Given the size, all the detail-work of finer greebles would go unnoticed in full-station images anyway, so I wonder if it's wise to make such high details for far-out pics (also think about the pc to render that beast...).
Given the size, all the detail-work of finer greebles would go unnoticed in full-station images anyway, so I wonder if it's wise to make such high details for far-out pics (also think about the pc to render that beast...).
In any case, another impressive update.
Thanks. I'm sure I could use textures instead of modeling for wide shots. Call me crazy but I enjoy making the detail. It also gives me satisfaction when I do some test renders after adding the panels. As for my PC I'm not worried. The recent update didn't take to long. Probably 15 minutes on high image precision. Animation is another story, but I'm not worried about that now.
I love the ring of buildings around the perimeter of the lower section of the top. That's really cool.
Yeah, those panels are a bit bigger than what we usually see on ST. However, if you make them realistically sized, they'll look like pebbles from farther out. (It'll look like cement from a distance) You could always come up with some BS like "Due to its size, it was built with extra large plates."
Thanks for the comments on the panels. They do look out of place. I'll just change the color on the larger panels so you can't see them. They are extruded and beveled to breakup the bump maps so I will keep them in. I'll render another image later tonight so you guys can judge on the changes. Also I'm thinking to raise the base of the tower with a cylinder instead of a cone. I want vertical walls running parallel to the city scape that I will be adding.
Yeah, it pretty much looks the same. You may just want to go with the "really big panels" explanation.
One thing I personally don't like about bump maps is how they "disappear" when light isn't directly hitting them. (not a criticism of your work, but merely an observation about bump maps in general)
Yeah, it pretty much looks the same. You may just want to go with the "really big panels" explanation.
One thing I personally don't like about bump maps is how they "disappear" when light isn't directly hitting them. (not a criticism of your work, but merely an observation about bump maps in general)
Yeah I think you're right. I actually can see the bumps on the lower portion on the night side. I might have to redo the "saucer" brim though. It looks like a checker board. It's weird because I didn't notice it until you guys said something.
Not sure I agree, Evil. To my unpracticed eye it looks a bit like Space Stucco.
An odd question, since the "it uses biiiig panels" explanation for texturing it has been bandied about, why not make it nearly matte? Let it use "normal" sized panels--which, on the scale of this thing will dwindle down to a slight fuzzing of the hull. Making the surface crenelated and textured like it is is drifting away from Trek (even the over-paneled Enterprise-D era Trek) and heading towards the "look at all the PIPES" realm of Star Wars.
But, that's just me. I'd hesitate to even consider modeling something on this scale!!
I'd hesitate to even consider modeling something on this scale!!
Yeah, me too. I think the largest space station I ever did was the old Starfleet Headquarters station, which would probably it inside the top part of this.
Are you going to continue to update your Excalibur? I imagine since transporters would be too slow they would teleport to get from one place to another.
Posts
Given the size, all the detail-work of finer greebles would go unnoticed in full-station images anyway, so I wonder if it's wise to make such high details for far-out pics (also think about the pc to render that beast...).
In any case, another impressive update.
Thanks. I'm sure I could use textures instead of modeling for wide shots. Call me crazy but I enjoy making the detail. It also gives me satisfaction when I do some test renders after adding the panels. As for my PC I'm not worried. The recent update didn't take to long. Probably 15 minutes on high image precision. Animation is another story, but I'm not worried about that now.
BTW, I'm working on a background story of the station, I'll send it to ya, once I'm done (probably some time tomorrow).
Full Res
http://i.imgur.com/pHDa6Ve.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/48F5bkF.jpg
I'm not sure how big those greebles are, but given the size, these platings might be three or four decks tall. Ya might wanna rething that.
Are they too small or too big?
Yeah, those panels are a bit bigger than what we usually see on ST. However, if you make them realistically sized, they'll look like pebbles from farther out. (It'll look like cement from a distance) You could always come up with some BS like "Due to its size, it was built with extra large plates."
Full Res
http://i.imgur.com/yqwmlnF.jpg
One thing I personally don't like about bump maps is how they "disappear" when light isn't directly hitting them. (not a criticism of your work, but merely an observation about bump maps in general)
Yeah I think you're right. I actually can see the bumps on the lower portion on the night side. I might have to redo the "saucer" brim though. It looks like a checker board. It's weird because I didn't notice it until you guys said something.
I had quite forgotten about this until now.
HAHAHA!!
Ok evil_genius one last try at the panels before I move on. Got rid of the checker board look on the upper section.
Full Res
http://i.imgur.com/pHSO0Ym.jpg
An odd question, since the "it uses biiiig panels" explanation for texturing it has been bandied about, why not make it nearly matte? Let it use "normal" sized panels--which, on the scale of this thing will dwindle down to a slight fuzzing of the hull. Making the surface crenelated and textured like it is is drifting away from Trek (even the over-paneled Enterprise-D era Trek) and heading towards the "look at all the PIPES" realm of Star Wars.
But, that's just me. I'd hesitate to even consider modeling something on this scale!!
Yeah, me too.