Consequence Interceptor Concept

Thinking about improving the Artwork in Vega Strike, or making your own Mod? Submit your question and ideas in this forum.

Moderator: pyramid

Consequence Interceptor Concept

Postby Cockroach » Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:23 pm

From Wiki:
In some ways similar to the Unadorned's Derivative, the Consequence is a primarily missile-based interceptor. However, key differences arise in the manner of missile deployed - while the Unadorned produce some of the best sensor packages and targetting solution equipment in the Confederation and employ suitably crafty missiles that take advantage of this fact and are equally at home chasing bombers, corvettes, and even larger strike craft, the Purists prefer to rely on less fancy guarantees of success. The Consequence positively bristles with short-ranged, fast-locking missiles that make up for their shortcomings in being able to confidently promise hit-on-target for anything more maneuverable than a corvette with their much greater volume of fire and gross warhead yield. Secondary armament is equally simple, consisting of a single spinally mounted mass driver running the length of the craft at bottom (indeed, defining the length of the craft, as it extends in both directions beyond the otherwise boxy main body). Somewhat bulky and sluggish in comparison to interceptors produced by other factions, the Consequence tends to find itself relegated to protecting rear assets rather than front-line ones.


The main body of the craft is somewhat boxy, topped off with a cockpit similar to that of the Vessel:Admonisher and Vessel:Plowshare. The engines are in two blocks, left and right, with the cockpit, ship internals, and spinal mounted mass driver between the two engine blocks. Radiator fins extend from the engine blocks, and the missiles are located in pods attached to each side of the craft.


Initial Hull geometry without weapons and engines (Rev. 1):
Image
Image
Image

Angle shots:
Image
Image

Smoothed:
Image
Image

I took the basic layout of the Admonisher and made it more compact with more fins, I was going for something with really tightly packed fins like on the Progeny, but didn't think I could get them in there without making it look too Shaper and not enough like a flying brick Purist design.

Questions:
1. What type of mass driver is going to be on this? Is it a new weapon, the existing mass driver, or is it going to be built into some kind of milspec package?
2. Are reverse and turning thrusters going to be in the game any time soon?
3. As far as missiles go, about how many and what type? Will it be something like a mix of "small/medium missile" and "small/medium special-missle"?
Cockroach
Merchant
Merchant
 
Posts: 56
Topics: 4
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 10:52 pm

Share On:

Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter Share on Digg Digg

Re: Consequence Interceptor Concept

Postby Deus Siddis » Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:34 pm

Sorry but this won't work for a couple of reasons.

1) The detail level is nowhere near where it would need to be. You seem to be following a poly budget so low it is about a decade behind the times. Please have a look through This Thread and take note of what chuck_starchaser says.

2) It's my fault I didn't post this earlier, but I actually already started work on the Consequence:

Image

Image


And a new model for the Admonisher (still WIP):

Image

Image


In fact it's best if you stay clear of working on any Purist ships, or at least these ones plus the Pacifier, Vigilance and Plowshare, since I plan to redo these ships to in a similar style and greater detail level.
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1362
Topics: 13
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 8:42 am

Re: Consequence Interceptor Concept

Postby Cockroach » Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:03 pm

Deus Siddis wrote:Sorry but this won't work for a couple of reasons.

1) The detail level is nowhere near where it would need to be. You seem to be following a poly budget so low it is about a decade behind the times. Please have a look through This Thread and take note of what chuck_starchaser says.

2) It's my fault I didn't post this earlier, but I actually already started work on the Consequence:

*snip*

And a new model for the Admonisher (still WIP):

*snip*

In fact it's best if you stay clear of working on any Purist ships, or at least these ones plus the Pacifier, Vigilance and Plowshare, since I plan to redo these ships to in a similar style and greater detail level.


Thanks, was just a 90min sketch I did of it trying to iron it out when I saw it was open in the wiki. By no means a finished product.
Cockroach
Merchant
Merchant
 
Posts: 56
Topics: 4
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 10:52 pm

Re: Consequence Interceptor Concept

Postby Fendorin » Thu Jul 29, 2010 12:59 pm

Deus Siddis wrote:Sorry but this won't work for a couple of reasons.

1) The detail level is nowhere near where it would need to be. You seem to be following a poly budget so low it is about a decade behind the times. Please have a look through This Thread and take note of what chuck_starchaser says.

2) It's my fault I didn't post this earlier, but I actually already started work on the Consequence:

Image

Image


And a new model for the Admonisher (still WIP):

Image

Image


In fact it's best if you stay clear of working on any Purist ships, or at least these ones plus the Pacifier, Vigilance and Plowshare, since I plan to redo these ships to in a similar style and greater detail level.


i like the consistencies of those starship are you going to redesign all Purist manufactured starship ??
User avatar
Fendorin
Elite Venturer
Elite Venturer
 
Posts: 725
Topics: 57
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:01 am
Location: France, Paris

Re: Consequence Interceptor Concept

Postby Deus Siddis » Thu Jul 29, 2010 1:18 pm

Fendorin wrote:i like the consistencies of those starship are you going to redesign all Purist manufactured starship ??


That's the plan, or at least all of the playable ones I want to redo like this.

As such, with your permission I'd like to redo the Vigilance in a similar style and level of detail. The model you did for it could be reused to represent a different ship from another faction, especially one still waiting for a model.
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1362
Topics: 13
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 8:42 am

Re: Consequence Interceptor Concept

Postby Fendorin » Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:35 am

Deus Siddis wrote:
Fendorin wrote:i like the consistencies of those starship are you going to redesign all Purist manufactured starship ??


That's the plan, or at least all of the playable ones I want to redo like this.

As such, with your permission I'd like to redo the Vigilance in a similar style and level of detail. The model you did for it could be reused to represent a different ship from another faction, especially one still waiting for a model.


yes you can i don't really care the current vigilance can be used for Forsaken starship why not
User avatar
Fendorin
Elite Venturer
Elite Venturer
 
Posts: 725
Topics: 57
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:01 am
Location: France, Paris

Re: Consequence Interceptor Concept

Postby Deus Siddis » Fri Jul 30, 2010 4:06 pm

Cool, thanks.
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1362
Topics: 13
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 8:42 am

Re: Consequence Interceptor Concept

Postby TBeholder » Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:00 am

Fendorin wrote:i like the consistencies of those starship are you going to redesign all Purist manufactured starship ??
These are good, but it's not like there's too much consistent styles for factions.
Purist ships, IMO, got fairly consistent looks already - why not to keep it? It's crude, of course, but why not - that's recognizable crudeness and it works too...
"Two Eyes Good, Eleven Eyes Better." -Michele Carter
User avatar
TBeholder
Elite Venturer
Elite Venturer
 
Posts: 747
Topics: 38
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:40 pm
Location: chthonic safety

Re: Consequence Interceptor Concept

Postby Deus Siddis » Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:26 pm

TBeholder wrote:Purist ships, IMO, got fairly consistent looks already - why not to keep it? It's crude, of course, but why not - that's recognizable crudeness and it works too...


Leave it to the VS community to always oppose any change out of hand. Adding something new is fine but dare to change anything already in game... HERESY!

VS Community wrote:"This new Derivative model doesn't look like a fucking airplane WTF THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS BEFORE THIS IS BAD!"

"But if defending myself against Luddites and Uln doesn't unite the whole galaxy against me anymore then OMG HOW WILL I GET NEGATIVE ATTENTION SAVE ME KANYE!"

"Wait but without 100g base accelerations things won't happen instantly THIS IS DIFFERENT BAD FOR GAMEPLAY!"

"Purist ships can't have more than six sides and fugly textures or else MY EYES WON'T BLEED WHEN I LOOK AT IT I HATE NEW GRAPHICS!"


Now fall before the even newer and more updated Consequence render and then squirm under the radiant heat of its different-ness until you are thoroughly crispy and dead--

Image
Image
Image
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1362
Topics: 13
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 8:42 am

Re: Consequence Interceptor Concept

Postby TBeholder » Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:36 am

Deus Siddis wrote:
TBeholder wrote:Purist ships, IMO, got fairly consistent looks already - why not to keep it? It's crude, of course, but why not - that's recognizable crudeness and it works too...
[...]
VS Community wrote:"This new Derivative model doesn't look like a fucking airplane WTF THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS BEFORE THIS IS BAD!"

"But if defending myself against Luddites and Uln doesn't unite the whole galaxy against me anymore then OMG HOW WILL I GET NEGATIVE ATTENTION SAVE ME KANYE!"

"Wait but without 100g base accelerations things won't happen instantly THIS IS DIFFERENT BAD FOR GAMEPLAY!"

"Purist ships can't have more than six sides and fugly textures or else MY EYES WON'T BLEED WHEN I LOOK AT IT I HATE NEW GRAPHICS!"
Far be it from me to interfere in a shaman's work. :roll: But after your communication with the spirit of forums.vega-strike.org will be finished, and provided its arguments will not sound convincing enough, maybe you could explain why it's so important to assign a new model to this and not that existing ship, given the considerations above and the amount of ships existing only as a generic concept or just name + role.
"Two Eyes Good, Eleven Eyes Better." -Michele Carter
User avatar
TBeholder
Elite Venturer
Elite Venturer
 
Posts: 747
Topics: 38
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:40 pm
Location: chthonic safety

Re: Consequence Interceptor Concept

Postby Deus Siddis » Fri Jan 13, 2012 10:15 am

TBeholder wrote:maybe you could explain why it's so important to assign a new model to this and not that existing ship, given the considerations above and the amount of ships existing only as a generic concept or just name + role.


Thanking you for helping illustrate my point. If I understand your syntax correctly, you are asking why change existing content created in 2003 (while we are now in 2012 with somewhat better GPUs you might say) when we could instead just add a new spaceship model to the heap of them in game. In other words, why change anything when we can just add more!

So why is it so important that I commit the heresy of suggesting once again we change and improve something existing rather than add something new beside it, you ask?

  • Most existing graphics are ancient and they look it.
  • Any ancient graphics in game drag down the appearance of the whole game they are a part of.
  • There are more ships now than there are possible noticeable differences between them as far as gameplay balance can provide.
  • Balancing or updating the graphics of the massive quantity of ships has proven unattainable for this project with its past or present developer power.
  • You can't just keep adding new content forever, eventually you will have to come to terms with improving what you already have rather than adding more.

Never mind the fact all the above renders do show crude features heavily inspired by legacy models of Purists ships like the Plowshare and Admonisher or that the Consequence is a new ship. It seems if you dare try to make even a slight change from what is already in game then we have a problem.
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1362
Topics: 13
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 8:42 am

Re: Consequence Interceptor Concept

Postby klauss » Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:06 pm

There's something to be gained from concentrating effort on what needs it more prominently.

Admonisher, Pacifier and the like, are quite decent already. Yes, the polies are few, but the textures are high-quality, and they look a lot better than a lot other models.

I'm not opposing new models in similar style but higher detail, but there are other places where such work is needed far more.

I believe that's TBeholder's point as well.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
User avatar
klauss
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 7243
Topics: 55
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:40 am
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: Consequence Interceptor Concept

Postby Deus Siddis » Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:29 pm

klauss wrote:There's something to be gained from concentrating effort on what needs it more prominently.


But do we need more ships; do we need ~200 ships + X bases as the wiki suggests, all of which so few content creators would have to maintain? And then what about content for base and ship interiors, planet surfaces and characters and other things emerging features will need? This project can't have this kind of quantity and quality and not have the budget and revenues of world of warcraft.

We need to start thinking about scaling back and improving a much smaller content set instead of only adding new things because we don't want to change anything we've become accustomed to.

Admonisher, Pacifier and the like, are quite decent already. Yes, the polies are few, but the textures are high-quality, and they look a lot better than a lot other models.


Well yes they look good when compared to even older models in game, but those should also be replaced or maybe just outright removed. I'm more than fine with that but I don't know if that changes the application of this model as a specifically purist ship, since it inherits a number of specifically purist design features.

I'm not opposing new models in similar style but higher detail, but there are other places where such work is needed far more.
I believe that's TBeholder's point as well.


Well on closer inspection of what turbo beholder said, he probably did originally mean to improve on other work with less intra-faction consistency, and wasn't married to the current purist models. I just wish you had brought this to my attention before I crisped him, damn.
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1362
Topics: 13
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 8:42 am

Re: Consequence Interceptor Concept

Postby klauss » Fri Jan 13, 2012 7:08 pm

Deus Siddis wrote:Well yes they look good when compared to even older models in game, but those should also be replaced or maybe just outright removed. I'm more than fine with that but I don't know if that changes the application of this model as a specifically purist ship, since it inherits a number of specifically purist design features.

No it doesn't change its applicability. But it does point where further work is needed.

Also, bear in mind that modern GPUs aren't that much better than older ones. There's an overwhelming majority of onboard GPUs, which are decent enough that people won't put a discrete GPU in, but bad enough that models with the kind of detail the screenshots show would significantly slow down the game without LODs and careful usage of baked normal maps.

LODs being the key. Baking normalmaps another good point to make.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
User avatar
klauss
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 7243
Topics: 55
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:40 am
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: Consequence Interceptor Concept

Postby Deus Siddis » Fri Jan 13, 2012 10:46 pm

LoDs are a must with this complexity level, 9000 vertices and 12000 tris in that render. That or something a bit smaller would be the top LoD, which is roughly twice what the derivative had. I believe that with quality texturing this could have a high degree of future proofing.
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1362
Topics: 13
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 8:42 am

Re: Consequence Interceptor Concept

Postby Hicks » Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:57 pm

I agree that some of the older models and textures need to be updated. If we keep on adding new ships, the old ones will bring the quality of the game down.
I have tried blender and texturing but i am useless at it. I think that we might need to get a small group of perople and go through the ships one by one, re-balance them, check the models and textures, and add in some more LODs if required. I am more then happy to do the rebalancing if some people want to help me out with the models and textures.
Hicks
Bounty Hunter
Bounty Hunter
 
Posts: 153
Topics: 10
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 2:17 am

Re: Consequence Interceptor Concept

Postby TBeholder » Sat Jan 14, 2012 3:27 am

Deus Siddis wrote:you are asking why change existing content created in 2003
Exactly.
Deus Siddis wrote: (while we are now in 2012 with somewhat better GPUs you might say)

  • For a demo, More Megatexel! porn may be a good thing, but not for a game.
  • I didn't receive any memo that palmtops and other stuff less than "gamer PC" shall be left out in the cold. VS still keeping an eye on <101 keyboards doesn't exactly simplify things nor makes me happy (IMO default controls are barely useable), but it's a fact of life.
Deus Siddis wrote:So why is it so important that I commit the heresy of suggesting once again we change and improve something existing rather than add something new beside it, you ask?
Eh, no. I ask not why you want to improve. I ask why you want to throw away and replace with completely new content at random (you still didn't mention any reason why this and not that, beyond generic eye-candiness). It's not the same at all.
An improvement applied to, say, the current Derivative model would be turning it so it won't look backwards (...!).
Then, removing from it meshes of missiles (on mounts that are equally likely to be filled like this, empty or reinforced and replaced with Stormfires) and rocket packs (on mounts that aren't Special-Missile at all).
I'll try to figure out LoDs myself now, because apparently no one cares about improvement of graphics even this much.
Deus Siddis wrote:
  • Most existing graphics are ancient and they look it.
  • Any ancient graphics in game drag down the appearance of the whole game they are a part of.
  • There are more ships now than there are possible noticeable differences between them as far as gameplay balance can provide.
  • Balancing or updating the graphics of the massive quantity of ships has proven unattainable for this project with its past or present developer power.
  • You can't just keep adding new content forever, eventually you will have to come to terms with improving what you already have rather than adding more.
  • As in lack of better textures or as in not being fashionable? The former is a matter of better textures / maps baking, not random replacement of meshes.
  • Tied to the above. Bad textures perhaps do; ugly models where they belong don't (eye candy for the sake of eye candy is plain bad taste).
  • In other words, new content needs other (much less time-consuming) new content, such as tweaking factions away from placeholders.
  • So pointlessly changing things is better than adding because... pointlessly changing more things would be harder? Er...
  • Well, yeah. But there's a bottomless pit of possibilities - "another era" expansions, mods, and so on. Again, is the goal "to make a good setting fitting together" or "where to unload this"? Neither is unsolvable, it's just a good idea to keep them explicit and not mix.
    As long as half of the artstyles are unfilled, this argument is kind of far fetched, however.
Deus Siddis wrote: Never mind the fact all the above renders do show crude features heavily inspired by legacy models of Purists ships like the Plowshare and Admonisher or that the Consequence is a new ship.
My question was merely about fitting into existing styles. You raised an issue about changing old ships... and Derivative. :twisted:

Deus Siddis wrote: do we need ~200 ships + X bases as the wiki suggests,
Maybe, maybe not. Just list which ones you think are superfluous.
Keeping in mind that it's not "one size fits all planet cocacola", but lots of factions, each going its own way as far as it can afford, in an open universe spanning wide enough that even within most factions uniformity is questionable (Andolian hivemind - of course, LIHW - hardly).
Deus Siddis wrote: all of which so few content creators would have to maintain?
What maintainance it needs?
Deus Siddis wrote:And then what about content for base and ship interiors, planet surfaces and characters and other things emerging features will need? This project can't have this kind of quantity and quality and not have the budget and revenues of world of warcraft.
In the presence of most unprotected screenshots from world of warcruft my eyes are trying to curdle and turn inside out. I hope VS will never approach what passes for "quality" and/or "art" there. :lol: Otherwise - well, yeah, it's slow.
Deus Siddis wrote:
Admonisher, Pacifier and the like, are quite decent already. Yes, the polies are few, but the textures are high-quality, and they look a lot better than a lot other models.
Well yes they look good when compared to even older models in game, but [...] I don't know if that changes the application of this model as a specifically purist ship, since it inherits a number of specifically purist design features.
Currently, common style of Purists consists of armored bricks with thrusters and a few necessary elements sticking out of them, falling back to "brick with thrusters" when the rest is not called for. :) Where "fancy" fits into "sledgehammer"?
"Two Eyes Good, Eleven Eyes Better." -Michele Carter
User avatar
TBeholder
Elite Venturer
Elite Venturer
 
Posts: 747
Topics: 38
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:40 pm
Location: chthonic safety

Re: Consequence Interceptor Concept

Postby Deus Siddis » Sat Jan 14, 2012 2:06 pm

TBeholder wrote:I didn't receive any memo that palmtops and other stuff less than "gamer PC" shall be left out in the cold.


I never got one saying no model could have a highest level of detail not realtime renderable on an iFad.

I ask why you want to throw away and replace with completely new content at random (you still didn't mention any reason why this and not that, beyond generic eye-candiness).


No not at random, my reasons were-

1) I wanted to focus on models of strike craft. They are presently the focus of gameplay but lack gameplay balance and have mediocre graphics.
2) The Unadorned have a new set of models and the Highborn, Shaper, Aera, Rlaan and many others have strike craft graphics of similar quality to Purists.
3) Graphics are 90% about eye candy. Otherwise why not use flat shading and geometric primitives for graphics. Then you could play VS on a Newton.

I'll try to figure out LoDs myself now, because apparently no one cares about improvement of graphics even this much.


Most strike craft have LoDs already. Sometime before 0.5.0 someone apparently applied a subsurfaces modifier to all the strike craft to create different LoDs of "smoothness". However this is a stopgap, you get a lot more out of your polys when a content creator 'gets his hands dirty' and does them my hand, which is exactly what I do with all models I have made and will make in the future. So you are preaching to the choir here, I am big in to LoDs and have been for some time.

My question was merely about fitting into existing styles. You raised an issue about changing old ships... and Derivative. :twisted:


The derivative was terribly crafted by me when I didn't know how to work mesher. Every time I see it in game I feel sorry I submitted it. I didn't know it was still flying backwards though.

What maintainance it needs?


All present day graphics will eventually look obsolete due to improving standards. Thus graphics have a 'shelf life' before they should be replaced. The more you have the more work it will take to replace them.

In the presence of most unprotected screenshots from world of warcruft my eyes are trying to curdle and turn inside out. I hope VS will never approach what passes for "quality" and/or "art" there.


The point is warcraft fields a flood of new content, craptastic as it is, because they have a tremendous budget. VS doesn't, so it can't even crapspam the 200+ ships and installations the wiki calls for. If you want quality content you need to demand even less quantity.

Currently, common style of Purists consists of armored bricks with thrusters and a few necessary elements sticking out of them, falling back to "brick with thrusters" when the rest is not called for. :) Where "fancy" fits into "sledgehammer"?


The admonisher and vigilance models look nothing like bricks. The pacifier looks like a shark. The purist style is a bit more diverse than you make it out to be. Can you not see any similarities between the above renders of the consequence and the current model of the admonisher?
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1362
Topics: 13
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 8:42 am

Re: Consequence Interceptor Concept

Postby travists » Sat Jan 14, 2012 4:14 pm

I feel I must interject at this point.
klauss wrote:Also, bear in mind that modern GPUs aren't that much better than older ones. There's an overwhelming majority of onboard GPUs, which are decent enough that people won't put a discrete GPU in, but bad enough that models with the kind of detail the screenshots show would significantly slow down the game without LODs and careful usage of baked normal maps.


While I have upgraded my graphics card (ATI Radeon HD 5450 w/ 512 RAM), and my memory (3GB), my base computer is an '06 Dell. An attempt to keep up with the hottest games will limit the ships to about three and exclude all but hardcore gamers. Conversely, leaving completed ships as they are will give the game a dated look.

However:
  • The original pong, nearly non-existant graphics and all, is still popular. As are text adventures and TAs enhanced with static images. Graphics may initially sell games, but solid game play keeps them coming back.
  • Current ships, by and large, meet current needs. Improvement and replacement is nice, but a complete teardown would keep everything consistent. Where is that mass of content going to come from?
  • From my experience: expanding options, refining the upgrade process, developing story line(s) and tangent campaigns, and generally updating game play is needed far more than flashier ships.
Now can the current engine, or Ogre, use displacement maps? A good displacement map can turn a six poly cube into a brick wall with textured bricks an mortar lines and everything.

And while on the subject of updating graphics, how about the fixers? My first impression of the game, walking into the bar on Atlantis was What's with the graffiti artist cartoon character doing on this beautiful screen!?
User avatar
travists
Expert Mercenary
Expert Mercenary
 
Posts: 893
Topics: 33
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 4:43 pm
Location: Sol III North American Continent

Re: Consequence Interceptor Concept

Postby TBeholder » Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:30 am

Deus Siddis wrote:3) Graphics are 90% about eye candy. Otherwise why not use flat shading and geometric primitives for graphics. Then you could play VS on a Newton.
I am familiar with this concept. I noticed that excess of eye candy all too frequently leads to eye ileus, however. :lol:
And/or thorough unusability. That's what leads to surrealistic interfaces, from Microsoft Bob to Unity, quite obviously spawned by magpie design - piling together all and any "shiny" features the feathered developer saw somewhere without a single thought about the functionality, such as caring whether they even make any sense together.
The opposite school of thought, naturally, posits that outside of demo scene, graphics are first about conveying information visually, and next about whatever is added on top of this.
Returning to our mining bases, models in a simulator are supposed to (surprise) reflect the game world. Which doesn't happen at all with, for example, the same trilateral Derivative.
Deus Siddis wrote:
I'll try to figure out LoDs myself now, because apparently no one cares about improvement of graphics even this much.
Most strike craft have LoDs already. Sometime before 0.5.0 someone apparently applied a subsurfaces modifier to all the strike craft to create different LoDs of "smoothness". However this is a stopgap, you get a lot more out of your polys when a content creator 'gets his hands dirty' and does them my hand, which is exactly what I do with all models I have made and will make in the future. So you are preaching to the choir here, I am big in to LoDs and have been for some time.
I'm afraid you don't copy. :roll: Let me spell it. My intent to dive into LoDs was not expressed as a cheerful call to join.
It's the messy (as it's implemented now) prerequisite i need to somehow fix the model which, while far from hopeless, doesn't do what it supposed to do.
Though looking again, not sure if it's even possible without a complete overhaul - for one, what i am to do with U-profiles after removing missiles from them? Leave like this?
Derivative model with trilateral symmetry has on it 15 simple models of small missiles, 4 rocket pods and one big gun. Derivative ship stats in game has 2x special/heavy mounts, 2x light/medium and 4x light/medium-missile.
See the problem here? What you get is not what you see.
Moreover, even if it did have the same hardpoint as depicted on model, their current state, obviously, would not be properly reflected. There are mount meshes for this. Oh, and yes, it's turned with Z axis to its aft instead of nose.
So, we have a ship which could, indeed, fit Unadorned theme with its lean'n'mean consoles+pods scheme very well, but ended up as an isolated oddity, not a part of any style. That is, what looked like a fairly promising work and with a proper approach could enhance the game world, instead helped to turn it into more of a magpie nest, filled with fragments of formerly cool ideas piled up without any rhyme or reason.
Now you say that while there are shiny things to pile up, rhyme or reason are not even taken into account.
Conversely, me and others above don't want editor oversights this big and learned to see the concept grinding brainstorm as the necessary stage. Because if it was done properly to Derivative, nothing of the above would apply and there were at least two more craft in this style - if not by you, then by other designers picking up ideas from the concept discussion - and instead of one model with obvious flaws we could have the artstyle of a faction, back then.
Deus Siddis wrote:The derivative was terribly crafted by me when I didn't know how to work mesher. Every time I see it in game I feel sorry I submitted it. I didn't know it was still flying backwards though.
It fits if not the existing style, then an underlying concept... and with this it could as well have big "WTF?" in red letters on it.
And it looks like an essentially simple model. The more random elements you add while insisting on throwing the result into a random line of units.csv, the farther it's likely to fall into "square peg round hole" territory. While there's probably an empty square hole somewhere. How it's not obvious?
Deus Siddis wrote:
What maintainance it needs?
All present day graphics will eventually look obsolete due to improving standards. Thus graphics have a 'shelf life' before they should be replaced. The more you have the more work it will take to replace them.
Improved textures? It can be done gradually.
Improved models? Maybe, but it's not burning hot if they don't need a fix even before they are added. And what improvements? 6-sided cylinder for a barrel will eventually be replaced with 24- or 48- sided one, but that's about it.
Changing models to random ones having nothing in common? No effort required because there's no need at all.
Deus Siddis wrote:The point is warcraft fields a flood of new content, craptastic as it is, because they have a tremendous budget.
It also works the other way around: it constantly needs new content to sell.
Deus Siddis wrote:The admonisher and vigilance models look nothing like bricks. The pacifier looks like a shark. The purist style is a bit more diverse than you make it out to be. Can you not see any similarities between the above renders of the consequence and the current model of the admonisher?
None except having wings and pods.
Admonisher and Pacifier are not quite bricks, but not far from this - more complex, but... incremental, about as visibly as Plowshare.
Take a structural element, when it's not enough, slap on it another simple element like a box or weapon console, sometimes smoothed to a slope (it got to be armored, after all). Rinse, repeat. So there are visible remnants of older hulls - IMO the prequel set should have ships Purists turned into components of these three. :lol:
"Two Eyes Good, Eleven Eyes Better." -Michele Carter
User avatar
TBeholder
Elite Venturer
Elite Venturer
 
Posts: 747
Topics: 38
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:40 pm
Location: chthonic safety

Re: Consequence Interceptor Concept

Postby log0 » Sun Jan 15, 2012 6:15 am

Interesting discussion.

If I get it right, Deus Siddis has got some shiny models back in 2010 but TBholder and Klauss prefer to stick with with original ones.
TBeholder wrote:Purist ships, IMO, got fairly consistent looks already - why not to keep it? It's crude, of course, but why not - that's recognizable crudeness and it works too...
klauss wrote:Admonisher, Pacifier and the like, are quite decent already. Yes, the polies are few, but the textures are high-quality, and they look a lot better than a lot other models.
I'm not opposing new models in similar style but higher detail, but there are other places where such work is needed far more.

So the message is: You want to contribute? Go and fix the ugly and broken stuff. But don't dare to touch what works. Right?

But then:
klauss wrote:Also, bear in mind that modern GPUs aren't that much better than older ones. There's an overwhelming majority of onboard GPUs, which are decent enough that people won't put a discrete GPU in, but bad enough that models with the kind of detail the screenshots show would significantly slow down the game without LODs and careful usage of baked normal maps.
travists wrote:An attempt to keep up with the hottest games will limit the ships to about three and exclude all but hardcore gamers.
travists wrote:The original pong, nearly non-existant graphics and all, is still popular. As are text adventures and TAs enhanced with static images. Graphics may initially sell games, but solid game play keeps them coming back.
TBeholder wrote: I noticed that excess of eye candy all too frequently leads to eye ileus, however.:lol:
TBeholder wrote:The opposite school of thought, naturally, posits that outside of demo scene, graphics are first about conveying information visually, and next about whatever is added on top of this.

OMFG I want my pacman back!!!
log0
 

Re: Consequence Interceptor Concept

Postby klauss » Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:21 pm

log0 wrote:Interesting discussion.

If I get it right, Deus Siddis has got some shiny models back in 2010 but TBholder and Klauss prefer to stick with with original ones.
TBeholder wrote:Purist ships, IMO, got fairly consistent looks already - why not to keep it? It's crude, of course, but why not - that's recognizable crudeness and it works too...
klauss wrote:Admonisher, Pacifier and the like, are quite decent already. Yes, the polies are few, but the textures are high-quality, and they look a lot better than a lot other models.
I'm not opposing new models in similar style but higher detail, but there are other places where such work is needed far more.

So the message is: You want to contribute? Go and fix the ugly and broken stuff. But don't dare to touch what works. Right?

Rather,
You want to contribute? Go and fix the ugly and broken stuff. It's preferrable to replacing things that work.

Ie: softer tone.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
User avatar
klauss
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 7243
Topics: 55
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:40 am
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: Consequence Interceptor Concept

Postby Deus Siddis » Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:16 pm

TBeholder wrote:Though looking again, not sure if it's even possible without a complete overhaul - for one, what i am to do with U-profiles after removing missiles from them? Leave like this?
Derivative model with trilateral symmetry has on it 15 simple models of small missiles, 4 rocket pods and one big gun. Derivative ship stats in game has 2x special/heavy mounts, 2x light/medium and 4x light/medium-missile.
See the problem here?


Now I do see the problem, but I am afraid you have it backwards. You need to change those weapon mount stats in units.csv so that they match the trilateral derivative model.

Do not try to hack away at the model geometry so that it looks like the old obsolete stats in units.csv. That is counterproductive because the trilateral model design was approved as canon; canon that matches the new determinant, convolution and lemma models as well.

So if you want to make the current derivative consistent (though throwing it out until a better model comes along might be preferable), then in units.csv give it four medium missile hardpoints and one heavy gun hardpoint. Problem solved.

Oh, and yes, it's turned with Z axis to its aft instead of nose.


Such problems, though eye grabbing, are easily fixed.

instead helped to turn it into more of a magpie nest, filled with fragments of formerly cool ideas piled up without any rhyme or reason.
Now you say that while there are shiny things to pile up, rhyme or reason are not even taken into account.


I understand you concern about the game looking like a mish-mosh. My strategy for combating the problem is for one artist to do a whole faction at once and by himself, that's what I was going to do for the Purists.

But that'll never be enough on its own. I can't help you make the game look more consistent unless you can convince the VS community to amend the wiki and game design so that it calls for a sane amount of content. Not 200 ships and however many bases and other things, but maybe ~50. Otherwise count on many more fragments piling up in the attempt to meet this quota.

Conversely, me and others above don't want editor oversights this big and learned to see the concept grinding brainstorm as the necessary stage. Because if it was done properly to Derivative, nothing of the above would apply and there were at least two more craft in this style - if not by you, then by other designers picking up ideas from the concept discussion - and instead of one model with obvious flaws we could have the artstyle of a faction, back then.


I think you are mixing up concept with implementation. The derivative concept is 'correct', it is official. It went through official channels and was approved. The same goes for all the new unadorned craft concepts. The model is just terribly implemented from a technical standpoint.

Improved textures? It can be done gradually.
Improved models? Maybe, but it's not burning hot if they don't need a fix even before they are added. And what improvements? 6-sided cylinder for a barrel will eventually be replaced with 24- or 48- sided one, but that's about it.


The model detail is still just as important as the texture detail, at least when you consider the costs on system resources. Applying higher and higher res textures to the same old model is foolish and inefficient except as a temporary upgrade.

Admonisher and Pacifier are not quite bricks, but not far from this - more complex, but... incremental, about as visibly as Plowshare.
Take a structural element, when it's not enough, slap on it another simple element like a box or weapon console, sometimes smoothed to a slope (it got to be armored, after all). Rinse, repeat. So there are visible remnants of older hulls - IMO the prequel set should have ships Purists turned into components of these three. :lol:


I can't see any definite difference between the design style you are describing and the latest renders of the consequence.
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1362
Topics: 13
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 8:42 am

Re: Consequence Interceptor Concept

Postby travists » Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:43 pm

By my count there are nearly twenty factions substantial enough to have their own ship design. Several more if we count sub groups. At that rate, 200 is appropriate, as 50 will allow only about 2.5 ships per faction. Please note, I am not arguing for the current number of ships, simply pointing out that to reduce ships cutbacks in other areas are needed to balance the groups out. Now if each major group (Human, Ralan, Aearian) has two major manufactures, and a hand full of classes

Fighter: Light, Med, heavy
Bomber: LMH
Cruiser: LMH
Cap-Ship: LMH
Transport: LMH

That is 15 ship types
30 per group
90 total

Nearly twice Deus Siddis' figure, but half the current assignment.
User avatar
travists
Expert Mercenary
Expert Mercenary
 
Posts: 893
Topics: 33
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 4:43 pm
Location: Sol III North American Continent

Re: Consequence Interceptor Concept

Postby Deus Siddis » Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:24 pm

travists wrote:By my count there are nearly twenty factions substantial enough to have their own ship design. Several more if we count sub groups.


Obviously there are too many factions as well.

Current canon is not a greater concern than technical feasibility. Even if some love the idea of dozens of factions and hundreds of ships and bases, fleshing those things out with code and content is a tremendous task with debatable rewards.

Fighter: Light, Med, heavy
Bomber: LMH
Cruiser: LMH
Cap-Ship: LMH
Transport: LMH

That is 15 ship types


You're over-counting somewhat because not every faction has every category of ship and you have included categories that don't exist. For example there are no light-medium-heavy categories for fighters, bombers and cruisers. There's only interceptor, fighter, and assault roles for small craft, corvettes for mediums and then capital ships which are very few and inconsistently deployed. Take "battleship", only the rlaan field a class of those while only the aera field a class of "dreadnaught".

It also isn't given that every category for seagoing ships used in the world wars one and two needs a spacegoing equivalent. Corvettes, Destroyers, Frigates, Cruisers, Battlecruisers, Battleships, Carriers, Escort Carriers, etc. -- nothing to do with combat in space.
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1362
Topics: 13
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 8:42 am


Next

Return to Content Vetting

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron