›

Greetings!

Welcome to Scifi-Meshes.com! Click one of these buttons to join in on the fun.

Sign In Register

Quick Links

3DStar Wars Stuff

SeverusSeverus378 Posts: 251Member
edited June 21 in Work in Progress #1
Hello everyone, I've been lurking around here for a while now and I decided to go ahead and post a couple of pics of what I think the love child of a Venator and an Imperator star destroyer would look like. Absolutely nothing on this thing is finished and I keep changing, well just about everything. :lol: I'm not even going to pretend I know what I'm doing with the modeling or optimizing or polygons or any of that, you guys that do are freaking crazy, but I mean that in a good way.
98387.jpg
Post edited by Severus on
StarCruiserwibble
Tagged:
«134567

Posts

  • kborakkborak1 Posts: 0Member
    #2
    Welcome severus. That is one solid looking model youve got there. Nothing but praise from me. Can I ask what you poly count is at current?
  • Forcemaster2000Forcemaster2000331 Posts: 0Member
    #3
    Cool looking model so far Severus! I'm thinking that being a hybrid between a venetor and an SSD, it's coming in at a length of maybe 2 miles? If so, scale seems to be about right.
  • SeverusSeverus378 Posts: 251Member
    #4
    Thanks for the comments guys, I was afraid someone was going to ask that polygon question. I actually had to look up how to find out how many polygons there are... It say's there are 369,908. I'm afraid to hit post on this, I mean, I don't know if that's a good number or a bad number. I feel like I just applied for credit and I'm hoping they don't notice those 15 charged off accounts after the bankruptcy lol... Oh well it's a learning process I guess...
  • docpricedocprice0 Posts: 0Member
    #5
    I see the distinctive engine section of the Venator. I printed out your picture and started playing with it with my pencil. I wanted to pass on a suggestion to widen the front half of the triangle body. You have a semetrical triangle body with 2 cut outs mid way up. Take the top half of the triangle and make it wider.

    lol It looked decent on paper.
  • kborakkborak1 Posts: 0Member
    #6
    eh poly counts really only impressive to me cause the more you have the harder your machine works, and the more there are the more detail is actually modeled. Its really neither bad or good in my opinion.:D:thumb:
  • spudmonkeyspudmonkey0 Posts: 0Member
    #7
    Don't worry about poly count. The only time it's a concern is if you are set a specific limit and shouldn't be a consideration when you are modeling for yourself. Basic rule of thumb is to use whatever it takes to get the result that you want, and if others complain about the count without offering assistance, ignore them! Of course, some people will make comments on how to improve the mesh and lower the count, so try not to ignore the people making useful suggestions ;)
  • kborakkborak1 Posts: 0Member
    #8
    rofl spud has awsome advice
  • somacruz145somacruz1450 Posts: 0Member
    #9
    Looks totally sweet Tony :thumb: Can we see some high-res shots ? I can see that a lot of details from the top surface went hiding at this resolution. Keep up the good work :D
  • SeverusSeverus378 Posts: 251Member
    #10
    Chris - I haven't settled on a length yet. But judging by the size of the landing bays it will probably be slightly smaller than the ISD. We'll have to figure that one out when I'm done :)
    Rick - Wider eh? Would you mind scanning and forwarding your sketch?
    Ryan - if polygon count is your goal, go in peace with it, but leave us the girl... I mean... cool... No, I get why your asking, now, the truth is most of my polygons are just little boxes that are place holders for details that don't actually exist yet, but hint at details from a distance. I'm still working on it though and the plan is to convert as many of the little boxes into actual details so that I can zoom in close without everyone seeing what a cheater I am. :D
    Nick - Thanks, I'll keep an open mind... You are not on my ignore list... for now...
    Adam - Trust me you don't want to look that close at this thing just yet, but I'll post some closer views...
  • SeverusSeverus378 Posts: 251Member
    #11
    Maybe I should've mentioned that I broke the model up, mostly to make it easier to see what I was working on through all that wireframe...
  • fractalspongefractalsponge254 Posts: 1,088Member
    #12
    Looks like this is shaping up into a very cool model. Nice work so far, I like the ISDI-like detail on the venator hull combination, just watch the segmentation on the sensor "domes."

    Suggestion for handling high-poly models (I have some experience with this) - make layers for the different detail blocks, then you can hide them as you work, without wading through the wireframe for the rest of the mesh.

    As for polycount, don't worry about it - as long as you're not making 48-sided pipes for small nurnies, take it as far as your computer will go; only if you really plan on animating it, then it might be an issue. My tie fighters are 900k+, for a very small craft.
  • ST-OneST-One188 Posts: 293Member
    #13
    fractalsponge wrote: »
    just watch the segmentation on the sensor "domes."

    Didn't you mean to say "shield generators" ;) :D
    I think it is perfectly fitting that you can see the sementation on those things. When I was building (and then of course abandoning) a Venator-like vessel I used some the segmentation on objects such as those to add a more detailed feel.

    This whole bridge structure looks really good :thumb:
  • fractalspongefractalsponge254 Posts: 1,088Member
    #14
    ^Well, if you are going for that, I'd suggest putting a little more detail on the "ribs" formed by the segmentation; otherwise it just looks sloppy, imho.
  • SeverusSeverus378 Posts: 251Member
    #15
    I can't thank you enough for the layers hint, I really ought to read the manuals for these programs but I keep rushing in to work on stuff. :D

    Regarding the shield generator/sensor dome things... Well at first I was going to leave the segmentation as it was, but then I went ahead and tried the ribs and I have to admit I do like the look better... this time. So I added some more "stuff" to it and worked on the underside landing bays. Things are moving right along.
  • ST-OneST-One188 Posts: 293Member
    #16
    Just to show what I was talking about when I said I used the segmentation to add a detailed 'feel' to my Venator (it does look a bit crappy looking at it now ;) )
    53522.jpg
  • Mach CritMach Crit0 Posts: 0Member
    #17
    I wish to achieve that level of "crappiness"...
  • JedilawJedilaw0 Posts: 0Member
    #18
    ST-One wrote: »
    Didn't you mean to say "shield generators" ;) :D

    Well, that one is debatable, but there seems to be slightly more consensus that they are sensor domes.

    Check the Star Wars Techical Commentaries for more info.
  • Lord ErisuLord Erisu0 Posts: 0Member
    #19
    swwweet, I want one. :)
  • Mach CritMach Crit0 Posts: 0Member
    #20
    Jedilaw wrote: »
    Well, that one is debatable, but there seems to be slightly more consensus that they are sensor domes.

    Check the Star Wars Techical Commentaries for more info.

    Not that this qualifies as anything definitive, but I remember a mission in X-Wing (the LucasArts game) where you had to blow those up to bring down the shields on an ISD once...
  • ST-OneST-One188 Posts: 293Member
    #21
    Mach Crit wrote: »
    Not that this qualifies as anything definitive, but I remember a mission in X-Wing (the LucasArts game) where you had to blow those up to bring down the shields on an ISD once...

    ... and the vicious cycle continues... :D
  • fractalspongefractalsponge254 Posts: 1,088Member
    #22
    ^Yeah, let's NOT.

    Design comment: the attachments for the sensor...the dome thingies look a little fragile, like scaffolding. Might want to thicken it up a bit. Just a thought.
  • Mach CritMach Crit0 Posts: 0Member
    #23
    ST-One wrote: »
    ... and the vicious cycle continues... :D


    :confused: Sorry, vicious cycle of what? I am not trying to start anything, I am just pointing to anecdotal evidence. Sorta like the fighter that crashed into one of those things in ROTJ which let the A-Wing crash into the bridge of the executor which brought it down (well, out of control, anyhow...).

    However, I agree that they look like sensor domes. I always thought it was silly to have 2 shield generators in one location rather than spread out across the ship.

    Forgive me if I have crossed a boundary, started a flame war, or inadvertantly caused Jedilaw to inexplicably disappear again for months :lol:
  • JedilawJedilaw0 Posts: 0Member
    #24
    Less reasonable people have been known to have extensive fights on the topic, that's true, but everyone here seems to be level-headed. I view it the same way I view the "Imperator vs. Imperial" debate regarding the ISD Mk II: inconsequential to all but the most tragically obsessed.
  • ST-OneST-One188 Posts: 293Member
    #25
    Mach Crit wrote: »
    :confused: Sorry, vicious cycle of what? I am not trying to start anything, I am just pointing to anecdotal evidence. Sorta like the fighter that crashed into one of those things in ROTJ which let the A-Wing crash into the bridge of the executor which brought it down (well, out of control, anyhow...).

    However, I agree that they look like sensor domes. I always thought it was silly to have 2 shield generators in one location rather than spread out across the ship.

    Forgive me if I have crossed a boundary, started a flame war, or inadvertantly caused Jedilaw to inexplicably disappear again for months :lol:

    Relaxe, it was a joke :)
    I just find this 'debate' that Star Wars fans seem to have about these sensor domes/shield generators quite funny ;)
  • Mach CritMach Crit0 Posts: 0Member
    #26
    Well, I don't keep any technical manuals around, I don't have a tricorder or a set of ears, and I don't live in my mom's basement (I live in my own basement). I just like watching and drawing and reading sci-fi. Funny how people can't seem to break out of their universe to join reality now and again. One of my worst personal mistakes was walking past a rabid "Babylon 5 vs "Star Trek" debate and tossing out a random comment about how cool the Starfury was. I ended up with a raving techno nrrrd snapping at my heels for half an hour through the mall (note to self: never comment to ANYONE in a RPG gaming store).
  • JedilawJedilaw0 Posts: 0Member
    #27
    Interestingly enough, there's a pretty good chance that if you walked into a baseball card shop and started talking about which historical team or player was the greatest, you could start an almost identical fight. We SF geeks are seen as being unique in our level of obsession, but the truth is there are geeks for just about any topic: history, baseball stats, football stats, politics, etc. No one talks about sports geeks, though, because it's supposedly "normal" and "manly" to give a damn who had the highest ERA in the NL in 1976.
  • docpricedocprice0 Posts: 0Member
    #28
    1976 Earned Run Average Leaders
    Top 25 in the American League

    Name Earned Run Average Team Rank
    Mark Fidrych 2.34 (2.3369) Detroit Tigers 1
    Vida Blue 2.35(2.3531) Oakland Athletics 2
    Frank Tanana 2.43 (2.4347) California Angels 3
    Mike Torrez 2.50(2.5006) Oakland Athletics 4
    Jim Palmer 2.51 (2.5143) Baltimore Orioles 5
    Wayne Garland 2.67 (2.6729) Baltimore Orioles 6
    Paul Hartzell 2.77 (2.7651) California Angels 7
    Bill Travers 2.81 (2.8125) Milwaukee Brewers 8
    Bert Blyleven 2.87 (2.8723) Minnesota Twins 9
    Gary Ross 3.00 (3.0000) California Angels 10
    Bill Campbell 3.01 (3.0060) Minnesota Twins 11
    Ed Figueroa 3.02 (3.0156) New York Yankees 12
    Al Fitzmorris 3.06 (3.0635) Kansas City Royals 13
    Luis Tiant 3.06 (3.0645) Boston Red Sox 14
    Reggie Cleveland 3.07 (3.0706) Boston Red Sox 15
    Jim Umbarger 3.15 (3.1470) Texas Rangers 16
    Dock Ellis 3.19(3.1890) New York Yankees 17
    Jim Bibby 3.20 (3.1959) Cleveland Indians 18
    Gaylord Perry 3.24 (3.2357) Texas Rangers 19
    Nelson Briles 3.26 (3.2571) Texas Rangers 20
    Fergie Jenkins 3.27 (3.2727) Boston Red Sox 21
    Ken Brett 3.28 (3.2808) New York Yankees 22
    Jerry Augustine 3.30 (3.3029) Milwaukee Brewers 23
    Nolan Ryan 3.36 (3.3552) California Angels 24
    Dave Goltz 3.36 (3.3570) Minnesota Twins 25
  • Mach CritMach Crit0 Posts: 0Member
    #29
    AHA!!! now we know the secret!!! Blow up the main water towers, which causes flooding to the bridge officers' toilets. These happen to be located directly above the main shield generators AND the sensor electronics. Everything shorts out, you can't "see", and shortly afterwards you die from shame as shattered plumbing crushes you against the starboard bulkheads!!

    On the glow through the walls: lower wattage on the hangar light bulbs? (I'd suggest 65 watts to establish a mood). However, is it possible you broke up a polygon in there somewhere? Meaning the polys at the point of light leakage are not completely connected?

    Note of trivia: Supposedly during the battle over the centauri moon, Lucasarts put a tennis shoe somewhere in the melee that erupted when the rebel fleet came out of jump. They did this to prove you wouldn't notice a giant NIKE running shoe, much less whether the shield generators were correct or not, so there.

    WOOOT!! That post somehow translated me into guru. My geekhood has thus been established.
  • fractalspongefractalsponge254 Posts: 1,088Member
    #30
    Are your lights casting shadows?
  • Road WarriorRoad Warrior203 Posts: 804Member
    #31
    This is a sweet looking Imp Capital Ship. Very unique but it fits well with everything else. I think Fractalsponge mentioned before (not sure) its cool youre going with the ISD1 like detailing. One of these days I have to give a destroyer a shot. Or I could finish my Allegiance class I was working on years ago in bryce- but where is the fun in that?

    .......Realy has sort of a pre war look to it- like a turn of the century battleship. Which is great. By all means keep it comin'!
Sign In or Register to comment.