finally some pictures... hellhound wip1.JPG hellhound wip2.JPG Attachment not found. Attachment not found.
the first two images show the new wing panels, they include some access panels and "ion ailerons"at the rear( a form of control surface using differently charged plates and plasma to manipulate airflow rather than the conventional moving flaps).
the new engines have the after burners modelled but all the rest of them is still to come.
the pods for the secondary engines, and the secondary engines themselves have not yet been modelled so what you can see are the old pods on top. i haven't started internal work yet either.
vtol systems also to be redone.
I like the exhaust nozzles, but I'd recommend extending them back a bit...maybe a full meter(ish). The panels are still way too "loud" and they're ruining what could be good progress on your model. Bring them a lot closer to the color of the base fuselage and it should be good to go. The goal should be to make the panels as subtle as possible.
While those upper engines are still really bothersome (and don't fit the newer design motif you're using) I find some of the progress here to be interesting. I'm particularly intrigued by your "ion ailerons" idea. To be honest, I don't CARE if it's realistic or feasible--the concept is "rule of cool" cool!
I know you're wedded to those upper engines and any comment I make on them will be ignored (or rebuffed) but maybe, just MAYBE you might try removing them and make the main, center-axis engines about 30% bigger in diameter, at least on the "intake" side of things. After all, the upper stage engines can't be your FTL drive, not the way you've described it, and if they're auxiliary boosters, well, they're too large to be used for long (too much engine, not enough reaction-mass space) unless they're going to use the internal fuel--and that would make NO sense.
The panel issue? Well, that's been flogged well past the dead horse stage.
I like the exhaust nozzles, but I'd recommend extending them back a bit...maybe a full meter(ish). The panels are still way too "loud" and they're ruining what could be good progress on your model. Bring them a lot closer to the color of the base fuselage and it should be good to go. The goal should be to make the panels as subtle as possible.
extending them doesn't look so good, altering the panel line colour can be done at any time, but whilst i am modelling i will leave them very clearly different o the fuselage. also they are less "loud" when the line effect is turned off as will happen in blender.
colbs, there are so many panels on the wing because it breaks up boring featureless areas.
juvat, gave up on that tail as when i started it, it didn't look so good with the fuselage.
sanderlee, ion ailerons are certainly somewhat feasible there was an article recently in new scientist discussing using plasma and ions on aircraft control surfaces(9th march 2013 p48).
top engines will stay,just to explain they are boosters but not the usual type. they are a kind of ramjet but overheat very quickly so can only be used for short bursts with long cooldown periods. their reaction mass is hydrogen, mainly gathered from the interstellar medium but some is supplied by onboard tanks.
as a note, the panel lines only appear so dark because of how sketchup is set up, this si closer too how things will appear in blender, or should the lines be closer to the colour of the hull than this. Attachment not found.
You shouldn't be able to see the panels unless you're up close, so yes, they need to be lighter. A lot lighter.
It depends on what they are and what their purpose is. If it's paneling just for the sake of paneling, it could be that somebody painted the seams. Maybe the want them to stand out, as part of the ship's stylized look. If it's something like hull armor, you typically don't want to highlight the seams, as they would be structurally weaker. "OK, we'll aim the frap rays there..."
True, but since none of the panel lines compliment the flow of the design it would behoove him to either make them flow better or make them as unobnoxious as possible.
wing roots( with thrusters) done
primary and secondary engines
secondary engine pods
rear wings
cockpit
control panel
life support
internal details
fuel tanks
gatling laser
markings
internal structure
anything else i may need??
the secondary engine nozzles will be closely based on real rocket engines, with the bell shaped exhaust and other features.
could really use some suggestions of different types of vtol system i could use
it needs to be compact and if there is any way i would like tit to fit where the ion column generators are now(in the bays above the lending gear), problem is almost every search result for vtol gives me pictures of harriers, f 35s or helicopters. all things with vtol systems being quite large in proportion to their size, my electrical power available to this vtol system is up in the gigawatts if needed but the space for it is very limited.
also any ideas on how i can keep the number of polys down despite all this detail?
Unless it's something like the Star Wars repulsor-lift systems (which were never really modeled, just "assumed") or a feature of an inertia-less drive (like Trek) the entire hull-form has to be built around the VTOL system. You don't take an F-14 and reconfigure it into a VTOL. Into a variable-geometry thrust, maybe (but not very efficiently without so much re-design that it's really just the same name on a new bird) but not VTOL.
The ship you have is not VTOL. Barring a massive redesign (including ditching those top-heavy engines ... sorry) or an industrial load of hand-wavium it's not going to BE VTOL, either. Sorry, SF, but it's not. The main engines you have placed into the hull are not going to support ventral thrust nozzles close enough to the ship's center of mass.
Look at the Harrier, for example. The main intake is waaaaaay forward compared to so many other fighters. It has to be, as the primary combustion chamber for the jet has to be at or forward of the center of mass so the exhaust can be vectored DOWN. If all the thrust is aft of the center of gravity, unless you want the "down" thrust to also be forward it's just going to flip tail over nose and crash.
Your ship is interesting. Those dual-cantilever wings are sort of growing on me (at least as re: fixed-wing, with the new down-cant to the main wings the idea of those fore-prongs being swing-wings is again a physical impossibility). The paneling is improving and I like some of the technical ideas you're including.
But taking an existing hull-form and retro-fitting it with VTOL just isn't likely. Your center-axis engines just won't permit it. Not without such radical re-design that you might was well revisit EVERYTHING by starting over with a new shippie!
As to the poly question? I'm sure wiser heads than I will contribute (since I don't model AT ALL!) and they're going to say the word you're not looking forward to hearing: "texture-maps."
also any ideas on how i can keep the number of polys down despite all this detail?
Details cost triangles, no matter how efficiently you try and do it. Why do you need to keep this down, what purpose is it for? You might want to question why you're putting so much detail into a very segmented looking form. If you're making a high-res model with lots of modelled details you'll start with a very smooth base mesh, if you're making a low res model for real-time purposes, then lots of the detail you want to add will be accomplished with texture maps, normal maps etc.
Looking at what you have and how you've cut panel lines into a fairly crude base mesh, its not really one thing or the other. I'm not sure whether you'll get a very nice result when you try and light this with some proper lighting in a rendering engine, this could severely limit its practical use as a model.
yeah your making the ship way to complicated anyway by giving it every thing you want you need to limit it to either a ftl craft or a vtol craft or a space/atmo fighter you cant cram all that tech in to one tiny craft you need to pick one of the three and dedicate it to that system.
Looks like everyone else really covered the VTOL and poly issue well so I will discuss panel lines. Check out this image of one of my designs:
The panels for the most part flow with the shape of the wing, only deviating when necessary to access systems and connections within the wing. That is the way real panels on aircraft are, so maybe just take note of that.
Here is another good example courtesy of Bagera: Sukhoi_Su_37_Terminator_by_bagera3005.png
Once again they flow with the wing and emphasize its's overall shape, with a few other off balls on there where needed.
A thought on your VTOL though, how VTOL are we talking here? Does it need to push the fighter up several hundred meters or just a few meters so that the fighter can accelerate up to speed and take off? If the later, then your manuvering thrusters, and ion ailerons, similar to my own thrusters, on full output should work, but they will suck up a lot of fuel in the process. BEsides I thoight you had some handwavium in the landing gear bays.
the vtol only needs to act over about 20 metres at a maximum(it am remodelling that handwavium, or putting soemthing else in to do it's job), just for lift off and basic maneuvering very close to the ground. i'll probably just redesign my ion columns(current method, a curtain of ionised gas is used to hold a column of air this is used as a cushion, air can be pumped in or sucked out of the top to raise or descend).
as for panels
where do you suggest they go on my shape? they fit onto the sukhoi or your craft in those shapes, but yours is quite angular and the sukhoi is quite flat(as in the fuselage is not bulky and large like on mine because it's engines are underneath).
IF you post up a non-panelled ortho of the top and bottom, and one showing where all the major components are I can give you my idea of how your panels should be placed.
IF you post up a non-panelled ortho of the top and bottom, and one showing where all the major components are I can give you my idea of how your panels should be placed.
orthos coming right up, un-panelled ones a few minutes later.
I won't do the work for you, but here is a quick idea of how do your wing panels. Planes are going with large panels more and more, but this give you access hatches for maintaining those ion ailerons and ssch. ALso, given your design make the wingtip an end cap, all one piece, with your formation lights embedded.
to be honest i prefer my current wing panelling scheme, though i have enlarged some of the panels on the fuselage so less are needed, my intakes look somewhat better now, and the underside has a few less panels. at present having a nightmare with trying to design a hatch system to cover the thrusters in the wing roots, have tried a few designs but so far all have either:
a. not left enough room for the thruster
b. not been able to open cleanly
c. really messed up the shape
d. left the thruster pointing in entirely the wrong direction
my options look to be altering the profile of the wing root or having a double door system for each thruster.
what was the point of letting him show you a logical/functional panel design if you were going to not bother with it? the way you have your panelling makes it look like the way they built it was by using hole punches on a large peice of metal
what was the point of letting him show you a logical/functional panel design if you were going to not bother with it? the way you have your panelling makes it look like the way they built it was by using hole punches on a large peice of metal
i have used some of his ideas, but it's always a good idea to see possible designs then decide if you like them.
Posts
hellhound wip1.JPG
hellhound wip2.JPG
Attachment not found.
Attachment not found.
the first two images show the new wing panels, they include some access panels and "ion ailerons"at the rear( a form of control surface using differently charged plates and plasma to manipulate airflow rather than the conventional moving flaps).
the new engines have the after burners modelled but all the rest of them is still to come.
the pods for the secondary engines, and the secondary engines themselves have not yet been modelled so what you can see are the old pods on top. i haven't started internal work yet either.
vtol systems also to be redone.
So? Any progress?
I know you're wedded to those upper engines and any comment I make on them will be ignored (or rebuffed) but maybe, just MAYBE you might try removing them and make the main, center-axis engines about 30% bigger in diameter, at least on the "intake" side of things. After all, the upper stage engines can't be your FTL drive, not the way you've described it, and if they're auxiliary boosters, well, they're too large to be used for long (too much engine, not enough reaction-mass space) unless they're going to use the internal fuel--and that would make NO sense.
The panel issue? Well, that's been flogged well past the dead horse stage.
colbs, there are so many panels on the wing because it breaks up boring featureless areas.
juvat, gave up on that tail as when i started it, it didn't look so good with the fuselage.
sanderlee, ion ailerons are certainly somewhat feasible there was an article recently in new scientist discussing using plasma and ions on aircraft control surfaces(9th march 2013 p48).
top engines will stay,just to explain they are boosters but not the usual type. they are a kind of ramjet but overheat very quickly so can only be used for short bursts with long cooldown periods. their reaction mass is hydrogen, mainly gathered from the interstellar medium but some is supplied by onboard tanks.
Attachment not found.
It depends on what they are and what their purpose is. If it's paneling just for the sake of paneling, it could be that somebody painted the seams. Maybe the want them to stand out, as part of the ship's stylized look. If it's something like hull armor, you typically don't want to highlight the seams, as they would be structurally weaker. "OK, we'll aim the frap rays there..."
Attachment not found.
wing roots( with thrusters) done
primary and secondary engines
secondary engine pods
rear wings
cockpit
control panel
life support
internal details
fuel tanks
gatling laser
markings
internal structure
anything else i may need??
the secondary engine nozzles will be closely based on real rocket engines, with the bell shaped exhaust and other features.
it needs to be compact and if there is any way i would like tit to fit where the ion column generators are now(in the bays above the lending gear), problem is almost every search result for vtol gives me pictures of harriers, f 35s or helicopters. all things with vtol systems being quite large in proportion to their size, my electrical power available to this vtol system is up in the gigawatts if needed but the space for it is very limited.
also any ideas on how i can keep the number of polys down despite all this detail?
The ship you have is not VTOL. Barring a massive redesign (including ditching those top-heavy engines ... sorry) or an industrial load of hand-wavium it's not going to BE VTOL, either. Sorry, SF, but it's not. The main engines you have placed into the hull are not going to support ventral thrust nozzles close enough to the ship's center of mass.
Look at the Harrier, for example. The main intake is waaaaaay forward compared to so many other fighters. It has to be, as the primary combustion chamber for the jet has to be at or forward of the center of mass so the exhaust can be vectored DOWN. If all the thrust is aft of the center of gravity, unless you want the "down" thrust to also be forward it's just going to flip tail over nose and crash.
Your ship is interesting. Those dual-cantilever wings are sort of growing on me (at least as re: fixed-wing, with the new down-cant to the main wings the idea of those fore-prongs being swing-wings is again a physical impossibility). The paneling is improving and I like some of the technical ideas you're including.
But taking an existing hull-form and retro-fitting it with VTOL just isn't likely. Your center-axis engines just won't permit it. Not without such radical re-design that you might was well revisit EVERYTHING by starting over with a new shippie!
As to the poly question? I'm sure wiser heads than I will contribute (since I don't model AT ALL!) and they're going to say the word you're not looking forward to hearing: "texture-maps."
Details cost triangles, no matter how efficiently you try and do it. Why do you need to keep this down, what purpose is it for? You might want to question why you're putting so much detail into a very segmented looking form. If you're making a high-res model with lots of modelled details you'll start with a very smooth base mesh, if you're making a low res model for real-time purposes, then lots of the detail you want to add will be accomplished with texture maps, normal maps etc.
Looking at what you have and how you've cut panel lines into a fairly crude base mesh, its not really one thing or the other. I'm not sure whether you'll get a very nice result when you try and light this with some proper lighting in a rendering engine, this could severely limit its practical use as a model.
The panels for the most part flow with the shape of the wing, only deviating when necessary to access systems and connections within the wing. That is the way real panels on aircraft are, so maybe just take note of that.
Here is another good example courtesy of Bagera:
Sukhoi_Su_37_Terminator_by_bagera3005.png
Once again they flow with the wing and emphasize its's overall shape, with a few other off balls on there where needed.
A thought on your VTOL though, how VTOL are we talking here? Does it need to push the fighter up several hundred meters or just a few meters so that the fighter can accelerate up to speed and take off? If the later, then your manuvering thrusters, and ion ailerons, similar to my own thrusters, on full output should work, but they will suck up a lot of fuel in the process. BEsides I thoight you had some handwavium in the landing gear bays.
as for panels
where do you suggest they go on my shape? they fit onto the sukhoi or your craft in those shapes, but yours is quite angular and the sukhoi is quite flat(as in the fuselage is not bulky and large like on mine because it's engines are underneath).
orthos coming right up, un-panelled ones a few minutes later.
there is also a labelled copy of the one without panels
Attachment not found.
new hellhound no panels.jpg
new hellhound no panels labels.jpg
a. not left enough room for the thruster
b. not been able to open cleanly
c. really messed up the shape
d. left the thruster pointing in entirely the wrong direction
my options look to be altering the profile of the wing root or having a double door system for each thruster.
Airplane-Wing-Part-Diagram-Terminology-300x190.png
Airbus-wing-structure-and-Terminology.gif
airplane-wing-components.gif
p3526.jpg
the way you have yours all your panel doors would give you no access to what you need to get at because all of the cross sections of the framing