahah... If I had some constructive crits, I'd give them! don't worry... :devil:
I just have no knowledge of DS9 to this extent... so it all looks good to me!
You know I was thinking of this the other day, I was going to start a thread (and an Argument I'm sure) about what "Canon" is.
In actuality, there is no such thing as Canon in reference to replication of something. This is impossible to do a 100% reproduction of anything. There will always, always, always be something different from what you are trying to replicate, even if there is a bolt out of place or you missed a bevel or a minor detail.
"Canon" in itself implies a 100% replica, anything less is not. if you tell me 'well' you can miss a few details and it is still considered exact, . . well who gets to judge how much detail you can miss before your replica falls from 100%?
The only way to replicate an object is to clone it, and even then it's not exact, this of course is dealing with the Physical. In CG your chances of 100% is way way way off. The only way to come close to "Canon" in CG is to copy paste or, have exact Blue Prints detailing everything down to a single point location in 3D space or . . . be the person who built the object in the first place.
Sketches from the internet, screen caps from the movie, pictures from my grandmothers wall safe . . . these things are not going to get you a 100% replication . . . ever.
gp
This Tirade was brought to you by gpdesigner, and in no way reflects on the current model he is building or was intended to be taken seriously
BWAaaa ha ha ha ha ha
HA . . . anything is possible . . . I just need to hook up to an prescriber transdilyum and everything will fall into place :eek:
gp
The previous comment was an attempt at humor and should be taken as such. No offense or harm was intended towards GP or his excellent (if innaccurate
Now, less tirades, more updates.
Join our fancy Discord Server!
*update*
I was working on the details on the inside walls of the small docking collars.
I was getting brainfry trying to come up with greebles ideas. . . I will prolly have an aneurism doing the greeble for the sensor plates . . . Oh dear!
sensor plates . . those are next . . . . stand by
gp
Thanks yall . . . . .
gp
:thumb: :cool: :thumb: :cool:
You really have a lot of really nice detailing there!
right now I am putting together the sensor details, I will post progress when I have a few sensor bays completed . . .
gp
Hey everyone . . . I've been thinking about the sensor pallet details for a few days and came up with a concept I think will work. I ran into an issue because for a CGI model, the sensor pallet they built for the model was really not going to work. I know some of you may be saying I am crazy for thinking that but if you look at the way they detailed it, you will notice it is a bunch of random mumbo-jumbo that doesn't mean anything. that maybe fine for television where the moving shots last a tenth of a second, but for CGI stills, I needed to come up with something more defined and tangible.
To me sensors are for gathering data bouncing electro-waves of whatever off objects and gathering the returning info, so I modeled greebles that somewhat looked like they didi this job rather than the jumbo they built for the model in the series. I tried to keep some of the randomness displyed on the physical model but reused objects over and over again to show the objects actually did something. . . .
the problem is I don't like the finished result . . . I think I should make some of the objects larger and have less of them, but keep the amount of different items to a minimum. . . . if anyone has any suggestions on design or layout of the details I would more than happily weight them in the final outcome of what i do from here.
Thanks for visiting the mesh yall . . .
gp