Vaaish Posted September 30, 2003 Report Share Posted September 30, 2003 maybe increase the diameter of the missile to give the idea of a larger payload? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j'ordos Posted September 30, 2003 Report Share Posted September 30, 2003 (edited) Like so?(length about 5.30m, whereas stingray is approx. 2.80. It's diameter was about 50 cm, would now be about 60-70, and the Stingray's diameter is about 15-20cm.) Edited September 30, 2003 by j'ordos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breunor Posted September 30, 2003 Report Share Posted September 30, 2003 That's looking good. I like the longer fins stretched along the body, makes a good distinction between the missiles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j'ordos Posted September 30, 2003 Report Share Posted September 30, 2003 Wait, here's one for comparison: the upper one is stingray, the second one is avalanche (original), and the bottom one is the widened and slightly elongated avalanche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl. Facehugger Posted September 30, 2003 Report Share Posted September 30, 2003 Bingo! Looks like we have a winner! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaaish Posted September 30, 2003 Report Share Posted September 30, 2003 Maybe a quick comparison of what it would look like with the larger diameter but shorter length. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deimos Posted October 1, 2003 Report Share Posted October 1, 2003 I like the middle one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j'ordos Posted October 1, 2003 Report Share Posted October 1, 2003 The original one (well, it was based on the AMRAAM, I tried to keep it's proportions)Anyway, here's some more comparisons, top to bottom: original, 20% wider, 40% wider, 60% wider. Also different fins, as I'm not completely happy with them as they are now, I think something's wrong but I can't put my finger on it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j'ordos Posted October 1, 2003 Report Share Posted October 1, 2003 Oh well, here's two more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaaish Posted October 1, 2003 Report Share Posted October 1, 2003 (edited) I like hte 3rd one down and the fins on the one on the right. Edited October 1, 2003 by Vaaish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest drewid Posted October 1, 2003 Report Share Posted October 1, 2003 I agree. I think the swept back look feels less solid somehow and sightly less convincing. The solid stubby wings look more businesslike and serious. Good work J'ordos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fux0r666 Posted October 1, 2003 Report Share Posted October 1, 2003 The one to the right in the latest post with graphics (as of this writing), looks old school. It reminds me of early ballistic missile models. I do like, it, though. The long, swept back look of the one two the right is good, but I must admit that it looks a little less business like. For whatever reason, air to air missiles, minus the pheonix, seem to have knife like fins very close the each end of the missile. It probably has something to do with centre of gravity and leverage. I think it's important, though, to differenciate the shapes of the two missiles as much as possible. I have an idea, as I have many ideas for just about everything, well received or not. It's a matter of finding the time. I'll explain it here in case I don't have time to much around with my scanner... Try to make a long wing like the one you have on the current missile to the left, start is a bit earlier and combine it into a pointed triangular wing like on the front of the sidewinder- only it will start about midship (or whatever they call it on missiles). It should look kind of like the blend of delta and conventional wings as seen on the f16 and f18- I forget what that is called. It would have kind of a functionality to it too as a wing shape like that disperses shockwaves or something. Play around with it.. see what you can come up with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j'ordos Posted October 1, 2003 Report Share Posted October 1, 2003 So, this would be you guys' choice? If it's not 'bl**dy fantastic' I'll have to get back to work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaaish Posted October 1, 2003 Report Share Posted October 1, 2003 yup, looks good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breunor Posted October 1, 2003 Report Share Posted October 1, 2003 Very nice, but I disagree with the size compared to the stingray. Comparing the stats to the size, shouldn't they be closer in size? 70 damage to 10030km to 60km I'm on the fence here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl. Facehugger Posted October 2, 2003 Report Share Posted October 2, 2003 Well, 30 km is a lot of distance, it only makes sense that the avalanche would need to be bigger to have a bigger engine and more fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breunor Posted October 2, 2003 Report Share Posted October 2, 2003 j'ordos and I IM'd about it, it's just a matter of scaling the model. From the last pic comparing both missiles, the avalanche is like 10 times larger regarding volume. I see it being maybe 50% longer and twice as thick, that would still make it bigger but not by such a huge amount. It's not a big issue though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j'ordos Posted October 2, 2003 Report Share Posted October 2, 2003 (edited) So I checked the real sizes of a Sidewinder and an AMRAAM, and the Sidewinder has a length of nearly 3m, and the AMRAAM a little more than 3,6m (about 10 and 12 feet respectively), and I changed the models accordingly (the Avalanche is better than the AMRAAM though, so I made it a little longer still, and of course it is the 40% wider version too, it's in fact more of a cross-breed between an AMRAAM and a Phoenix ) Edited October 2, 2003 by j'ordos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breunor Posted October 2, 2003 Report Share Posted October 2, 2003 Those look much better next to each other! :happybanana: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl. Facehugger Posted October 2, 2003 Report Share Posted October 2, 2003 I concur, they look like they would fit in perferctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaaish Posted October 2, 2003 Report Share Posted October 2, 2003 yup, very nice work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SupSuper Posted October 2, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2003 Indeed, pretty good. I gotta look for some good 3ds max tutorials Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jim69 Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 3dcafe.com is alright, tho it is best to play around yourself with stuff. Just say to yourself what you want to achieve and think how it could be done with the tools you currently know how to use. If you think you don't know the right tool find some tutorials that use the kind of effect you want. Everyone is constantly learning so I wouldn't worry too much, as with everything it is just practice and knowing the tools. Missiles just look right to me btw, can't think of a better term than right for them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breunor Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 Phrase for Jim: "The visual conceptualization of the missiles fits quite succinctly within Jim's Xenocide reality schema." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SupSuper Posted October 3, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 3dcafe.com is alright, tho it is best to play around yourself with stuff. Just say to yourself what you want to achieve and think how it could be done with the tools you currently know how to use. If you think you don't know the right tool find some tutorials that use the kind of effect you want. Everyone is constantly learning so I wouldn't worry too much, as with everything it is just practice and knowing the tools. Missiles just look right to me btw, can't think of a better term than right for them well, all i know how to do is put primivites and add to them color/texture so i think i'll go have a look at 3dcafe.com 3dsmax 4 includes tutorials, but they require some Learning CD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhyos Beoulve Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 ;0; *bawls for joy* Beautiful... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j'ordos Posted October 3, 2003 Report Share Posted October 3, 2003 (edited) Well, I don't hear anyone complaining so I have uploaded the Avalanche to FTP too, and replaced the Stingray file with a new one that has the correct size. (they are saved with the fins as separate objects (instanced, don't know if that carries over as .3ds?), I would think that's easier for skinning but if it's not, tell me and I'll upload them again as one single mesh object) Edited October 4, 2003 by j'ordos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fux0r666 Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 This is quick sketch of what I had in mind.. well, kind of. I got a little carried away in the few minutes I was sketching this out. It was fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deimos Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 Jordos, just a quick Q as yeah everyone likes your missiles (don't take that the wrong way ) Do they fit in with our scaling? Other than that I'd say yeah call it and move on. Fux. Although the concept is nice, it doesn't fit in with the style guide. Human weapons are ultra modern and based on real technology.  Also it wouldn't fly, well not with any accuracy. The aerodynamics are just plain wrong. There would be vortices that would seriously destablise the missle in the gap betweenthe big fin and the rear fin and also on the frontal fin area. The rear fin shape would create a huge amount of drag with those leading edges. It'd be very manueverable at low speed but thats easily corrected with vectored thrust anway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crix Dorius Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 Like this Fux ?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j'ordos Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 Jordos, just a quick Q as yeah everyone likes your missiles (don't take that the wrong way ) Do they fit in with our scaling? Other than that I'd say yeah call it and move on.How do you mean? They don't actually show in game, just in xnet, right? So what would the scaling do? (If it makes you feel any better, the last pic on the previous page shows the Avalanche and Stingray in their respective sizes, the Stingray being 3 m long, the Avalanche about 3.75 m) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverick Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 scaling doesn't mean a whole lot within the game, it should just be a matter of setting the scale that you want the model displayed at. However, it would be good if the model was built to our scale so that we don't increase/decrease its size to much when trying to scale it. If you can find information about real missiles and use that to determine if those are the right length (according to my calcs, the missiles are between 9 and 12 feet long...i've never seen a real one, but that sounds a little big). Its not of paramount importance, but if you aren't doing anything else, scaling it saves us time later. -Mav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deimos Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 Basically what Mav said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl. Facehugger Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 Well, could we use fux's (and Crix's model) missile for the fusion missile launcher? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j'ordos Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 (edited) scaling doesn't mean a whole lot within the game, it should just be a matter of setting the scale that you want the model displayed at. However, it would be good if the model was built to our scale so that we don't increase/decrease its size to much when trying to scale it. If you can find information about real missiles and use that to determine if those are the right length (according to my calcs, the missiles are between 9 and 12 feet long...i've never seen a real one, but that sounds a little big). Its not of paramount importance, but if you aren't doing anything else, scaling it saves us time later. -MavOk, in that case... i based them on the Sidewinder and Amraam, and kept their real lengths (I was surprised too, but they really are that long). Since the Avalanche is more powerful than the Amraam I did make that one somewhat longer, but only 10-20 centimeters. edit: and the models are life-size too Edited October 14, 2003 by j'ordos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deimos Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 Well, could we use fux's (and Crix's model) missile for the fusion missile launcher?Que? what is this fusion missile? Where is it and how much are they and can I buy them in bulk? Â Surely you mean the fusion ball launcher, in which case a funky looking missile just ain't gonna work :whatwhat: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breunor Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 Perhaps a fusion missile was mentioned in the lab as a v1+ weapon? Certainly not in X-Com however. Fusion ball launcher wouldn't fire a missile like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jim69 Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 It fired a type of Blaster Bomb did it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cmdr. Luke Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 It fired a fusion ball. (unless your talking about something other than UFO Defense). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jim69 Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 Which was based upon Blaster Bomb technology IIRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl. Facehugger Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 Well, I always thought that that "fusion ball" was rather odd, so I called it a fusion missile. Oops. Â Anyway, I was just trying to think up a way to incorporate Crix's model into the game because it looks damn good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j'ordos Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 Maybe by removing the front wings and using it as missile for the missile tank? The rear wings would be retractable, so it could be a FFR (Folding Fin Rocket)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red knight Posted October 15, 2003 Report Share Posted October 15, 2003 For a HWP rocket it looks cool, cause in that case you have slow velocity but you need high maneubrability (or how the heck you spell it), so mobile parts are needed to direct the air flow.. GreetingsRed Knight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fux0r666 Posted October 15, 2003 Report Share Posted October 15, 2003 Yes, indeed, Crix. I love you. This missile is totally based on the technology of today. It takes the pheonix missile and makes the fins seem a little more advanced. I intended it to demonstrate different possibilities for fin shapes and other kinds of things that can be put on missiles. I thought perhaps I would help flesh out the idea pool while I had a moment. I don't have anything against the other missile designs but I'm at odds with the fin designs of the avalanche missile. It looks a little like the model rocket kits that you see advertized in the backs of old comic books. I think something based on the TOW or LAW would suffice for the rocket launchers. You don't need a heck of a lot of missile to deliver a warhead capable of cracking light armour, especially if the charges are shaped or designed to expel fragmentations or a spalling sabot. Half of the problem with the original xcom is the utter absurdity of the size of the weapons and munitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breunor Posted October 15, 2003 Report Share Posted October 15, 2003 The fuxor/Crix missile looks like a good concept for the missile-HWP to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fux0r666 Posted October 16, 2003 Report Share Posted October 16, 2003 Realistically, however, those missiles would be unguided rockets.  If it's anything other than a long range air to air missile, it would be a SAM for the missile defense... I don't really care if you use it as is or not (in all seriousness, it was just all the features I could think of put on a longrange looking AIM).. but if realism is what you're going for, the missiles that come out of the HWP's would be folding fin rockets, in all likelihood. After that they would be tube launched, laser guided missiles, about the size of a plumbing pipe. Surface to surface missiles are usually fired line of site at relatively low speeds, there is very little need for them to maneouver. The decision to put the vectors on was heat of the moment. I figured that it would be designed to chase the next generation of 3d vectoring fighters like the su-37... and since you can see long range missiles coming at the edge of your radar range, I figured they would need to be very maneouverable to get the drop on those bastards... and I was looking for an excuse to make the Avalanche more accurate than the stingray when shooting down these aforementioned supermaneouverable ufos. I've always had trouble with that concept. If the ufos can stop on a dime and accellerate beyond human limits of human visual sensory perception, they must WANT to get shot down or they must be going easy on the humans... whom they pitty... or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j'ordos Posted October 16, 2003 Report Share Posted October 16, 2003 Well, since I haven't been working on a skin yet anyway, thought I'd try some more then for the Avalanche. Well, now it's more of a cross-over between Phoenix/AMRAAM/BVRAAM (those pods on the side stem from that one, just type in BVRAAM or FMRAAM in google, searching for images) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deimos Posted October 16, 2003 Report Share Posted October 16, 2003 (edited) Yeah it'd work in the more low speed application of the Hwp's where manuverability is more important. Fux, I never really questioned the feasability of firing a missile at a ufo, I guess becasue its an extension of suspeding disbelief  Like you say if ufo's can stop on a dime and bugger of a a fantastic rate of knots a missile wouldn't cut it. But at the start of the game xcom are facing "enemy unkown" so they wouldn't be using missile with all the bells and whistles on them but current off the shelf hardware. It'd be a bit strange to be basing all the other base level human tech on their real world compatriats and then go the whole hog on a missile Edited October 16, 2003 by Deimos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j'ordos Posted October 16, 2003 Report Share Posted October 16, 2003 And without those pods Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deimos Posted October 16, 2003 Report Share Posted October 16, 2003 I don't mean to be horrible but it looks much better and more business like without the pods. The forward facing spikes kinda make it look like a medieval version. It look smuch cleaner without. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts