TBeholder wrote: ...and that's exactly what i meant above. Which part is hard to understand?
That connecting engines to the hull by U-shaped consoles looks like a weird idea?..
I don't understand why you think you should be removing missile launchers after I was specifically ordered to put them on the mesh. I don't understand what the hell a "U-console" or "U-profile" is, I thought maybe you meant before something like "UV-profile" but now it sounds like you are talking about a geometry feature, which you don't like but I had to add to the mesh or else THIS PROJECT WOULD NOT ACCEPT IT. I had to follow the concept art on the wiki for the Derivative.
Have you even looked at the concept art on the wiki? Do you realize the old VS project leadership approved that concept and wouldn't accept any other model for the derivative unless it looked like that? So why don't you argue this point with them instead of coming after me as the whimsical artist acting alone to destroy your sense of faction consistency?
You wrote above that the fact at the moment you painted missiles on the model should be a necessary and enough reason to change the ship's game stats. And now it isn't.
As Rlaan chat tree says, "Are you of two minds,,,", etc.
Management told me NOT TO FOLLOW THE STATS but to FOLLOW THE CONCEPT in making the derivative model. They just never got around to fixing the stats apparently, but that wasn't my job, I was just a modeler at the time and didn't know how to set stats in the VS engine.
And now they are long gone. Do you realize you are arguing with me about a problem created by an
extinct system of developers? How is that productive?
Exactly, "may or may not yet". So the net result is that now there's no common style at all. It was "changed" in one half-done model, then abandoned halfway like this. For how long?..
And it remains frozen, and you already ran away to something new. If there is any reason to assume that this one will ever be finished, as opposed to breaking the style in half once more, i just don't see it.
Like I said, I won't feel bad if folks want to chuck out the derivative model or make it a forsaken interceptor. In fact I'd prefer we junk the entire Unadorned faction, it is weakly defined and superfluous in every way. And most importantly
we need less ships and factions.
Which is unlike "seemingly radical changes" of that Derivative how?
The consequence model is different from the derivative in that:
1) It is much more sophisticated-ly modeled, technically speaking. (Better modeling-for-shading, many more thoughtful fine details in both mesh and texture upon release.)
2) Part of an entire faction (Purist) redo by one artist (me) instead of four artists as was the case with Unadorned.
3) Everything is released at once when fully complete.
4) The derivative looks "chunky" but isn't supposed to, I fundamentally botched its aesthetics but have put more attention into this with the consequence.
I don't see how it contradicts the point "for most features, it either doesn't need more than a bumpmap, or will need a submodel or something like".
Bump mapping is flat and at many angles it looks it. It doesn't replace modeling, not even for greebles. It is just another tool in the toolbox, not the ultimate weapon. Good modelers use both small models and normal maps to create the feeling of fine details.
Did you really just write that mount models set by the engine are "random eye candy and not a reflection of the simulation" as opposed to whatever stuff got painted at random into model and doesn't change?
Yes and I explained in detail why. And now I'll go on to make a point even further. A great many ships, including all the Aera ones by design, mount weapons inside their hull or in pods where they are protected from enemy fire. This has the side effect of making the actual weapons essentially invisible from the outside and thus weapon changes are invisible. So we really don't
need this feature, PU uses it and you can probably find the code in the engine for them and similar projects to use, but VS' artstyle is different unless we decide to change it.
The consequence has generic missile pods and a gun pod (a housing, perhaps armored, that contains a gun inside of it). So any changes to load out would not affect its outward visual appearance. Still, this can be changed if done so before UV work begins.
I want from a model in simulation to make some sense and fit with others in style - again, when this makes sense. The "airbus" doesn't, by the way.
Plowshare is a truck, so it can get away with gluing a shuttle to a box, but at least it doesn't look like it got a passenger cabin on top.
I am sorry that you can see more in common with an airbus than the admonisher or plowshare cockpits while I cannot. But I can't fix a problem I can't see. Maybe the EVA handles are giving you the impression of passenger windows because they are too uniform and on both sides; that might be a good fix.
Well, yeah. I doubt any step between texture and submodel will do much good here, but why not. In this case, the preview is highly non-indicative.
Try to imagine glow maps providing a cherenkov glow from the centers of those small cylinders on various sides of the ship. Then imagine strong thrust cones shooting out of them in coordinated fashion as the ship rolls and strafes. That's the ultimate planned effect when both the model and game engine thruster graphics code are complete.
Last I checked Lego blocks don't emit on command streams of dense and hot plasma as it may be dangerous to small children.