Greetings!

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

3DStar Wars-ish detailed cruiser model

skynet3020skynet30200 Posts: 0Member
edited February 2013 in Work in Progress #1
I've spent some time in the last few months remodeling an old cruiser I had. I started off wanting to optimize it but ended up instead to completely reconstruct it. The old mesh was a bit of a mess. No polygon survived.

I'm pretty far into detailing now, but would like any feedback even if it relates to the basic design. I'm going for a Star Wars look but am leaving it open to be a non Star Wars design as well.

I'm shooting for a polygon count around 1 - 1.5 million (no ngons, mostly quads with some tris) so am avoiding expensive curves and am generally using flat surfaces and square greebles. I'm hoping to be done with the basic mesh this year, with some cleanup following.

This is how the basic shape looked a month or so ago.
download.php?fileid=46419&key=7515

Details, in the order I've filled them in

Bridge/communications tower:
download.php?fileid=46303&key=7832

download.php?fileid=46305&key=1629

Engines:
download.php?fileid=46307&key=1185

download.php?fileid=46309&key=6307

download.php?fileid=46311&key=8949

Ventral (main) hangar:
download.php?fileid=46421&key=2865

download.php?fileid=46423&key=465

Forward hull (and main weapon):
download.php?fileid=46504&key=7367

download.php?fileid=46506&key=8909


I'm working on the ventral and "side" hull areas now, and plan to basically detail in the same way all the way across the ship unless there's a big improvement I can make.
Post edited by skynet3020 on
Tagged:
«13

Posts

  • Admiral DanevAdmiral Danev171 Posts: 0Member
    Looks pretty nice, reminds me of a New Republic era Stardestroyer.
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1804255 Posts: 11,034Member
    Welcome to the forums. :)

    That's really cool. Great work so far. :)
  • skynet3020skynet30200 Posts: 0Member
    I have finished much of the ventral details. The aft section is still bare but I'll save that for last. The total poly count is just over 580k - on track for somewhere between 1 and 1.5M. Next I will detail more of the dorsal surface.

    (open to see the detail work)
    afhbc2012_update4_typical.jpg

    (closer shot of the starboard side)
    afhbc2012_update4_close.jpg
    98032.jpg98030.jpg
  • oldmangregoldmangreg198 Woodland Hills, CAPosts: 1,339Member
    Attachment invaild.
    All these Star Wars threads wants me to do something Star Warsie.
    Your right to an opinion does not make your opinion valid.
  • skynet3020skynet30200 Posts: 0Member
    Attachment fixed.
  • AresiusAresius359 Posts: 4,170Member
    Sweet work, I love the details here.
    What kind of main weapon does it have? Another "Mini-Deathstar Laser"? I hope not, because that kind of thing is getting boring.
  • SeverusSeverus400 Posts: 254Member
    Cool design! Like Danev said, it has a New Republic look to it did you make up a back story for it? I'm curious about the main weapon too, although I'm not opposed to mini death star lasers like some prejudiced people who shall remain nameless (Aresius) (in the post above mine) (#7) (just look up, one post). I personally think it shoots pellets of red goo that make the planet suck itself to death, yeah, that's the ticket...
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1804255 Posts: 11,034Member
    Great detail work. :)
  • -=sAs=--=sAs=-336 Posts: 0Member
    Very nice job going here ! :)
    I like the details and the ship
  • skynet3020skynet30200 Posts: 0Member
    Mmm - planet-imploding red goo spatter gun. No need for elaborate suspended delivery mechanisms this time.

    The ship is way too small to power a superlaser or anything that can do that kind of damage. I figured the main gun would be a larger slow-firing version of the normal guns. Something that can give a concentrated punch to large targets but not be useful against more maneuverable ships due to the power cost of firing and then missing. The downside is that it becomes dead weight limiting maneuverability when engaging smaller targets - requiring escorts to handle those. Because of this niche purpose I wouldn't expect to see very many of these being made.
  • AresiusAresius359 Posts: 4,170Member
    @Severus, Well I didn't ask you to whale all over about my personal opinion either.... Or do you wish to infringe on my right of a personal view?!

    @Skylar: Well, what's the size of te ship then? Such vessels would be perfect for bombardment of immobile installations....
  • skynet3020skynet30200 Posts: 0Member
    It's about 4kM.
  • StarscreamStarscream231 Posts: 1,049Member
    Aresius wrote: »
    @Severus, Well I didn't ask you to whale all over about my personal opinion either.... Or do you wish to infringe on my right of a personal view?!

    Oh, don't be such a drama queen, he was only poking fun. Yeesh...

    I can't see anything particularly wrong with a mini-superlaser - in fact I'd expect at least a dozen or so to have been in existence for the purpose of landing major damage against the odd mega capital ships that should arise or heavily shielded fortifications that need taking down.

    And this is a much better looking iteration than that daft "Threat of the Conquerer" uberweapon, which was essentially a massive concave superlaser dish wedged into the middle of a standard ISD... same goes for the Tarkin also, as far as I'm concerned.
  • SeverusSeverus400 Posts: 254Member
    Aresius wrote: »
    @Severus, Well I didn't ask you to whale all over about my personal opinion either.... Or do you wish to infringe on my right of a personal view?!

    Nope, I was just kidding around with you, which you also did not ask me to do, but I did anyway, because I care... :p (And YES, I SOOOO want to infringe on other people's right to a personal view, but alas, I am not that strong in the force lol [yet (another lol but more menacing)])...

    However, I agree 100% with Starscream's analysis of the use of mini-superlasers in the universe and I think you could get away with it with this model, but I won't kick it out of bed for eating crackers just because it doesn't have one either...
  • skynet3020skynet30200 Posts: 0Member
    The nature of superlasers in SW confuses me a bit. I always assumed there was something that only made them practical on a very large scale. Otherwise why not just equip destroyers with them (that destroyer with the dish is quite comical - there's no room behind the weapon for the reactor or even engines) or even a swarm of corvettes for that matter. That gives me a new model idea...
    Why bother building something on the scale of the Death Star?
  • TALON_UKTALON_UK2 Posts: 0Member
    Its all about an impressive unimaginable show of force. Why build something as big as a Star Destroyer? Same thing, shock and awe. The superlaser is a funny one, as it has to be as big as the one used on the Death Star to be a planet killer I believe, but then you are shown that it can be achieved very much in miniature when it is seen as a point defense weapon on the Republic's LAAT Gunships, so that would nix the idea that it is too impractical a design to be made smaller than seen on the Death Star which would have been a good reason for not seeing more of them out there. I guess now they'll probably use the excuse for it not getting used more often due to some made up fact that makes the tech impractical for some other dubious reason.
  • skynet3020skynet30200 Posts: 0Member
    It's surprising we don't see more of them, assuming they're more destructive than equivalently-powered turbolasers. Why wouldn't it be a weapon of choice for any ship? As you suggest some other reason will probably pop up to justify what seems like an inconsistency in how things work.

    My own take is that it's all the same stuff. The really big ones are called "superlasers" and happen to use beams, although smaller guns can use beams as well (but usually don't for some reason). then the question becomes at which power do you consider it a superlaser.
  • skynet3020skynet30200 Posts: 0Member
    Some work on the dorsal side. This section was a bit boring as it's mostly armor panels. I'll be out for a few days but after that I can start work on the steps leading to the bridge.

    afhbc2012_update5.jpg
    98091.jpg
  • McCMcC373 Posts: 704Member
  • evil_genius_180evil_genius_1804255 Posts: 11,034Member
    It's looking awesome. Definitely not boring. :)
  • skynet3020skynet30200 Posts: 0Member
    More of the dorsal details are done. Hopefully I can get some quality time in the next couple of weeks and finish the mesh off. Then I'll need to do some cleanup and object grouping to make it easier to work with.
    afhbc2012_update6_dorsal.jpg
    98219.jpg
  • IRMLIRML250 Posts: 1,993Member
    I'm loving this
  • SeverusSeverus400 Posts: 254Member
    You are some kind of greeble animal dude... looks awesome!
  • AresiusAresius359 Posts: 4,170Member
    Yeah, he's really competing to fractal here, lovely work.
  • skynet3020skynet30200 Posts: 0Member
    Fractal's stuff is quite a bit more detailed than this. Where I put a simple box he would have some functional-looking piece of machinery. Combined with the speed he can do a model it's stunning.
  • mikalamikala176 Posts: 440Member
    This is simply too beautiful not to comment on.
    Some stunning work on this.
  • Wishbone_AshWishbone_Ash325 Posts: 250Member
    Very good design, very good modelling.
  • IRMLIRML250 Posts: 1,993Member
    skynet3020 wrote: »
    Fractal's stuff is quite a bit more detailed than this. Where I put a simple box he would have some functional-looking piece of machinery. Combined with the speed he can do a model it's stunning.
    fractals stuff is more detailed yes, but you still show the same skill in making the them look functional, this is where most greebles fail imo, but yours definately succeed
  • McCMcC373 Posts: 704Member
    It's also a question of intended scale. While it's easy for us to get carried away and want to detail out every little surface protrusion to make it look like it's a functional piece of machinery up close, the truth is that many renders never get that close, so those vertices are "wasted." Having a model that can be rendered from any distance is fun for a hobbyist, but in most production environments, you'll have models of varying levels of detail for different ranges and shots.

    In other words, don't sweat it! This model looks great! :)
  • stonkystonky350 Posts: 489Member
    Great work, and congrats on the header - well deserved!
Sign In or Register to comment.