I'm not sold on these windows/rooms yet, and the refraction is doing weird things to them, despite being 'physically correct' Maybe transparent aluminium doesn't have the same IOR as glass...
Well ... technically the windows would not have the IOR of glass but of a transparent plastic, since that‘s what‘s used in modelmaking. Really depends if you‘re trying to recreate the look of a six foot physical model or trying to build a „real“ 641 Meter Galaxy Class ... in my opinion, the former tends to look a lot better.
More texture work, mainly the striping round the shuttlebay. Progress has slowed a bit lately as I'm working from home I don't want to be camped at my PC 24/7. The texture work isn't a 1:1 perfect reproduction of the Generations paint scheme but is close enough imo. Bsides theres not enough clear reference to get it 100% perfect, and no one is going to sit and check every panel is in the right place.....right?
Looks great! I'm a "close enough" type of person myself, so I certainly won't be counting panels. There are people, though. But, you likely won't find many here, as we all understand the lack of references and just getting something to a point where you're happy with it and then moving on.
Ok so I reworked how the window frames were being done, as it was pointed out on the discord that the hull looked very 'thin' So now I've set the glass down a bit more, and extended the frames in to the room behind the glass. Granted its a subtle difference but it looks better to me. I also found some windows I hadn't finished cutting in, whoops.
Looks great! I'm a "close enough" type of person myself, so I certainly won't be counting panels. There are people, though. But, you likely won't find many here, as we all understand the lack of references and just getting something to a point where you're happy with it and then moving on.
I love to get stuff extremely close to canon, but sometimes there are things about the original model that should have been done. In addition when you are doing a model that was a physical model the left side isn't going to be down to the millimeter (or even centimeter) identical to the right side, like we can do with 3D software. So it leaves you with the choice as to whether you model the inaccuracies from one side to the other or just go with the "ideal" cleaned up version.
Looks great! I'm a "close enough" type of person myself, so I certainly won't be counting panels. There are people, though. But, you likely won't find many here, as we all understand the lack of references and just getting something to a point where you're happy with it and then moving on.
I love to get stuff extremely close to canon, but sometimes there are things about the original model that should have been done. In addition when you are doing a model that was a physical model the left side isn't going to be down to the millimeter (or even centimeter) identical to the right side, like we can do with 3D software. So it leaves you with the choice as to whether you model the inaccuracies from one side to the other or just go with the "ideal" cleaned up version.
I've started putting things into some of my stuff that isn't exactly lined up. Like I'll leave it a little off or I'll line things up on either side but cut them tat way instead of cutting, cloning and flipping the object to make it whole. It's not exact, but I figure it more closely emulates building a real set/ship model in a way.
Yeah, any time you do windows (or anything really) in those recesses, they're a lot of work and a huge pain. But, the end result is really nice. Your recesses look great.
I love to get stuff extremely close to canon, but sometimes there are things about the original model that should have been done. In addition when you are doing a model that was a physical model the left side isn't going to be down to the millimeter (or even centimeter) identical to the right side, like we can do with 3D software. So it leaves you with the choice as to whether you model the inaccuracies from one side to the other or just go with the "ideal" cleaned up version.
Some of those models were done on an extreme time crunch, so I feel that doing the "ideal" version is closer to the design's intent, they just didn't have time to do it for the shows. Also, I look at it that I'm trying to build a representation of a "real" spaceship, not a recreation of the physical model.
One thing that irks me is when people recreate a look that was caused by segmentation on an early CGI model. I mean, it's not like the model makers didn't want it to be smooth, they simply had polygon limits that we don't have now.
Some of those models were done on an extreme time crunch, so I feel that doing the "ideal" version is closer to the design's intent, they just didn't have time to do it for the shows. Also, I look at it that I'm trying to build a representation of a "real" spaceship, not a recreation of the physical model.
I wanted to upgrade the room texture I was using as the previous one was a very quick dirty affair that id drawn in photoshop. As such I modelled some interiors from scratch and then rendered out orthographics to use as the texture maps, with baked in lighting. I might take the saturation down a bit but at least for now I have a far more detailed interior map to use.
Posts
Well ... technically the windows would not have the IOR of glass but of a transparent plastic, since that‘s what‘s used in modelmaking. Really depends if you‘re trying to recreate the look of a six foot physical model or trying to build a „real“ 641 Meter Galaxy Class ... in my opinion, the former tends to look a lot better.
YES
Hold my Beer, Challenge accepted.
I kid o course, she looking stunning!
The roughness makes it look sunken in
They're completely flush with the hull, with a panel line cut round them, i may yet re-visit the material on those slightly
I love to get stuff extremely close to canon, but sometimes there are things about the original model that should have been done. In addition when you are doing a model that was a physical model the left side isn't going to be down to the millimeter (or even centimeter) identical to the right side, like we can do with 3D software. So it leaves you with the choice as to whether you model the inaccuracies from one side to the other or just go with the "ideal" cleaned up version.
I've started putting things into some of my stuff that isn't exactly lined up. Like I'll leave it a little off or I'll line things up on either side but cut them tat way instead of cutting, cloning and flipping the object to make it whole. It's not exact, but I figure it more closely emulates building a real set/ship model in a way.
Started on the recessed window bits on the saucer underside, @MadKoiFish wasn't wrong these are a huge pain in the backside.
Edit:
That above pic is making it look as if I've made them far deeper than I actually have, just an unfortunate shadow:
Some of those models were done on an extreme time crunch, so I feel that doing the "ideal" version is closer to the design's intent, they just didn't have time to do it for the shows. Also, I look at it that I'm trying to build a representation of a "real" spaceship, not a recreation of the physical model.
One thing that irks me is when people recreate a look that was caused by segmentation on an early CGI model. I mean, it's not like the model makers didn't want it to be smooth, they simply had polygon limits that we don't have now.
I agree.
Before:
After:
They are not, just simple pngs