Crix Dorius Posted June 12, 2003 Report Share Posted June 12, 2003 The textures must be refit'd... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breunor Posted June 12, 2003 Report Share Posted June 12, 2003 I tried to open the 3ds in Milkshape, and received the following error: ERROR (7): ERR_UNFOUND_CHUNK: The database is missing important file chunks needed to fill out the requested structure. Usually caused by a corrupt database or file The file wouldn't open due to this. Could you double check it and reload the file? Once I can get it opened and reapply the textures, I'll link it within the asset list and mark it as completed. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikker Posted June 12, 2003 Report Share Posted June 12, 2003 can you show us some screenshots, for those poor lads, with computer declares the zip file empty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest drewid Posted June 12, 2003 Report Share Posted June 12, 2003 It's because it's got 30K polys. NURBS have got a lot to answer for! Hey crix if you can export it to about 3K polys I can tidy it up in a renderer-friendly way then re-apply the textures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikker Posted June 12, 2003 Report Share Posted June 12, 2003 hehe An assault on a very large ufo, with an avenger. Both teams uses 30.000 poly heavy plasmas ehhhhh......slideshow, anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crix Dorius Posted June 12, 2003 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2003 Sooo... I hope it's low-poly enough... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest drewid Posted June 12, 2003 Report Share Posted June 12, 2003 OH NOOOOOOOOOOOO That's done some horrible things to your lovely ship, specially round the ducts. The wing surfaces look good though. Lets try a try a higner notch on your convertor. If it comes out too high I'll multi-res it. Just reinstalled it today. It's a very good poly reduction tool for my ageing copy of Max. In fact I'll try that on the original to see what it spits out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest drewid Posted June 12, 2003 Report Share Posted June 12, 2003 Oh well it kinda worked. I've yet to meet a nurbs mesh that didn't need tweaking after it's been poly converted. I'll keep going on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breunor Posted June 13, 2003 Report Share Posted June 13, 2003 It must be something with Milkshape, but I got the same error trying to import the file again. If it works for Drewid, maybe he can resave the file? I've noticed some others having problems converting the nurbs to smooth polys as well. Just hand insert every vert and connect the dots! That's been working for me, but then I'm special... just like everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikker Posted June 13, 2003 Report Share Posted June 13, 2003 garghhh still empty. A lesson leaned today: don't use NURBS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordT Posted June 13, 2003 Report Share Posted June 13, 2003 Note: Just a dude seeking enlightment! ...what's NURBS? Is it the poly-lowering thingie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest drewid Posted June 13, 2003 Report Share Posted June 13, 2003 NURBS is Non Uniform Rational B Spline. It's a mathematical description of a spline or surface that's used by the major modelling packages, and it's a pain in the bum to model with and convert to polygons. Max and Softimage have some other surface types that are easier on both counts. Maya just has nurbs curves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaaish Posted June 13, 2003 Report Share Posted June 13, 2003 erg... no. NURBS are Non- Uniform rational B-splines. A type of spline that has control points that reside on or away from the resulting curve. Curves can be used to form surfaces which are also controllable with control splines. basically used for organic models and accurate curves. And it renders alittle smoother on the edges because of Analytical tessellation. at least that is what I've understood about them. Personally I'm not too fond of them. hope this helps. EDIT: hehe drewid posted while I was typing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breunor Posted June 14, 2003 Report Share Posted June 14, 2003 NURBS: Nasty, Useless, Ridiculous, But Simple method to make smooth surfaces. Or what the other two said, take your pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest drewid Posted June 17, 2003 Report Share Posted June 17, 2003 I hit the firestorm with a big hammer and got it down under our poly limit. I haven't done anything in the way of texturing. I thought I'd leave that to Breunor so I can get on with texturing the base bitz. OK? I managed to preserve detail round the 'nostils' and vents, and lost all the unseen detail inside. I kept the cockpit interior though. Breunor. PM me if you can't load it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatGold Posted June 17, 2003 Report Share Posted June 17, 2003 SCREENSHOT SCREENSHOT!!! :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikker Posted June 17, 2003 Report Share Posted June 17, 2003 I wouldn't say it could be used as a firestorm, but iif we in V 1.0+ apply TFTD stuff, it could be used as a manta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deimos Posted June 17, 2003 Report Share Posted June 17, 2003 I think it fits rather well as the firestorm as it's meant to be a cross between a ufo and an earth based aircraft. I think it captures that perfectly. Crix, if you like can you have a go at the lightining? If not anyone that does want to have a crack at it, keep it as similar sort of style as this but with a troop transporter capability for 12 troopers. Maybe have it so that the troop compartment is below the wing surface. Make sure there is only a single width exit. The interior should have an elerium reactor breaking up the interior space. Look at the original for inspiration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breunor Posted June 17, 2003 Report Share Posted June 17, 2003 Previously I had stated what the limits for Milkshape were, and I was wrong on some of those numbers. Here are the correct limits for a complete model: Vertices: 8192 Triangles: 16384 Groups: 128 Materials: 128 Joints: 128 Keyframes: 256 I mention this as the model has too many verts to import. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crix Dorius Posted June 17, 2003 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2003 3302 Poly's... Wow... good job drewid I will try it Deimos... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deimos Posted June 17, 2003 Report Share Posted June 17, 2003 I just loaded the firestorm up into my demo copy of Cinema4d and had a play. I've been thinking about the power source (elerium) how about putting some omni light objects in the exhaust tubes with an RGB setting of R160 G66 B255 which gives off this cool purpleish blue glow. Especially if you set the intensity to 200%. What I did was put them inside the tubes and set the type to omni, the shadow to area, the visible light to volumetric and the noise to visibility. When it rendered up it looked like the exhaust tubes were glowing with an overspill of light. Looked very cool. It's just a shame I couldn't save the image toshow you guys but Crix if you have the time would you do the honours? Just for a look at how it should with all the textures included Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crix Dorius Posted June 18, 2003 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2003 (edited) hmmmm... sounds cool... But there is one problem... I use the german version of C4D... And I don't know what "omni type light" is in the german version... Can you save the scene and up it ?!? (If it's possible with the demo) Edited June 18, 2003 by Crix Dorius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaaish Posted June 18, 2003 Report Share Posted June 18, 2003 it would just be a light type that is emitted in all dirrections from a single point. would probably look like a sphere of sorts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deimos Posted June 18, 2003 Report Share Posted June 18, 2003 [quote name='Crix Dorius' date='Jun 18 2003, 02:00 AM']hmmmm... sounds cool... But there is one problem... I use the german version of C4D... And I don't know what "omni type light" is in the german version... Can you save the scene and up it ?!? (If it's possible with the demo)[/quote] Vaaish said it right It's the light type without any cones or adjusters on it. The light comes out in all directions. I don' tknow how different the german version is but it should be similar in layout, if so it's the first light type in the dropdown box in the atributes panel, Light type (box with options) I would have saved the scene or got a screenshot but they're all disabled in the demo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatGold Posted June 18, 2003 Report Share Posted June 18, 2003 Hey - Deimos, can't you just use the "PrintScreen" button and then paste it into Paint. Then just save as a .jpg and upload? Gold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deimos Posted June 19, 2003 Report Share Posted June 19, 2003 Heh, that was the first thing I tried GG. It seems that they've locked it out when c4d is in focus. Anyway as a last resort measure I've taken a photo with my cheap digicam so don't blame me for the results I've also been playing around with light types and I've found that a round spotlight works way better. If you can make out the settings Kind of strange how bent out of shape the camera makes my screen look, it's a flatscreen monitor. Weird. 1st one is pre render. No textures or extra lighting or anything. I've applied a similar lighting effect to Vaaish's Avenger with textures and I have to say it rocks The only probs with these screenshots is you don't get the volumetric effect the lighting has. Oh well if Crix can fire up a fully rendered version it sure would be cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deimos Posted June 19, 2003 Report Share Posted June 19, 2003 Pic 2. Render from the top view and a more atmospheric render. Again no textures or bg or anything. I have to say I really like how c4d works and it's not expensive either. Might have to be put on my to buy list Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crix Dorius Posted June 19, 2003 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2003 Ah... Yeah... 'k... I see... My Part... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deimos Posted June 19, 2003 Report Share Posted June 19, 2003 Looks good. Can you widen the cones out so the light really flares out of the back. Because it's an alien power supply I think it should be a glow rather than a jet like exhaust. I'm knocking together the Earth - Mars cutscene and I'm using a similar glowing engine pod with the purple light cones and it was the light really flaring out volumetrically that looks very cool when animated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatGold Posted June 20, 2003 Report Share Posted June 20, 2003 Deimos - You cant tell us stuff like that, its too goddamn tempting!! All I gotta say is, the graphics are really coming together a lot better (and a heck of a lot faster) than I thought they would when I joined up! Great work guys! Also, Crix, I agree with Deimos that it might be better as a glow, or anything that has a bigger "kick" to it. Great stuff guys! Gold ps - hehe, well, i thought I may as well say the obvious about the printscreen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fux0r666 Posted September 12, 2003 Report Share Posted September 12, 2003 (edited) I drew this in chem class the other day and decided to process and post it. I was getting tired of painting creatures so I decided to give myself a short break. What isn't apparent in the pic is that that outboard of the engine nacelles the wings turn to a slight antihedral. The forward sweep and other features I took from several modern aircraft design philosophies, including the YAK-38, the ATT early concept, Boeing's Phantom Works ATT concept, and very generally, the engine configuration of the JSF. [img]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/yak-38-20p03-s.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.boeing.com/phantom/images/att2.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/img_3ceef510.jpg[/img] Why it looks the way it looks: Engine Configuration and STOVL/VSTOL Capability. The panels forward of midship fold upwards and out to reveal two centerline mounted lift fans. There would be corresponding openings on the bottom. The engine intakes and engines themselves are mounted high on the wings to decrease airpressure overtop of the airfoil and increase lift. The vectored thrust nozzles are mounted on a three lug system and rotate to a vertically downward position. When this happens the bottoms of the engine nacelles open up to make way for the full range of motion. The vectore nozzles themselves would increase low speed maneuoverability and the stability of the delta wing design and increase controllability of the airplane during VTO or VL. Wing Configuration The forward sweep of the outboard portion of the wings is to increase aircraft controllability at high angles of attack (coming in and out of VTO/VL modes) when the aircraft is most vulnerable, and allowing very steep ingress and egress angles. The swept wing configuration is meant to decrease the accumulation of shockwaves afore the leading edge to decrease wave drag at trans-sonic speeds. Fuselage The fuselage resembles the design of the airframes of the America's New Strategic Aircraft concepts only made wider and shorter in order to express a more transport oriented role. The rear of the fuselage tapers up into a cargo door that doubles as a ramp. The landing gear of the aircraft would have to be robust in the extreme, with a lot of shock absorber movement. I researched all this kind of crap when I was doing the concept for the interceptor that's collecting dust in the laboratory. Like I said, I just got bored of painting monsters for a while and mocked this up in an evening. If anyone is interested I can flesh it out in detail with more machinery and that kind of thing but I'm pretty happy with the over all shape (aside from a glaring asymmetry). What do you think? Edited September 12, 2003 by fux0r666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikker Posted September 12, 2003 Report Share Posted September 12, 2003 looks great! Though, we already have one... Maybe for the Lightning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fux0r666 Posted September 12, 2003 Report Share Posted September 12, 2003 I don't believe this would be appropriate for a ufo hybrid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crix Dorius Posted September 12, 2003 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2003 That looks much better for the Ranger than that what we have... I whould take this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demich Posted September 12, 2003 Report Share Posted September 12, 2003 (edited) it looks great indeed. However it reminds me Blackbird . And it also looks BIGGER then our current Avenger . Look at cockpit windows and sizes of the ships. This Skyranger looks more advanced then our Avenger . Maybe we should swap them? Edited September 12, 2003 by demich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest drewid Posted September 12, 2003 Report Share Posted September 12, 2003 (edited) I would agree with that Edit for more detail The skyranger concept we have looks more clunky / military / solid / basic Like a flying humvee. Therefore I believe it is more appropriate to use in the initial stages of the game where the emphasis is on "solid" military tech. This concept looks much higher tech, and would therefore be more appropraite for later stages of the game where earth technology has been influenced by alien tech. Edited September 12, 2003 by drewid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breunor Posted September 12, 2003 Report Share Posted September 12, 2003 And I wouldn't worry about scale too much, just make the cockpit windows larger if you want, or say that they are not very big. I agree that it's too sleek for the base human tech transport, the current model we have for the XC-11 is finished the last I heard, and looks very nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jim69 Posted September 12, 2003 Report Share Posted September 12, 2003 [quote name='Breunor' date='Sep 12 2003, 01:51 PM']And I wouldn't worry about scale too much, just make the cockpit windows larger if you want, or say that they are not very big. I agree that it's too sleek for the base human tech transport, the current model we have for the XC-11 is finished the last I heard, and looks very nice.[/quote] It would be pretty good for the Lightening tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demich Posted September 12, 2003 Report Share Posted September 12, 2003 (edited) I still think that this concept better suits to avanger then to skyranger or ligthning. For me it still looks far more advanced then our current Avenger . Don't you think? Edited September 12, 2003 by demich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breunor Posted September 12, 2003 Report Share Posted September 12, 2003 Check out the current avenger pics, it's been fully modeled and textured and looks pretty good. I think this design would be better suited for the lightning, as it's supposed to be a really fast transport. It's not a definite thing that I'm aware of, but there was strong agreement to make the lightning faster than any other transport to give it some use in the game. So a really sleek/aerodynamic design would play well into that. It should be faster and less bulky than the avenger, which can carry twice as many troops, has lots more armor and double the firepower. All that will make it less sleek looking in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red knight Posted September 12, 2003 Report Share Posted September 12, 2003 (edited) What can I say excelent picture, pretty nice stuff, and yes I do too believe that it is too sleek for our base technology. I should consider pin the plane as an avenger replacement, as we are still in concept stage then we will be able to see how it works overall... People dont confuse if we had already modelled stuff is for testing purposes, the finals may be different of what we have now, either because we need to have an overall look or to add detail to current ones... So Fux pin it as a concept for whatever you think it will work, however be aware that as a design constrain of base technology that plane looks too advance. Greetings Red Knight Edited September 12, 2003 by red knight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fux0r666 Posted September 12, 2003 Report Share Posted September 12, 2003 (edited) That's weird. I always thought it bore a striking resemblance to the original skyranger... a cross between that and an airbus. As for size, I would estimate the thing's length to be about 80 feet. 1/3 of the potential cargo bay is taken up by the lift fans. It looks big because you aren't seeing it in scale to anything else. I'm sure it would look proper if there were little guys running around the outside of it, making it look about 2ce the length of a learjet. For the love of god, smooth the current skyranger out. No modern aicraft looks like a low poly mesh. That thing is supposed to be able to fly at mach 1. I would fine tune it with actual pictures of the osprey for reference. The current model looks like it was slapped together fairly quickly, no offence intended to the original artist. Edit: I'm sure if we put our heads together we could develop a lightning that looked a little more odd/alien. It's supposed to be a flying saucer, isn't it? I thought we had a lightning. Is that black flying wedge a concept for the Lightning or the firestorm? Edited September 12, 2003 by fux0r666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breunor Posted September 12, 2003 Report Share Posted September 12, 2003 Actually it was a matter of reducing polys, the original model was about 45K IIRC. The current version is for use in the battlescape I think, as it's not near the limit for the X-Net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fux0r666 Posted September 12, 2003 Report Share Posted September 12, 2003 In the battlescape it would be as a piece of scenery and very large so it would necessarily have to have more polies in order to look half decent. What are the limits of the engine? Are shaders going to smooth that building block look out a little? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jim69 Posted September 12, 2003 Report Share Posted September 12, 2003 Shaders can make a 5 sided cylinder look circular, so I'd say it would be fine when it is shaded. For the poly limit, I think it is about 10-15k but this has to include modelling the inside as the top will be cut off so that u can see inside it, i.e. your troops. So I'd say the actual body limit would be closer to 6-8k. Not a lot to work with really when considered all the things that have to be modelled onto it. A lot can be done with textures as well, AFAIK the textures on the hull currently don't have the grooves etc. actually drawn onto it and is a placeholder, and they are really what gives the illusion of shadow in what I have seen. Often when a model doesn't look very good it is because the texture hasn't got the bends, folds, creases and grooves right. As for the design, it looks advanced enough to be the Lightening IMO. I do think the Skyranger should be a rotary simply because there are few other transports that are small enough for our purposes. The ones I have seen either look crap or are too big. Saying that, I believe that it is impossible for a rotary to travel half way around the globe? I think. However I can't see anything smaller coming along plane wise so we may have to make it a rotary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl. Facehugger Posted September 12, 2003 Report Share Posted September 12, 2003 Well, fux0r, the delta wing aircraft (great work artists!) is a firestorm I believe, at least I see no way of ingress/exgress. I like your idea as a lightning, but you just need to make it more, well, alien. A rotary? I figure that it could be a really fast and efficient rotary. How else would you get a vtol transport? Vectored thrust is about the only other way I can think of, further that anti-gravity engines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fux0r666 Posted September 12, 2003 Report Share Posted September 12, 2003 (edited) This is really strange to me. To me, that concept I did just looks like a 737 with odds and ends stuck on it. Heh. What is the size limit of the skyranger aircraft, and why does it have to be small? The original was quite large. I don't think that mine is much bigger than it is. At 80 feet it's only twelve people heights in length. edit: I'm asking the questions because I'm interested, not because I'm arguing. I don't believe it is suitable for the lightning because the it is completely based on terrestrial technology. The lightning has no use for things such as any sort of exhaust nozzle, etc. Edited September 12, 2003 by fux0r666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jim69 Posted September 12, 2003 Report Share Posted September 12, 2003 Very true. The way I see the Lightening is a human design with alien components, they haven't quite managed to get to the stage where they can intergrate alien technology. Then the fighter craft ( dunno what that is called, it looks damn good tho ) is more alien like and the Avenger is the ultimate balance between alien and human tech. There are quite a few VTOL aircraft, it wouldn't surprise me to see a VTOL troop transport. Rotary aircraft have shorter range than fixed wing I think. I think the Skyranger in the original was about 14m long I think, which is pretty short. I think it needs to be small to get onto the battlescape, it would take up loads of room otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fux0r666 Posted September 12, 2003 Report Share Posted September 12, 2003 (edited) Well, the battlescape would have a very large potential radius, correct? I see what you are saying, though. I didn't really intend this to be THE skyranger but it was an itch I had to scratch at any rate. Edited September 12, 2003 by fux0r666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jim69 Posted September 12, 2003 Report Share Posted September 12, 2003 (edited) Yup, we don't have 2 be exactly the same IMO. I don't think ur concept was meant as a scale drawing, more of an idea of what it would look like. As a concept I don't think it looks too advanced, with standard aircraft textures it wouldn't look out of place next to the JSF and things like that. Edited September 12, 2003 by Jim69 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts