Topic: X Ships Project.... (Read 24539 times)

Centurus · « **on:** July 11, 2009, 12:30:12 pm »

Most of you hopefully are aware of GAFY corrupting me and getting me to seriously consider making a new set of X ships. If not, look at the last couple pages of the IN NEED OF GAFY TEXTURES thread.

Anyway, this is what I've been working on.

Roychipoqua_Mace · « **Reply #1 on:** July 11, 2009, 03:14:23 pm »

Nice. The stock OP X-ships weren't too bad but it looks like this will blow those out of the water.

Age · « **Reply #2 on:** July 11, 2009, 08:17:21 pm »

Quote from: F9thCenturus on July 11, 2009, 12:30:12 pm

Most of you hopefully are aware of GAFY corrupting me and getting me to seriously consider making a new set of X ships. If not, look at the last couple pages of the IN NEED OF GAFY TEXTURES thread.

Anyway, this is what I've been working on.

Wouldn't it be better if the saucer was turned around.

Starforce2 · « **Reply #3 on:** July 11, 2009, 08:53:46 pm »

Quote from: Age on July 11, 2009, 08:17:21 pm

Quote from: F9thCenturus on July 11, 2009, 12:30:12 pm
Most of you hopefully are aware of GAFY corrupting me and getting me to seriously consider making a new set of X ships. If not, look at the last couple pages of the IN NEED OF GAFY TEXTURES thread.

Anyway, this is what I've been working on.
Wouldn't it be better if the saucer was turned around.

the X ships have their impulse hosuing protrude from the back. The bite in the front is where the torpedo tubes are.

Centurus · « **Reply #4 on:** July 12, 2009, 12:41:43 am »

Right now I'm trying to get viable general shapes for the ship. Details such as the bridge, phasers, impulse engines, etc., will come later.

I just hope that these models turn out half way decent.

Bernard Guignard · « **Reply #5 on:** July 12, 2009, 08:33:51 am »

looks like you've got a great start to them . Keep up the great work

Centurus · « **Reply #6 on:** July 13, 2009, 02:01:05 am »

I made a neck. I decided to go more Excelsior in appearance when it comes to the neck, but I also wanted to give it my own touch, so it's got rounded edges, and as it comes down towards the engineering hull, it tapers down a bit. It's also got a slight curve in the spine of the neck. What do you guys think?

marstone · « **Reply #7 on:** July 13, 2009, 06:20:59 am »

I like the views looking up at the neck from the quarter side. But I don't like the back and looking downwards at it.

Maybe if you also rounded it into the Engineering hull it would look smoother.

Centurus · « **Reply #8 on:** July 13, 2009, 06:38:38 am »

What do you mean rounded into the engineering hull?

Centurus · « **Reply #9 on:** July 13, 2009, 06:51:49 am »

The ship with pylons and torpedo pod. I had created the torpedo pod and pylons some time ago when I was trying to build another ship. In fact I'm gonna redo some things on that ship's components cause I've improved slightly.

Since the pylons were already created, I just fixed a few things and gave it a little detail here and there. The only thing that really needs to be finished on the pylons and torpedo pod is the torpedo launchers themselves. That'll come later.

Khalee1 · « **Reply #10 on:** July 13, 2009, 07:03:32 am »

Looks good so far, I'm just not a fan of the cut in sensor on the front of the saucer. But what are you making this in Gmax or regular max or lightwave or milkshape. And how many polies so far

Centurus · « **Reply #11 on:** July 13, 2009, 07:16:12 am »

F_W's right. If you look at the old P81 X ships, that cut in was the area for additional forward firing torpedoes. I haven't added the launchers yet. Since this is gonna be an X era TMP ship, she's gonna have a sensor dome in the traditional area, bottom of the saucer.

The ship is being made in MAX 9 right now. I haven't checked the poly count yet, cause I'm lucky if I'm at 50% completion.

marstone · « **Reply #12 on:** July 13, 2009, 07:26:48 am »

Quote from: F9thCenturus on July 13, 2009, 06:38:38 am

What do you mean rounded into the engineering hull?

It looks like it has a hard edge where it comes into the lower hull on the sides. Was thinking if it would do a slight rounding to blend into the lower hull instead of coming in with a square edge would have more fluid/organic lines

But then remember this thought is coming from someone who can't model a ball.

Centurus · « **Reply #13 on:** July 13, 2009, 07:43:00 am »

Quote from: marstone on July 13, 2009, 07:26:48 am

Quote from: F9thCenturus on July 13, 2009, 06:38:38 am
What do you mean rounded into the engineering hull?

It looks like it has a hard edge where it comes into the lower hull on the sides. Was thinking if it would do a slight rounding to blend into the lower hull instead of coming in with a square edge would have more fluid/organic lines

But then remember this thought is coming from someone who can't model a ball.

I think I might know what you're talking about. It's the very back edge of the neck, the flat edge. Making it look as if it's grown out from the engineering hull? If that's the case, don't think there's much I can do to fix it. I made the neck as a separate object, so that's probably what was causing that affect. I could always remake the neck, which I guess wouldn't be a bad thing. In fact, a part of me was thinking I should after I finished it off. However, there's no guarantee that I could make it look like it flows into the engineering hull. I think the ship is too low poly for that affect.

However, I could be wrong.

Centurus · « **Reply #14 on:** July 14, 2009, 04:44:04 pm »

I've started work on the main impulse engines and bridge area. Just a general shape right now mind you.

Age · « **Reply #15 on:** July 14, 2009, 04:56:42 pm »

Quote from: Starforce2 on July 11, 2009, 08:53:46 pm

Quote from: Age on July 11, 2009, 08:17:21 pm
Quote from: F9thCenturus on July 11, 2009, 12:30:12 pm
Most of you hopefully are aware of GAFY corrupting me and getting me to seriously consider making a new set of X ships. If not, look at the last couple pages of the IN NEED OF GAFY TEXTURES thread.

Anyway, this is what I've been working on.
Wouldn't it be better if the saucer was turned around.

the X ships have their impulse hosuing protrude from the back. The bite in the front is where the torpedo tubes are.

The reason I say that is because it would better to have fire from the secondary hull.It also has slight look of the Excelsior class.I would look better to have smooth front on saucer.

Wicked Zombie · « **Reply #16 on:** July 14, 2009, 07:26:10 pm »

There isn't a lot of design leeway with this ship as he is basically making a higher detail version of the stock X-Ships. Making major changes to the design would take away from the point of the project.

The stock ships have a number of anomalies that don't make a lot of sense or even look good in some cases, but a lot of that is also what makes the ships recognizable.

Centurus · « **Reply #17 on:** July 15, 2009, 06:13:47 am »

Quote from: Age on July 14, 2009, 04:56:42 pm

Quote from: Starforce2 on July 11, 2009, 08:53:46 pm
Quote from: Age on July 11, 2009, 08:17:21 pm
Quote from: F9thCenturus on July 11, 2009, 12:30:12 pm
Most of you hopefully are aware of GAFY corrupting me and getting me to seriously consider making a new set of X ships. If not, look at the last couple pages of the IN NEED OF GAFY TEXTURES thread.

Anyway, this is what I've been working on.
Wouldn't it be better if the saucer was turned around.

the X ships have their impulse hosuing protrude from the back. The bite in the front is where the torpedo tubes are.

The reason I say that is because it would better to have fire from the secondary hull.It also has slight look of the Excelsior class.I would look better to have smooth front on saucer.

I've had to take a few liberties since some aspects of the old P81 ships are extremely difficult to duplicate. Also, sometimes they don't look right, so I've had to make a few things a bit more Excelsior-ish. However, the overall design is fairly much like the Excelsior, but that doesn't mean it has to be nearly identical to the Excelsior.

Centurus · « **Reply #18 on:** July 15, 2009, 10:41:00 am »

I wasn't too happy with some of the results with the impulse and bridge section of the ship, so I redid it. I'm much happier with this. I also gave this one a bit more detail at this stage, but I won't do much more until I can figure out how I want to tackle the impulse engine shape and the bridge module itself.

Side note, those depressions in the aft end are not the impulse engines. They're shuttlebays.

Centurus · « **Reply #19 on:** July 16, 2009, 10:38:44 am »

Did some basic impulse engines. Hope people are liking the project. I'm gonna finish off this section of the ship when it comes to details. So that means I have to make the bridge and impulse dome/s. Also, I have an idea for a new look for the dome.

Khalee1 · « **Reply #20 on:** July 16, 2009, 11:00:27 am »

Looks good so far. If your doing this in max 9 how are you going to convert it to mod format, as i've rebuilt my connie 4 times sofar and still have shadowing issues with the mesh. Im thinking maybe if I export it out of gmax befor I convert it,that might solve the shadow problems.

Centurus · « **Reply #21 on:** July 16, 2009, 11:21:44 am »

Ive got MAX 5, so I'm gonna export the model to 3DS and then if I can find a mapper, I'll send it off to get mapped. I can't map, and I have tried, but without someone there to kinda show you how to map, it's practically impossible.

I tried Joker's old vid tut, but could never map.

Kreeargh · « **Reply #22 on:** July 21, 2009, 12:01:42 am »

Quote from: F9thCenturus on July 16, 2009, 11:21:44 am

Ive got MAX 5, so I'm gonna export the model to 3DS and then if I can find a mapper, I'll send it off to get mapped. I can't map, and I have tried, but without someone there to kinda show you how to map, it's practically impossible.

I tried Joker's old vid tut, but could never map.

Its not as hard as you think, try this its one way of many Step 1, find editable mesh select the area you want to map ie top saucer in this case. Select all those polys they should turn red in all max versions after 4.2,in the roll out pannel to the right find detach , detach them the popup should say object1 then click on modyfiers/ UV coordniates/Uvwmap that will give you the option to select plainer,cylynder,sphere,and others ,select plainer the x y z coordniates is the one you need to mess with to apply the map. Step2 the globe with the texture i use gmax now so my memory of max 4 and 5 are old but i remember them as matierial editors? select a sphere/globe and click on new,under blinn basic parameters/ diffuse/ bitmap , find your texture and select. Click apply it should apply the map click the 3d checkerd box it should show you the applyed texture in the viewport. Max users if i missed a step please update it

Kreeargh · « **Reply #23 on:** July 21, 2009, 12:08:55 am »

Quote from: Khalee1 on July 16, 2009, 11:00:27 am

Looks good so far. If your doing this in max 9 how are you going to convert it to mod format, as i've rebuilt my connie 4 times sofar and still have shadowing issues with the mesh. Im thinking maybe if I export it out of gmax befor I convert it,that might solve the shadow problems.

Max 9 is not much better than gmax useing the meshsmooth options , the shadow issues you are haveing i bet are caused by 1 of 2 things extra verts or the verts are off kilter slightly makeing it show up as it is. Try looking at the model with out mesh smooth applyed and if you see edge line the vertex got moved some how if it looks smooth then i bet you need to weld verts together to fix. Just a wild guess here

Centurus · « **Reply #24 on:** July 21, 2009, 07:04:16 am »

Using mesh smooth on a model isn't always the best thing to do. At least from what experience I've had with mesh smooth. Also, I don't think he was using Meshsmooth to begin with.

I think his problems are with smoothing groups. Low poly models sometimes have problems when it comes to smoothing.

Spartan-039 · « **Reply #25 on:** July 21, 2009, 10:48:24 am »

Looks very good. I just can help but to be bugged though over the fact it looks like a refitted version of an Execlsior class. Not enough to make think it is, it just gives me that feel. Especially with engineering hull, along with the one spot where the nacelles meet the engineering hull.

Kreeargh · « **Reply #26 on:** July 21, 2009, 11:04:10 pm »

Quote from: F9thCenturus on July 21, 2009, 07:04:16 am

Using mesh smooth on a model isn't always the best thing to do. At least from what experience I've had with mesh smooth. Also, I don't think he was using Meshsmooth to begin with.

I think his problems are with smoothing groups. Low poly models sometimes have problems when it comes to smoothing.

If i recall there are 2 types of mesh smooth 1 type increased the poly the other type does not either way i am no help so i will just watch and wait for your results

FoaS_XC · « **Reply #27 on:** July 21, 2009, 11:32:53 pm »

Smoothing is one thing, Meshsmoothing (also called Subdivision or Turbosmoothing) is different.
Smoothing basically just peturbs the normals of vertexes across different groups of polygons. Meshsmoothing basically subdivides meshes and places the new verts on a certain averages based on the normals of the old verts.

Centurus · « **Reply #28 on:** July 22, 2009, 09:49:15 am »

Quote from: Spartan-039 on July 21, 2009, 10:48:24 am

Looks very good. I just can help but to be bugged though over the fact it looks like a refitted version of an Execlsior class. Not enough to make think it is, it just gives me that feel. Especially with engineering hull, along with the one spot where the nacelles meet the engineering hull.

I know how you feel. I had the same impression the first time I ever saw the XCA, even the stock Taldren models from OP. However, after a while, at least for me, you begin to start seeing them as separate classes, even though they may generally look like an established class.

Centurus · « **Reply #29 on:** July 24, 2009, 03:32:07 pm »

Here's an update. I made the bridge. Kinda elaborate, but I think I nailed it. The smoothing isn't permanent. I just didn't want rough edges in the renders.

FoaS_XC · « **Reply #30 on:** July 24, 2009, 09:42:42 pm »

Just my 2 cents, but i wouldn't just put a lip around the impulse engines, perhaps in conjunction with an reverse-extruded, but not alone.

Centurus · « **Reply #31 on:** July 25, 2009, 09:05:19 am »

They're extruded in, just not that deep.

FoaS_XC · « **Reply #32 on:** July 25, 2009, 09:24:37 am »

then I would deepen it so as not to cheapen it.

Centurus · « **Reply #33 on:** July 25, 2009, 09:45:39 am »

I'm thinking about giving the impulse engines a different look to be honest. My last attempt was very poor, that's why I did what I did. There's still time for it.

In the meantime, I've already finished the placements for the saucer's phaser emitters. I now have to make the emitters themselves, but with the boxes in place, that should be easy. This ship is gonna have some recessed emitters in the banks.

GotAFarmYet? · « **Reply #34 on:** July 25, 2009, 12:55:14 pm »

Depends on how high poly you want the model I guess but I would remove a few things.

The recessed area around the bridge dome is not really needed, and can be removed.
The next area is the valley around the impulse dome you made a valley there that you could have used a simple V shape instead

Centurus · « **Reply #35 on:** July 25, 2009, 03:27:11 pm »

Those were intentional. The impulse dome, I like cause it gives it a little character. The bridge, same, but also controls height, albeit to a very small degree.

Bernard Guignard · « **Reply #36 on:** July 26, 2009, 05:36:56 am »

Very nice work Keep it up. My only concern is l the location of the impulse dome it seems a little too far forward on the saucer
moving it back a little would look good but that is my opinon and you are free to use it or not

Great work all round

Centurus · « **Reply #37 on:** September 03, 2009, 04:07:15 am »

Here's a slight update. I know it's been a while but I've been preoccupied and lazy.

I decided to take Bernard's advice and I resized the impulse crystal and repositioned it. It was fairly easy to do.

I've finished cutting out the launchers for the saucers for the various ships. The CA version will have 2 forward launchers in the saucer, the DN with 3 engines will have 3 forward launchers in the saucer, and the BB with 4 engines will have 4 saucer launchers.

The neck will have 2 launchers for all versions.

I haven't decided if I should do a single or dual deflector theme with the ships. I thought about doing a single deflector for the CA, and dual deflectors for the DN and BB.

And I'm constantly redoing the impulse engines. I just can't seem to find anything I am comfortable with.

Anyway, deflector, should I do a dual deflector for all ships, single deflector for all ships, or a dual deflector for the DN and BB while the CA gets a single deflector?

Bernard Guignard · « **Reply #38 on:** September 04, 2009, 06:23:53 am »

I like the idea for the impulse crystal to be Single for the ca and depending where you are mounting the extra warp engines go Dual for the DN and Battleship.

Centurus · « **Reply #39 on:** September 04, 2009, 09:01:03 am »

I'm going to keep the impulse crystal as a single for all ships. The deflector though I can't decide if I should go single, dual, or a mix.

FoaS_XC · « **Reply #40 on:** September 04, 2009, 09:18:37 am »

Quote from: F9thCenturus on September 04, 2009, 09:01:03 am

I'm going to keep the impulse crystal as a single for all ships. The deflector though I can't decide if I should go single, dual, or a mix.

When in doubt make two versions

atheorhaven · « **Reply #41 on:** September 04, 2009, 12:19:19 pm »

Quote from: F9thCenturus on September 03, 2009, 04:07:15 am

Anyway, deflector, should I do a dual deflector for all ships, single deflector for all ships, or a dual deflector for the DN and BB while the CA gets a single deflector?

My preference:

a dual deflector for the DN and BB while the CA gets a single deflector.

Centurus · « **Reply #42 on:** September 04, 2009, 10:39:22 pm »

True. Since the hulls will be basically identical, with the exception of the deflectors, and I'm not unifying the mesh, kitbashing a dual dish CA or single dish DN/BB would be easy.

Ok, I'll release a CA with a single dish, and the DN and BB will both have dual dishes.

FoaS_XC · « **Reply #43 on:** September 04, 2009, 11:03:43 pm »

Well, the DN hull and the CA hull should have separate elements to make them fit into the design better, beyond the different deflector arrangments. Give the DN an extra shuttlebay or something, like P81's Odyssey, but try to make it adaptable so a person can switch out what they want.

Centurus · « **Reply #44 on:** September 05, 2009, 03:06:31 am »

I don't want to get too fancy.

Centurus · « **Reply #45 on:** September 21, 2009, 11:51:30 pm »

Minor update to show I have been working on the ship, albeit very little.

Centurus · « **Reply #46 on:** November 10, 2009, 02:06:06 am »

Been doing some more work in what time I have. I haven't done much. I did the deflector dish. There are going to be two variants. One is a single dish, and the other are twin deflectors that are smaller than the single dish. I've also made an aft torpedo housing for use on the 3 engine and 4 engine variants of the X ships. Nothing fancy.

markyd · « **Reply #47 on:** November 10, 2009, 06:27:10 am »

Good work mate...

Centurus · « **Reply #48 on:** November 24, 2009, 08:36:34 am »

Another update...

I've finished the phaser box placement on the ship. I like where they are and how they're arranged. I'll work on their emitters next. Each box is actually a triplet turret bank. I've also made a 3rd pylon for the 3 engine variant of this ship, and a joint for it to connect to the ship, as I didn't want it to look like I just placed it there.

Kreeargh · « **Reply #49 on:** November 24, 2009, 09:13:05 pm »

Damn Nice work

Could you make 1 shuttlebay open? So a shuttle can be rigged for flight and the other bay use IM transparancy trick to show a shuttle inside the shield with a door 1/2 way open? Im goan try that on a SW ship but id love to see this on your ship here. Thats if you want to go to that effort all good if not but would rock more with that little extra detail.

Centurus · « **Reply #50 on:** November 25, 2009, 06:33:36 am »

I would if I could, but I don't know how. Think you could help me out on that?

Kreeargh · « **Reply #51 on:** November 26, 2009, 02:06:52 am »

Quote from: Centurus on November 25, 2009, 06:33:36 am

I would if I could, but I don't know how. Think you could help me out on that?

If you see me on msn contact me any time.

Kitchener · « **Reply #52 on:** November 26, 2009, 12:58:42 pm »

looks good, are you going to unify it? there are lots of seperate parts there

Dizzy · « **Reply #53 on:** November 26, 2009, 08:09:55 pm »

I'm liking that mesh.

Centurus · « **Reply #54 on:** November 27, 2009, 01:50:11 am »

I started out as a kitbasher, and I know that there's a small possibility that at least a few people, including myself, may want to make kitbashes from this mesh one day, so F_W was right, I am basher friendly.

F_W and I were and still working on a TNG Excelsior kitbash, and the mapper we managed to get unified the entire mesh, which I think led to a few of the problems we're still having now, but no way to be sure. Either way, most likely I am not going to unify this mesh.

Besides, there aren't that many independent parts. The entire engineering hull, including shuttlebay and deflectors, is all one piece. The phaser boxes themselves are separate. The torpedo pod/pylon assembly is one piece, neck is one piece, impulse assembly one piece, bridge one piece. The nacelles will be independent as well, so there aren't really that many pieces, just several large pieces.

Centurus · « **Reply #55 on:** December 30, 2009, 02:01:47 pm »

I've been working on the warp nacelle, well, the basic shape of it anyway. I'm still gonna work on it and refine it quite a bit. Just thought I'd show that this project isn't dead.

Centurus · « **Reply #56 on:** December 30, 2009, 02:02:41 pm »

P.S. In case you're wondering, no, it doesn't have any mapping. That little textured spot is a finished nacelle I'm using as a basis for my own, and I'm building my own on top of it as a guide for shape and dimension.

Centurus · « **Reply #57 on:** January 10, 2010, 05:31:09 am »

I've done a little more work on the nacelle. Not much, but at least it's progress.

Starforce2 · « **Reply #58 on:** January 10, 2010, 02:11:45 pm »

inspired by that 4 engine tmp from STO?

Centurus · « **Reply #59 on:** January 10, 2010, 05:13:20 pm »

What ship? I don't keep up with STO development anymore. This nacelle is supposed to be a merger of the P81 X ship nacelle and the Sorcerer nacelle.

Starforce2 · « **Reply #60 on:** January 10, 2010, 07:59:02 pm »

there's an sto ship that has that type of boxy nacelle, I thought that was the direction you were going.
http://startrekonline.com/gallery?page=4&op0=&filter0=1

Not sure if that would work, otherwise screenshots page 5 bottom left corner.

Centurus · « **Reply #61 on:** January 11, 2010, 12:00:06 am »

Na, never saw that before. Not too keen on the nacelles.

atheorhaven · « **Reply #62 on:** January 11, 2010, 06:17:27 pm »

Personally, I like the nacelles better than I like the back archy section.. exactly what purpose would an arch like that serve? Besides none and artist vision or whatever.. the implied ingame purpose is what I'm curious about.

Only thing I can think of is that two of these ships join together in a MVAM manuever to become a warp-capable McDonalds...

Starforce2 · « **Reply #63 on:** January 11, 2010, 06:52:38 pm »

you've just created starship porn.

Centurus · « **Reply #64 on:** January 11, 2010, 08:02:26 pm »

Quote from: atheorhaven on January 11, 2010, 06:17:27 pm

Personally, I like the nacelles better than I like the back archy section.. exactly what purpose would an arch like that serve? Besides none and artist vision or whatever.. the implied ingame purpose is what I'm curious about.

Only thing I can think of is that two of these ships join together in a MVAM manuever to become a warp-capable McDonalds...

If that's the case, I hope they're making better burgers in the 25th century.

atheorhaven · « **Reply #65 on:** January 12, 2010, 10:52:29 am »

Well, I suspect that meal worm burgers would be easier to make when you can raise the biomass in zero-g.

atheorhaven · « **Reply #66 on:** January 12, 2010, 10:53:21 am »

Quote from: Starforce2 on January 11, 2010, 06:52:38 pm

you've just created starship porn.

Hey, where do you think shuttles come from?

Centurus · « **Reply #67 on:** March 15, 2010, 04:45:17 am »

Ok, before you start thinking to yourself, "Oh here we go again, another thread resurrection", keep in mind, threads deader than this have been brought back to the front page. :-D

Anyway, I did some more work on the warp nacelle. I'm trying to come up with different variants of the nacelle so that the X ships don't all have the same looking engine.

Here's some updated pics...

Centurus · « **Reply #68 on:** March 30, 2010, 02:25:47 am »

Ok, since I haven't had a chance to do much with the ship since I last posted an update, I thought I would at least post some images of what the XCA looks like. For the most part, the XCA itself is finished. However, seeing the ship with engines, I think I might reduce the thickness of the engines, since they look a bit too fat to me.

FoaS_XC · « **Reply #69 on:** March 30, 2010, 11:36:03 am »

I'm inclined to agree. I would say about half to 2/3s that thickness

Starfox1701 · « **Reply #70 on:** March 30, 2010, 01:45:39 pm »

I don't know. She is about the size of a Coni right? If so the engines would be about the right size since they are supose to be big and overpowered right.

Centurus · « **Reply #71 on:** March 30, 2010, 02:38:37 pm »

Starfox: Her size is supposed to be between a Connie and an Excelsior. I have to redo the torpedo tubes on the ship. They're too big for the ship.

FoaS: I was thinking the same thing, roughly around 2/3 the thickness.

Centurus · « **Reply #72 on:** April 08, 2010, 07:28:29 am »

Finished the DN and BB nacelles. I know they don't look any different. I didn't bother with any fancy lighting, but maybe you can make out the differences.

Centurus · « **Reply #73 on:** April 09, 2010, 01:41:56 am »

Ok, some renders of the DN with her engines. Note, I haven't resized the engines. I intend to do that when all modeling is done.

Starfox1701 · « **Reply #74 on:** April 09, 2010, 01:14:54 pm »

As a Cruiser the design works but as a Dread it just doesn't look beefy enough. Engines are good but the Rest of the ship needs to be bulked up around them.

Centurus · « **Reply #75 on:** April 09, 2010, 04:17:34 pm »

It's not always about size when it comes to dreads. The Federation Class is considered a dread, even though she's no bigger than a Constitution. Her two primary engines are lowered in elevation, and she has an additional warp engine mounted at the top of a thicker neck.

FoaS_XC · « **Reply #76 on:** April 09, 2010, 09:57:39 pm »

Well, the Tos FDN has a longer secondary hull and a thicker saucer. Size isn't always about length.

Centurus · « **Reply #77 on:** April 10, 2010, 01:13:13 am »

Very true, but I don't think the dread version of the ship needs to be beefier in anyway.

FoaS_XC · « **Reply #78 on:** April 10, 2010, 06:25:48 am »

I feel like it needs to be different - if only slightly. SFB-itis aka: Kitbash-Syndrome is not a good thing most of the time.

Starfox1701 · « **Reply #79 on:** April 10, 2010, 07:53:36 am »

Think about the practical side too. You have all the extra Equipment and crew of a Dread. Ths stuff has to go somewhere. The renforced hull segments to hold up that 3rd engine have to have room too. A true Dread is more then a 3rd engine and 4 extra phaser banks.

Centurus · « **Reply #80 on:** April 11, 2010, 01:26:20 am »

Well if anyone wants to rework it when these are finished, they can go ahead. As for me, I don't see any problems with the ship as is, with the exception of the thickness of the engines.

Centurus · « **Reply #81 on:** April 14, 2010, 07:03:50 am »

I've resized the warp engines. They are now 80 percent as thick as they once were. Not sure if I should make them thinner. Here's an image of how the XCA looks now with thinner engines. Should I make them thinner or are they good as is?

FoaS_XC · « **Reply #82 on:** April 14, 2010, 08:10:35 am »

Could you show us it with another 10% chopped off the nacelles?

Centurus · « **Reply #83 on:** April 14, 2010, 08:28:05 am »

You mean 10% more thin?

FoaS_XC · « **Reply #84 on:** April 14, 2010, 08:28:32 am »

Centurus · « **Reply #85 on:** April 14, 2010, 08:55:46 am »

Nacelles at 70% of their original thickness.

Starfox1701 · « **Reply #86 on:** April 14, 2010, 12:14:07 pm »

I like it better at 80%

Bernard Guignard · « **Reply #87 on:** April 14, 2010, 06:23:53 pm »

Same here 80% looks really good unless you want to try for 75%

Keep up the great work

Centurus · « **Reply #88 on:** April 14, 2010, 10:24:40 pm »

I think 75 would be a good compromise. I might do 85 for the DN/BB engines.

Centurus · « **Reply #89 on:** April 17, 2010, 10:21:25 am »

Well, not much has happened. I have, however, converted the XCA over to editable mesh to get a poly count, and so far, the ship stands at 9930 polys as an editable mesh. All that's left to do mesh wise is finish phasers, which is just making the turrets. I may not even make them and just have them textured onto the phaser blocks that I have currently in place now.

Just thought I'd let people know of the poly count.

Kreeargh · « **Reply #90 on:** April 18, 2010, 01:00:35 am »

Quote from: Centurus on April 17, 2010, 10:21:25 am

Well, not much has happened. I have, however, converted the XCA over to editable mesh to get a poly count, and so far, the ship stands at 9930 polys as an editable mesh. All that's left to do mesh wise is finish phasers, which is just making the turrets. I may not even make them and just have them textured onto the phaser blocks that I have currently in place now.

Just thought I'd let people know of the poly count.

Textures can cover smoothness so you can cut poly on the round parts ie bridge and impulse detail . Keep the saucer the same but any other details in the saucer mesh thats round can be cut and textures can replace it. (Ignore me] .
Good job

Bernard Guignard · « **Reply #91 on:** April 18, 2010, 07:36:15 am »

Show a wire frame images of what you currently have and then perhaps the experienced Modelers can give you suggestions as to how
to optmize the Mesh to get the Polys down

Great Job by the way

Centurus · « **Reply #92 on:** April 18, 2010, 10:39:28 am »

I like the poly count the way it is. I was afraid I was going to end up over 11k on the XCA alone, and the fact that I have it under 10k, that's great for me. Because I've worked with the mesh so long, I know where I can cut down polys, but I don't want to lose the detail.

Tus-XC · « **Reply #93 on:** April 18, 2010, 12:17:08 pm »

I would say you probably could shave 2-3k off of it w/o loss of detail if done in the right spots

Look good though, espceially w/ the thinner nacelles.

Centurus · « **Reply #94 on:** April 19, 2010, 11:28:21 am »

Ok, I went in and cut the poly count down by roughly 600 polys. The only places left to cut down the poly count in large numbers are the impulse engines and the saucer itself, and those I will not touch at all for anything.

Question though, should I keep the phaser block placements and have phasers textured on, discard the blocks and put in turrets in their place, or turrets and blocks. And if I do go with turrets, should I try and go with something different, or just the regular sphere shape.

Starfox1701 · « **Reply #95 on:** April 19, 2010, 12:26:38 pm »

Phaser strips entered service some time between 2310 and 2320 so I supose you could try some kind of proto strip.

Centurus · « **Reply #96 on:** April 19, 2010, 01:10:30 pm »

The phaser arrays entered service circa 2330 at the earliest. These ships predate that time period.

Tus-XC · « **Reply #97 on:** April 19, 2010, 03:37:32 pm »

could use the phaser turret 'track'

FoaS_XC · « **Reply #98 on:** April 19, 2010, 08:51:57 pm »

Is that the one that WZ made for his X-ship? I thought that was a pretty cool idea.

If you are in love with idea of the phaser bulbs, I'd say model them on. They don't take up too many polies, and the textured one's really show themselves to be just that: textured.

Centurus · « **Reply #99 on:** April 19, 2010, 11:36:56 pm »

The rail phasers are a good idea, and I'll probably use it on another project sometime. I may even make a variant of this ship with them, maybe not. I think I will include the turrets, but I think I want to make them more than simple spheres. Give them a different shape. I'm playing around with a few ideas in my head. And I might keep the phaser blocks as well.

News:

Topic: X Ships Project.... (Read 24539 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

Topic: X Ships Project.... (Read 24539 times)