Windows, greebles and little things

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

Moderator: pyramid

chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Windows, greebles and little things

Post by chuck_starchaser »

I'm starting this thread here, where the artists hang out. In another thread, JackS just made it plain for the N-th time how he feels that some of the larger ships are lacking in detail, as per the effect it has on the perception of size or scale. I have my own opinions about other factors that may be affecting scale perception, but I won't talk about them now. Fact is, ships and stations ARE lacking in detail, both in geometry and texture. I'd say, therefore, that for modellers looking for something to do, grabbing existing ships and stations and making them look bigger by adding detail would be a worthy pursuit.

Here's one possible start, cheap and easy. I posted the following texture in a thread in the feature requests forum:

Image

for windows. A cheap and quick way to add scale reference. 1 meter by 1 meter pixels, window rows are 1 pixel high, and separated by two rows of black pixels, making it a standard 3 meters per floor. You could use it as is, or create your own, cutting little strips of it for sections of any large ship or station. The texture is 512 square, --i.e. 512 meters sqare, and contains 170 rows of windows, top to bottom --170 stories. Meant to be used as "emissive". The important thing is to make sure it is scaled onto a model so that it does in fact map to a meter per pixel...

By the way, I think the best way to use them would be to specify NO mipmapping but use point-sampling. Reason is: as it is, the texture "tiles well" --i.e.: without giving the impression of tiling repetition; but that would change at a distance, if a smaller mipmap repeats across a surface. The "bad" effect of point-sampling is "shimmer", but shimmer can look good on windows ;-)

Probably most of you know what "greebles" are, but if you don't, check Staffan Norlig's page
http://www.scifi-meshes.com/tutorials/n ... eeble.html

Of course, he can add geometry to his heart's content, as he makes models for movies and stuff, that don't have to be rendered in real time. Furthermore, boxes upon boxes may be fine if you only see them once and have to fork out another 10 bucks to see them again, but in a game, greebles should make at least some sense, and look pleasing on second look as well as first. Well, I have no formula for the above problems, but I can say textures can go a long way, even without bumpmapping; and that "real-life greebles" can be a good source of inspiration. Here's an experiment I made for some of the texturing of the inside of a space elevator station:

Image

Fans are useless in vacuum; that's an easter egg.
The motors, though, have their systems color coded: Yellow for the motor, orange for the cooling, blue for electic power and green for speed control. Doesn't need to be apparent, but having a frame of reference for things can't hurt. This texture is 512 by 256. Imagine if instead of repeating the motor 4 times, I just filled it all with unique things. Imagine at 512 by 512.
There's a lot that can be done just with texturing.
As far as geometry, a few little things can make a world of difference. Look at this ship, again from Norlig's page:

Image

Those little pipes on the surface don't amount to a huge number of polygons, yet they do a lot of work. I think the key is not quantity, but size: Small is beautiful. Also note how a few complex looking things behind a hole or slot can give the sense of a world of complexity hidden behind...

I'd say, for a rule of thumb, anything built by creatures 2 meters tall should contain at least a number of meter-sized things, no matter how big the ship or station. Similarly, while I think that a couple of 512x512 textures may be fine for a fighter, a large ship or station should use a good number of textures, and a pixel size of no more than a meter or two squared.

I've also seen capital ships in Vegastrike using, and abusing, reflectivity.
Probably no better way to make a ship look no bigger that a bathroom mirror. Thing is, even if you built a ship out of mirrors, or bathed it chromium anodize for 7 weeks, it wouldn't reflect like a mirror, unless the flatness of it were ultra-precise. Well, I don't want to get into an argument in optics, but let me just give you my conclusion, take it or leave it: It's perfectly fine to have reflectivity on the ship's windows, and on little shiny things here and there; and it's fine to have phong shading, highlights and ultra-high shininess on a ship; but NOT to have the whole ship environment-mapped. Unless you have the whole ship intricately bump-mapped, as well. In this case it would be okay. Also if the ship is intricately shaped and curvy. Wouldn't make much sense, but at least it wouldn't contradict optical plausibility. But NOT huge, kilometric, flat surfaces reflecting like a mirror.

EDIT:
Where I would NOT add greebbles for now: Small ships. Not that they cannot use them. Not that the engine cannot handle a few more polys. But I think the priority should be to make the big things look more detailed.
As long as we keep a reasonable ratio, we could greeble everything a bit, of course...
What's a reasonable ratio?
Assuming a common shape, if ship B is twice the size (length or width or height) as ship A, it has 4 times as much surface area. I think a good rule of thumb would be that the amount of geometry should increase with the surface area; --thus with the square of a ship's size, NOT with the square root of it, as I reckon it does presently, just by eye. So, if a ship is ten times as long as another, I'd suggest it should have 100 times as many polys, NOT 3.16 times ... ;-)
Allright, start bashing me! :)
CoffeeBot
Intrepid Venturer
Intrepid Venturer
Posts: 676
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:25 am
Location: On the counter by the toaster
Contact:

Post by CoffeeBot »

Not that I don't agree with greebles and such, but some of them confuse me.

Given the advanced technology of the time, and human desire for beauty and hiding the inner workings of things, why is there a need to openly display them on our models? This isn't just us here at VS, but people everywhere. Even the ship chuck posted from Norling's site has all of these pipes and wires exposed on the surface of the ship as if the manufacturers forgot to include some critical parts, and just slapped them onto the hull.

Now, I agree, that if we were to remove the greebles from Norling's ship, it would look "boring" and almost "unbelievable." But why is that? Seriously, why? Look at our modern vehicles and structures. Pipes and ventilation shafts aren't running up the sides of skyscrapers. We don't see our fuel lines and electrical wires running along the bottom edge of our cars. Naval vessels surely aren't built for asthetics, but, even they slap a panel, albeit clearly marked and unattractive, over their wiring and pipes (in most cases).

The only time you really see mechanical stuff is at movement/pivot points, and hidden behind walls and fences. Why would the future be any different?
Staffan Norling wrote:Whenever you need a tenchnologic design to look complex, you need greebles!
Why? High-technology is getting increasingly clean and refined, and less greebly.

Note: This isn't taking into account other races and odd cultures (Mechanists, for example). It's a sweeping generalization of human-kind, but it's one we can probably all agree with.

[/soapbox]

Sorry if I disrupted. I like rocking the boat. Heck, I kinda like desinging greebles. This just struck me, and I'm curious as to what others think. And, chuck, you know I like your greebles ;)
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by chuck_starchaser »

Well taken, but you know what I'm gonna do? Turn the table around:

Why DO we hide the real life greebles, indeed? I've been asking myself that question for years! Why do we put stupid, boring, white tiles and "drop ceilings"? I LOVE the suff up there! Have you ever looked at the backsides of signs on the road, full of triangular structures, well designed and efficient. That's the side I like. If I was emperor of the world I'd order all commercial signs to be turned around. :)
Show me an apartment building with the piping on the outside and I'm willing to pay 75% of my salary to rent an apartment there.
Here in Canada, where the weather is colder than in other places, and there are heating systems everywhere, most commercial places instead of dropping ceilings, they paint the pipes with bright colors. It's lovely. No decorator could come up with the complexity that simple necessity generates. And complexity rocks as decor.
The greebles of real life are what keeps the world going round, besides love; and it exhudes "purpose", which in my mind ranks far above intentional "art", in terms of beauty.

I had a friend who was an architect. He used to get up at 4 am every Sunday to go to construction sites, climb over the fences, and take pictures of the wooden structures, the scaffolding that's temporarily built while constructing a building. He offered to phone me at 4 am on a sunday, I took his offer and joined his expedition. It was indeed memorable. That places of such intricacy and beauty are fenced off and hidden from the public is a crime against Humanity. You would not believe how complex and random those scaffoldings get. Often, if workers need to get from one place to another, which could be diagonally, and on different floors, they just build a ramp and that's it; later they might use part of a ramp as the starting point for another. He was obsessed with scaffoldings, and I became instantly obsessed with them myself.

I think our obsession with hiding away those things that have purpose, and *Real* beauty, and to show off things without either, is a reflection of the Philosophical sterilization our present culture exalts. Read Pirsig's book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance".

On a less philosophical note: Cars and planes need a smooth skin for aerodynamics, and buildings on Earth *must* protect electrical wiring from the weather, and crawling babies from electrical wiring. But go into a factory and you'll see plenty greebles around.
Spaceships don't need to be aerodynamic; weather is not a factor; and space-crawling babies are protected by their suits, anyways.. :D

Ever seen a pic of the ISS? :)
cshank4
Merchant
Merchant
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 3:18 am
Contact:

Post by cshank4 »

You're an odd one, chuck. That you are.

Now I must agree one some things though, Greebles are needed on bigger ships, such as the Clydesdale and the Plowshare and what not, some pipes from the engines and what not around there. The whole point of this is, sure it's not realistic, if you wanted realism our ships would look like Honor Harrington's (Phallices of power!) and we wouldn't have fighter craft that can accelerate faster then a ship of the line. It's for eyecandy. It makes the ships appeal to our sense of science fiction more.


Look at all the sci-fi games/movies out there.
Starcraft: Industrial to the max.
Warhammer 40k: I don't even need to type anything with this one... but I just did so there.
Homeworld 2: Yep there too.
Freelancer: You betcha
Starwars: mhm.
Firefly: Nog.


It's our mindset, we expect everything to look slightly sloppy with humans even though it makes no sense realism wise.


And I MUST agree with the reflection things, that is my main caveeat with the game, getting blinded while on an attack run SUCKS.
Moon hangs around
a blade over my head
reminds me
what to do before I’m dead
night consumes light
and all I dread
reminds me what to do before I’m dead
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by chuck_starchaser »

Thank you; call me "prime" and I'll apreciate it even more.. :)

What do you mean greebles "make no sense, realism-wise"?

To me the smooth shapes of most ships in VS make no sense at all! Why would we make ships so aerodynamic, looking like fighter jets, for an environment with no air? The only sense any kind of "skin" makes is for armor. And such armor would probably be square plates and be standardized: one size fits all. Otherwise they wouldn't even have a skin over the greebles at all.

Did you read my last sentence in the post? "Have you seen a pic of the ISS?"

Have you? Greebles upon greebles upon greebles. If you tried to draw the space station you'd go through a dozen pencils to get all those details.
Why would the future be any different?

Now, if you're just looking at Norlig's page and thinking " *those* greebles make no sense" I agree with you 100%. Not food for the eyes, or for the brain; just sickening sugar and grease doughnuts. But that's precisely what I was saying in my original post: Boxes upon boxes may be good for a movie, but not for a game. IOW: Have a *purpose* in mind before you start drawing a greeble: The engines here, do they need maintenance? Yes? Do we need a removable cover? Should the cover have a handle? How does this attach to that? How is it DE-tached? How does this ship get rid of excess heat? Where's the rad? Where's the cargo hatch? Where's the air-lock? Is the ship aerodynamic? If so, can it fly in an atmosphere? If so, does it have flaps? What about a carriage? What about an arrester hook? How do shields work? Some kind of plasma, eh? Okay, where's the electrodes then? Is there a hole or hook that the ship can be grabbed from for towing while inside a station? (To the repairs, to the cargo loading, to the launch platform) Or do they move the ship around by "grabbing it from the tail"? How does the eject pod work? Don't we need a seam around the area of the cabin that pops out to let the ejection seat loose? How is the ship refueled while in the station? Someone just walks in with a bucket of Helium 3? Any pivoting doors or covers that should have hinges? How are the batteries recharged? How is each of the subsystems accessed for repairs? How is the armor "fixed"? Shouldn't it be attached by some means, so it can be replaced? Are the radar, transponder, and other antennas exposed to enemy fire?, or are they under the armor where they can't possibly work? And what do we do about it?
And, last but not least, WHERE ARE THE GODDAM RETRO ROCKETS AND MANEUVERING JETS?!!! (Not to speak of vertical and lateral thrusters..)
((I'm not angry, capitals just for emphasis..:)))
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Post by klauss »

And, last but not least, WHERE ARE THE GODDAM RETRO ROCKETS AND MANEUVERING JETS?!!! (Not to speak of vertical and lateral thrusters..)
I saw that coming. It couldn't have been an enumeration of missing functional greebles without that one.

Don't worry, chuck. The trend is to start including them, if you browse the artwork forums. And I'll eventually finish coding support for them.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
cshank4
Merchant
Merchant
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 3:18 am
Contact:

Post by cshank4 »

Double Posts for the LOSE.
Last edited by cshank4 on Mon Aug 01, 2005 11:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Moon hangs around
a blade over my head
reminds me
what to do before I’m dead
night consumes light
and all I dread
reminds me what to do before I’m dead
cshank4
Merchant
Merchant
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 3:18 am
Contact:

Post by cshank4 »

Actually the smooth shapes of things in VS is a good start (maneuvering rockets aside.). Think about it. In space, you risk the possibility of being cored by micro-asteroids, asteroids, lasers, space stations, planet gravitational forces, planets, other ships, etc etc. The more armor you have over vital components (Cooling, fuel injectors) is good. I know if I were designing a ship I wouldn't put fuel lines on the OUTSIDE, nor would I put Coolant or much of anything.


And what you said about atmospheric flight or whatever, aerodynamics, VS ships DO go through the atmosphere of planets currently! Now I can understand Capital Ships and bigger freighters, those make perfect sense to be docked with stations in orbit or whatever. But fighters need to be aerospace capable
Moon hangs around
a blade over my head
reminds me
what to do before I’m dead
night consumes light
and all I dread
reminds me what to do before I’m dead
CoffeeBot
Intrepid Venturer
Intrepid Venturer
Posts: 676
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:25 am
Location: On the counter by the toaster
Contact:

Post by CoffeeBot »

Dang, chuck. Once again, you astound me with the ability to reach deep in my psyche and pull out the stuff that lurked in the back of my mind, but never is able to surface.

You've shattered my argument for greebles, to an extent, but cshank did raise some points I have to agree with, also.

But, I think we're in agreement, here: Greebles should serve a purpose, like weapons, rockets/jets/engines/whatever, and access panels. But the external cabling, piping etc. seems pointless because there's still the dangers of combat and errant debris/dust. You just don't want that stuff exposed.

Aerodynamics, wings, all that stuff -- cheese. It serves no purpose, especially if we're making space elevators with the implication that starships are not atmospheric vehicles. Now if we could just start getting people to design with that in mind....
tiny paintings
Bounty Hunter
Bounty Hunter
Posts: 214
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:35 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by tiny paintings »

EDIT: double post... damn server :evil:
Last edited by tiny paintings on Mon Aug 01, 2005 9:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
tiny paintings
Bounty Hunter
Bounty Hunter
Posts: 214
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:35 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by tiny paintings »

Argh!! Must VS be extremist realist, ALWAYS?!
What happend to "wow - cool looking ships?".
If this trend continues I'm hoping for a less-purist-fork.

This thread is nice and all, but please... don't go to the extremes. If it looks nice, and isn't catastrophic for realism (say, some fuel pipes running on the outside of the hull :oops:) then I like it! Come on - it's a game!
Besides - it might come down to choosing between adding unpurposeful, stupid greebles or having no conception of scale. I'd vote for scale and stupid greebles.

BTW, I prefer the clean, minimalist look. At least IRL. I like to know that that cool gadget have plenty of cool things inside but still wants it to look nice on the outside. I find data abstraction and simple interfaces appealing, so to speak. IMO, private persons would (as they do today) care more for looks and the military and companies to a large extent would care less.
Besides, most people are not tech-nerds (even in the future?!) and probably prefer to have the inner workings of their home appliances and spaceships to stay hidden. Or at least, that's my €0.02.

Second... all ships we have atm are pretty much wrong, from the purist perspective. Trying to build new ships that fit in with the old ones is a pretty tough task if you can't put wings etc. on your ship.
CoffeeBot
Intrepid Venturer
Intrepid Venturer
Posts: 676
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:25 am
Location: On the counter by the toaster
Contact:

Post by CoffeeBot »

It's not purity so much as common sense. You can create a great sense of realism on starships without having all sorts of piping and such. I hate to invoke it again, but look at the Enterprise(s). All sorts of greebles, but I can't say I recall seeing any pipes or mechanical devices exposed on the outside of the ship.
CoffeeBot wrote:Aerodynamics, wings, all that stuff -- cheese. It serves no purpose, especially if we're making space elevators with the implication that starships are not atmospheric vehicles. Now if we could just start getting people to design with that in mind....
This is just my thought of it all. We're never going to get people to not design ships w/o wings, unless its a captial ship. Heck, the last ship I designed had wings. It's an inescapable fact. I wouldn't be surprised if starships in our own future had wings of some sort, even if they never land on planet.
tiny paintings wrote:Argh!! Must VS be extremist realist, ALWAYS?!
What happend to "wow - cool looking ships?".
If this trend continues I'm hoping for a less-purist-fork.
This is a discussion/brainstorming thing. I don't think a lot of things we've tossed around have been placed (or are going to be placed) in the game. Saying that all of the current models suck because they have wings and unrealistic greebles is silly. They don't suck and as far as I know, they're not being replaced.
tiny paintings
Bounty Hunter
Bounty Hunter
Posts: 214
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:35 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by tiny paintings »

CoffeeBot wrote:It's not purity so much as common sense. You can create a great sense of realism on starships without having all sorts of piping and such. I hate to invoke it again, but look at the Enterprise(s). All sorts of greebles, but I can't say I recall seeing any pipes or mechanical devices exposed on the outside of the ship.
...
This is a discussion/brainstorming thing. I don't think a lot of things we've tossed around have been placed (or are going to be placed) in the game. Saying that all of the current models suck because they have wings and unrealistic greebles is silly. They don't suck and as far as I know, they're not being replaced.
I'm no star trek fan and thus not very knowledgable on the subject, but I think the sense of scale in star trek largely stems from the fact that the Enterprise (umm... there are many? :roll:) has a lot of windows. Which I believe jackS have pointed out (could be wrong here.. might have made it up myself) wouldn't be seen on VS military ships. If there are any other tricks to add a sense of scale - shoot! :)

Exactly my point! I like the Lancelot with all its weird wings... :) It's just... neat. Even if they have no practical use.

Anyways, having coolant/fuel pipes on the outside should be okay as long as you keep your coffe pipelines well protected and away from harm under the hull
:wink:
CoffeeBot
Intrepid Venturer
Intrepid Venturer
Posts: 676
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:25 am
Location: On the counter by the toaster
Contact:

Post by CoffeeBot »

It's not purity so much as common sense. You can create a great sense of realism on starships without having all sorts of piping and such. I hate to invoke it again, but look at the Enterprise(s). All sorts of greebles, but I can't say I recall seeing any pipes or mechanical devices exposed on the outside of the ship.
CoffeeBot wrote:Aerodynamics, wings, all that stuff -- cheese. It serves no purpose, especially if we're making space elevators with the implication that starships are not atmospheric vehicles. Now if we could just start getting people to design with that in mind....
This is just my thought of it all. We're never going to get people to not design ships w/o wings, unless its a captial ship. Heck, the last ship I designed had wings. It's an inescapable fact. I wouldn't be surprised if starships in our own future had wings of some sort, even if they never land on planet.
tiny paintings wrote:Argh!! Must VS be extremist realist, ALWAYS?!
What happend to "wow - cool looking ships?".
If this trend continues I'm hoping for a less-purist-fork.
This is a discussion/brainstorming thing. I don't think a lot of things we've tossed around have been placed (or are going to be placed) in the game. Saying that all of the current models suck because they have wings and unrealistic greebles is silly. They don't suck and as far as I know, they're not being replaced.
CoffeeBot
Intrepid Venturer
Intrepid Venturer
Posts: 676
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:25 am
Location: On the counter by the toaster
Contact:

Post by CoffeeBot »

It's not purity so much as common sense. You can create a great sense of realism on starships without having all sorts of piping and such. I hate to invoke it again, but look at the Enterprise(s). All sorts of greebles, but I can't say I recall seeing any pipes or mechanical devices exposed on the outside of the ship.
CoffeeBot wrote:Aerodynamics, wings, all that stuff -- cheese. It serves no purpose, especially if we're making space elevators with the implication that starships are not atmospheric vehicles. Now if we could just start getting people to design with that in mind....
This is just my thought of it all. We're never going to get people to not design ships w/o wings, unless its a captial ship. Heck, the last ship I designed had wings. It's an inescapable fact. I wouldn't be surprised if starships in our own future had wings of some sort, even if they never land on planet.
tiny paintings wrote:Argh!! Must VS be extremist realist, ALWAYS?!
What happend to "wow - cool looking ships?".
If this trend continues I'm hoping for a less-purist-fork.
This is a discussion/brainstorming thing. I don't think a lot of things we've tossed around have been placed (or are going to be placed) in the game. Saying that all of the current models suck because they have wings and unrealistic greebles is silly. They don't suck and as far as I know, they're not being replaced.
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by chuck_starchaser »

CoffeeBot wrote:But, I think we're in agreement, here: Greebles should serve a purpose, like weapons, rockets/jets/engines/whatever, and access panels. But the external cabling, piping etc. seems pointless because there's still the dangers of combat and errant debris/dust. You just don't want that stuff exposed
Indee we're in agreement. Like I said, I would NOT add greebles to small ships, for now; the priority has to be the large ships. Large ships aren't meant for planet landings, therefore don't need to be aerodynamic, therefore it would be wrong to make comparisons to present aircraft. Of course, making comparisons to the ISS may not be fair either, since the ISS is not threatened by the Aera, that we know of. But we do have a present frame of reference that's quite fitting to capital ships: Navy ships. Navy ships have no particular concerns with aerodynamics, but are built like tanks. Are they shiny smooth things? Hardly. They got greebles coming out of their noses:
The Enterprise:
Image

Kittyhawk:
Image

Carl Vinson:
http://t2navy.m7z.net/management/photod ... 5L-001.jpg

Coral Sea:
Image

FA-37 Talon:
http://www.snopes.com/photos/airplane/a37.asp

Okay, that last one is unrelated, but I thought it was interestin; I'd never seen the new Talon... ;-) (I wonder if it's named after the Talons in Privateer...)

Anyhow, greebles upon greebles; so the arguments that *everything* should be under heavy armor plating don't seem to hold water. Even tanks are greeblish....
M1A1 in Kuwait:
Image

In fact, I think I even see a bit of piping and cabling...

Now, I've been on tours of navy ships and let me tell you, you get sick of looking at pipes. If the argument for protecting pipes and other greebles was as strong as made out to be here, navy ships would be as smooth a whales. But for some reason they aren't. And defense contractors don't stay in business for so long by making unwise descisions or optimistic assumptions about the consequences of enemy fire.
Perhaps what happens is that some things HAVE to be outside the armor, things like radar and comunications, weapons, access hatches, fueling points, and gazillions of other things; --some of them big and complex things requiring subsystems that serve them. I'm sure, though, none of the piping and greebles come from any local hardware store. But even fuel lines and wiring make sense on the outside if they have to serve fuel and juice to some piece of equipment that has to be outside. So a rotating radar dish needs a motor to turn, and so there's probably some wires going up there, heavy gauge, and some coax coming down, right?

@tiny paintings:
And we don't need to sacrifice realism at all, greebles are realistic in principle, and can be made to look realistic, and even make sense.

@klauss:
Thanks, I know the winds of change have began flowing; I just don't want to let up the pressure too early :D
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by chuck_starchaser »

Here's a great, real life example of texture greebles in atmospheric flight capable, modern space ships...

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/ ... 14_big.jpg
tiny paintings
Bounty Hunter
Bounty Hunter
Posts: 214
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:35 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Post by tiny paintings »

I'm curious about those holes... does anybody know what their purpose is? (since we're discussing purposeful greebles)

Coming up with greebles that have a purpose isn't always easy so making a list that can be used as a starting point is not a bad idea. chuck already listed a lot of things. Maybe his list could be expanded and added to the wiki, available for artists to browse and be inspired.
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by chuck_starchaser »

I don't know, but if I were to take a guess, I'd say the are the...
MANEUVERING JETS... ;-)
pincushionman
ISO Party Member
ISO Party Member
Posts: 467
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 9:55 pm
Location: Big, flat Kansas
Contact:

Post by pincushionman »

chuck_starchaser wrote:I don't know, but if I were to take a guess, I'd say the are the...
MANEUVERING JETS... ;-)
Aye laddie, that be the one.
Conquer space!
-pincushionman

---------------------------------------

Kansas really is flatter than a pancake!
http://www.improbable.com/airchives/pap ... ansas.html
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by chuck_starchaser »

Just bumping to make sure everybody concerned gets a good look at what real maneuvering jets look like in present day. Notice some of them are slanted. Those are for rolls, I imagine.
Accu-Accelerated
Hunter
Hunter
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 7:37 am

Greebles

Post by Accu-Accelerated »

I think the importance of Greebles is to establish a sense of scale- a lot of bases/capships in Vega Strike seem a lot smaller than they really are, IMO.

I think that even huge military captial ships could use some greebles in the form of sensor arrays, shield emitters, and weapon systems. But the critical systems would still have to be deep inside the ship/under the armor for protection.

And of course bases need a lot of greebles. Right now bases such as the Mining base have some large greebles, it could use some more detail with smaller ones, that help establish a sense of scale better, and also look cooler and add to the detail in general. For example, the mining base has a very large docking bay, but it's barren. Wouldn't it be cool if there were small greebles inside instead of a blurry texture?
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by chuck_starchaser »

Some like this?

Image

The problem with stations is the range of distances at which details are needed. A view of a full station should look awsome, but zooming in 20 times or getting close to one docking area that might seem little from the distance but which is a kilometer across when you get near, the details should multiply; but without multiplying details on the opposite side of the station. In other words, stations should be made of many sub-units, each having its own LOD.
kark88
Trader
Trader
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 5:11 pm
Location: Tivoli, NY
Contact:

Post by kark88 »

What kind of greebling would an Aera base have? Just curious
Kark
Accu-Accelerated
Hunter
Hunter
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 7:37 am

Post by Accu-Accelerated »

kark88 wrote:What kind of greebling would an Aera base have? Just curious
That's an interesting question, as all the Aeran spaceships so far are very smooth and un-greeble-ish. Perhaps the greebles would include windows, docking lights, and sensor arrays that look like bumps or "blisters" on the surface of the station, like Mon Calamari ships in Star Wars.
Post Reply