Finally finished all the modeling and started with the lighting, not complete yet, working my way aft with the small little window lights and the floodlights in the trench along the side.
Any comments or criticisms would be appreciated, it's only my third model and the first that I've tried to make a decent render out of with proper lighting.
Any comments or criticisms would be appreciated, it's only my third model and the first that I've tried to make a decent render out of with proper lighting.
No critcisms at all! For a third model itAâs dammed impressive.
Any comments or criticisms would be appreciated, it's only my third model and the first that I've tried to make a decent render out of with proper lighting.
No critcisms at all! For a third model itAâs dammed impressive.
Comco I was wondering if you could take a look at these two pictures. I've tried to replicate the angle obviously the lighting is different but would you agree with me that the bridge tower is what is the bulk of the problem with the dimensions? or is it more fundamental than that?
Many thanks for taking the time to look at model it's appreciated.
The attention to detail is quite amazing. I never tried for that level of accuracy with mine (also a third model ). Really beautiful work.
Could you post a bigger render, with higher AA samples, less grain, more contrast? Maybe up the key and fill lights or GI skylight so we can see more detail? Also, aft/ventral angles? What's the poly count?
General comments about accuracy:
1) Size scaling works well when going from the sensor globes at the top of the bridge module. They should be ~40-45m in diameter, compared to an overall length of 1.6km.
2) In general, the bridge module and tower neck are too large relative to the rest of the hull. The module itself should be slightly narrower than the top terrace layer, whereas here it's overhanging by quite a bit.
3) The second terrace level (counting up from the dorsal hull surface) is too tall, though the other sections look about right. You'll see this effect in details of the bottom corners of the front surface, which are not as dense as they should be (there's more empty space around them than there is on the studio model, though the greebles you have seem to be the right size themselves).
4) All of the slightly raised regions that come off the hull surface are too thick; you look like you're missing one on the port ventral side as well
5) The main battery redoubt seems a bit too large from the comparison shot.
6) Hangar and bulb look a little bigger than it is on the studio model.
7) The angles for the top and bottom of the hex module should be the same. I made a mistake on my v1 mesh and had the top angle be shallower than the bottom - you should check that it's not the case here.
8) The angle of the slope of the back of the neck should be much shallower than what you have; more like 45 degrees. If you used the essential guide ortho drawings as a reference, than that would explain it, as those are pieces of worthless **** that screwed me up as well
9) The hex module looks a little too long also, but that might just be my eyes playing tricks on me.
That's what I can see for now. Get that fixed and this is the best 3D ISD, bar none. Extremely impressive work :thumb:
Fractalsponge, thanks so much for your helpful post, it's very much appreciated
Added another render, this one from the top, will add an aft view soon, and then I will get to fixing the problems you identified. Poly count is just past 1.4 million at the moment.
I did use that worthless blueprint you mentioned
Thanks very much for your help and for the compliment as well, though I'm sure the Empire would say your Star Destroyers are best, far more guns!
Posts
I'm kidding! Some excellent work here!!! :thumb: The SD made me drool a little.
Any comments or criticisms would be appreciated, it's only my third model and the first that I've tried to make a decent render out of with proper lighting.
No critcisms at all! For a third model itAâs dammed impressive.
No critcisms at all! For a third model itAâs dammed impressive.
hope I can make some kind of nice render out of it in the end.
Comco I was wondering if you could take a look at these two pictures. I've tried to replicate the angle obviously the lighting is different but would you agree with me that the bridge tower is what is the bulk of the problem with the dimensions? or is it more fundamental than that?
Many thanks for taking the time to look at model it's appreciated.
Could you post a bigger render, with higher AA samples, less grain, more contrast? Maybe up the key and fill lights or GI skylight so we can see more detail? Also, aft/ventral angles? What's the poly count?
Comparison:
http://www.modelermagic.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/ilm_star_destroyer.jpg
General comments about accuracy:
1) Size scaling works well when going from the sensor globes at the top of the bridge module. They should be ~40-45m in diameter, compared to an overall length of 1.6km.
2) In general, the bridge module and tower neck are too large relative to the rest of the hull. The module itself should be slightly narrower than the top terrace layer, whereas here it's overhanging by quite a bit.
3) The second terrace level (counting up from the dorsal hull surface) is too tall, though the other sections look about right. You'll see this effect in details of the bottom corners of the front surface, which are not as dense as they should be (there's more empty space around them than there is on the studio model, though the greebles you have seem to be the right size themselves).
4) All of the slightly raised regions that come off the hull surface are too thick; you look like you're missing one on the port ventral side as well
5) The main battery redoubt seems a bit too large from the comparison shot.
6) Hangar and bulb look a little bigger than it is on the studio model.
7) The angles for the top and bottom of the hex module should be the same. I made a mistake on my v1 mesh and had the top angle be shallower than the bottom - you should check that it's not the case here.
8) The angle of the slope of the back of the neck should be much shallower than what you have; more like 45 degrees. If you used the essential guide ortho drawings as a reference, than that would explain it, as those are pieces of worthless **** that screwed me up as well
9) The hex module looks a little too long also, but that might just be my eyes playing tricks on me.
That's what I can see for now. Get that fixed and this is the best 3D ISD, bar none. Extremely impressive work :thumb:
Added another render, this one from the top, will add an aft view soon, and then I will get to fixing the problems you identified. Poly count is just past 1.4 million at the moment.
I did use that worthless blueprint you mentioned
Thanks very much for your help and for the compliment as well, though I'm sure the Empire would say your Star Destroyers are best, far more guns!