All space stations are the same

[Kangaroo]

Sorry to anyone who knows that this is impossible, but yesterday i played Vegastrike and saw three refineries look completely the same in one system. I knw this is supposed to be this way..., but don't you think that this looks like Soviet Union? Like all space station types has one standard throughout human space. Maybe Vegastrike could include more models of bases where it is possible?

[Ryder P. Moses]

So make some new ones.

There's not much content for VS in general right now; stations are only the beginning of the problem. I'm going to be working on a modular station set in the coming months that'll add a lot of variation, but it won't do everything on its own. VS needs more artists if there's to be any great scope or variety to the content, plain and simple.

[Kangaroo]

That's exactly what i've been doing, but i have Wings3d for about a week and Blender interface is a nightmare to me .
This is a space station of some sort... maybe a storage ship?

[Ryder P. Moses]

Dude. That's actually pretty damn sweet. Especially for a newbie.
What might be cool, in the context of a station, would be to arrange six or eight of those radially around a big vertical central tower.

And, uh... not that I condone such things, much less actively engage in them in a daily basis and know a lot about where to find related materials *cough* but if Wings is giving you trouble (and it is a pretty crappy modeller) there are much more powerful tools available that someone of your promising skills could make good use of.

[chuck_starchaser]

I agree that's damn nice. Not sure if it needs to be turned into a module; looks like it's made of modules, already.

Hey, there you go, Ryder; if you're tired of "tubes", easiest shape for modules is beveled boxes... I mean, you could try tetrahedrons or icosahedrons, but you can't go wrong with just boxes...
And the inteface connections could come in various sizes and *angles* --shallow angles to form rings with the boxes, since most stations would be spun for a bit of gravity. (Even a quarter of a G is better than nothing; weightlessness is the next worst thing to sucking vacuum.)

EDIT:
Actually, the problem with flat walls is that pressure inside rips them to shreads. Spherical would be more like it. But then again, if you have a cube and you put a lot of steel bars between opposing walls, evenly spaced, like a grid, it would stand pressure pretty well; but nothing beats geodesics in efficiency as well as looks.

[rockstar]

hey, that's really nice work, man... not just the modelling job itself, but i like the whole idea of design.

but listen, you were bitching around with wings3d for one week and you even got something that's really nice. now it's the best time to directly switch over to blender. i know the UI is pain in the ass - until you've read a tut how to setup your own interface theme. then read the "Noob to Pro"-guide found on the blender homepage and start getting used to an opensource project that's really worth getting learned. everything's quite irritating and overwhelming in the first moment, but i've read a lot of comments on blender now and most people said, the UI is just a little bit different from common 3d programs and when you've got the clue you'll realise that's kinda innovative - kinda better. still trying to get the clue... but hey, that's just me ^^

i tell you - advise you this, because i've realised that's one of the best ways of learning stuff. start with something simple and as soon as you got the basics working switch over to the real stuff immediatly. just like... ehm... skateboarding? parents bought you a cheap deck at the supermarket when you was a little boy and you were lucky when you finnaly could roll around with this plastic wheeled, colorful thing - perhaps even standing on the board. when getting older you will realise very quick that this version of skateboard is quite limiting and if you want to grow better in skateboarding you rather get yourself a real deck with softer wheels, abec 5 bearings and a more sturdy deck ... instead of wasting your time with this limiting piece of toy crap.
ATTENTION! I've just wanted to explain why i think you should change to blender - there's no intention to compare wings3d with a cheap toy.

anyways... keep the good work coming.

[chuck_starchaser]

There are many tricks to learn in Blender. One very useful key is Del ***in the numpad*** which centers camera rotation and zoom on the
object or set of objects you have selected. Also in the numpad, 7, 1 and 3 are the orthogonal views, 8, 2, 4 and 6 are 15 degree rotations,
and 5 toggles between parallel and true perspective.

To place the camera so as to render the object from your current perspective, go to the View menu at the bottom of the 3D screen, go to
Align View, and select Align Active Camera to Current View.

Selecting stuff: right-click. Shift right-click adds or subtracts an object to the set currently selected.
A selects or de-selects All.
B allows you to draw a selection box.
Alt-right-click selects a loop (of vertexes, edges or facets). You can even use Shif-Alt-right-click to select 2 or more loops.
Z toggles between transparent and opaque view.
For selecting segments or vertexes, you want to be in transparent mode; in opaque mode, vertex and edge selection are buggy (very buggy; don't do it; selects vertexes on the other side of the ship where you can't even see them... **ALWAYS** use transparent mode to select vertices or edges).

W has a menu of commonly used actions.
For example, Merge Vertices.

E for extrude.
Shift-S for the snap menu.

Moving, scaling:
G = Grab
S = Scale
After pressing G you can press X, Y or Z to constrain the movement to that axis, and you can just type the number and press
enter if you prefer. Same for scaling. (But DON'T enter a fourth number after the decimal point, or strange things will happen...)
If you need a 2-axis constraint, such as for moving or scaling something on the X-Y plane without changing Z, you press G or S,
followed by Shift-Z ( or Shift-X or Shift Y ). Shift-X constrains motion or scaling to the Y-Z plane. You can narrow a pipe this way, for example; without making it shorter.

Cutting:
Select the stuff you want to cut, press Shift-K, then left-click to start a cut-line, left-click again to finish the first line, continue if
you want to make a complex cut, and when you're done, press Enter. Only crossing edges are cut, though. The knife tool does
not create vertexes inside a facet.
To separate two parts of a thing you've cut, the easiest way is select all the facets belonging to one of the parts the press P to
separate them as a new object. You can rejoin objects in object mode if you want, by selecting the object to append first, the
destination object second (shift right-click) and pressing Ctrl-J. Making a selection into a separate object forces the duplication
of common vertices and edges.

To rotate something about a specific center point, there must be a better way, but this works:
Make that something into a separate object (select all its facets, press P). Place the cursor (left click on more than one orthogonal view) where you want the center of rotation to be. (Use shif-S to align it to an object or to the grid, if you wish.) Then, in object mode, select the object you want to rotate (right-click it), press F9, and click the button Center Cursor. This will place the reference point for that object on the cursor. Now , while still in object mode, you can rotate the thing however you want around that center.

To duplicate an object and create rotated duplicates: Say you want 8 fins around a cylindrical missile or rocket: Separate the stuff as an
object, put the cursor in the middle of the ship, pressed 7 on the numpad for front view, click Center Cursor, and then, to duplicate
something use Shift-D.
So: Shift-D, R, 180, Enter; shift select the original, Ctrl-J to rejoin them.
Repeat: Shift-D, R, 90, Enter, rejoin.
Shift-D, R, 45, Enter, rejoin.
Then rejoin the 8 things to whatever the first object was joined originally.

M for mirror.

Ctrl-N to recalculate normals outside. W->Flip Normals to flip normals

Ctrl-T to split a quad into triangles
Select two neighboring triangles and press F to make them a quad
Select two adjacent triangles and press Ctrl-F to flip the diagonal.

[Ryder P. Moses]

Blender is an atrocity against all right-thinking human beings I'm really kind of shocked that anybody would recommend using it to someone else without provocation. Wings is merely the retarded cousin of Max and Maya; Blender is the evil retard that you don't let around sharp objects after what happened to that one nurse.

Chuck: I was thinking that. Less boxes than the kind of wierd octagons his thing suggests. That's still... basically just the tube station all over again, but seeing as nobody seems interested in the project and I've got few better ideas that looks to be the way things are heading anyway.

[chuck_starchaser]

Well, whether Vegastrike is interested in a suggestion or not is always an unsolved mystery. Me, I'm interested in modular stations. Tell you what; I'll send you the material I've gathered, mostly about the ISS, and let's try to come up with some concepts. Seems to me, the shapes are the least relevant thing. What matters is what they do; and if there are more than one form that achieve a given function, so much the better, let's do them all. Second most important thing after functions, IMO, are couplings. There have to be matching standards, otherwise modules would be for the birds.

For a start, I would think most couplings in a module would be co-planar, and each would be placed on a grid. The grids would use a 1 meter grid as a starting point, let's say, and depending on the size of the module, the x-y distances between couplings would grow by fibonacci numbers:
1 meter, 2, 3, 5 would be too small to consider, so starting at 8 meters, then 13, 21, etc. The coupling extensions would then come in lengths and angles as to allow building circular patters with modules. Like concentric rings.
Or you could attach modules with straight couplings within a cube or wedge, and then use angled couplings for a next cube or wedge, which all come together like a film of cutting a pizza played backwards.

[Ryder P. Moses]

Yeah, I'm using an interlocking grid module with each component planned to fit in a standardized volume- actually the problem I was dealing with most recently was whether to use cubes or base-3 pyramids- a cubic volume and six-point connector network would be easiest to do with a Cartesian coordinate system and the most natural appearance for a station, but the four-point pyramidial system would look really different from anything that's been done and make stations much denser overall.

My first concern right now is working out an appearance- I have a pretty good idea what the kinds of modules involved are going to be and am fairly sure I could adapt them to any shape- and the most purely practical form for a modular station is also the most boring and defeating of the whole point of making stations that look varied and interesting, as it's basically just one big dull cylinder with connector terminals at either end for snapping on more segments.

[chuck_starchaser]

Damn right. And the thing is, architects have been trying their darnest to cause a revolution with all kinds of weirdness in buildings for the past century, and all they got to show for it is the odd looking building payed for by taxpayers. Architecture must be the most self-fulfillingly frustrating profession. Habitats will be square or rectangular now, and in the year 500,000. No oval bedrooms or kitchens will ever be standard. Simply that square shapes are more practical. You can go to tetrahedrons and then your amount of space per the amount of wall material goes down. If you go to higher polyhedra, you get too much space and not enough floor space. If you go to hexagonal boxes, you need triangular desks and beds to optimize the furniture layout. Really, nothing beats the plain square. And I think this is one aspect that stands out in the model by the OP: He's not playing Mr. Architect; but just making a station in a way that a station might actually be. It even looks friendly.

But like you said, nothing beats a tube, in space. One reason is pressure inside requires the least material thickness when the forces are well distributed. For another, they are easier to transport premade in a vehicle that for aerodynamic reasons must be rather long and thin. And finally because eventually we'll want to spin stations and cylinders are just right for that. No thanks getting spun in a tetrahedron.

I think what's really going to happen with cylinders in space is that they'll get bigger and start having squarish structures within.

So, for my mod, anyways, that's it: modules will be rather large, cylindrical, and have squarish internal subdivision. And they'll have infrastructure compatible with two gravity modes: Radial, for cases when the cylinder gets spun, and longitudinal, for when it hangs from a spinning center. So, for example, the water tank will be centered at one end, so that it is "above" the rest in either mode.

[arno]

Sorry to anyone who knows that this is impossible, but yesterday i played Vegastrike and saw three refineries look completely the same in one system. I knw this is supposed to be this way..., but don't you think that this looks like Soviet Union? Like all space station types has one standard throughout human space. Maybe Vegastrike could include more models of bases where it is possible?

Hi !

"Yes I'd like to see diversity in Vehastrike" would have better. I think it's just a question of work to do. Meanwhile, I like this kind of soviet union looking and ambiance. I find it very futuristic.

[hurleybird]

For modelling programs I would reccomend silo a great (fast) program for a very low price.

[Kangaroo]

Thanks for the suggestions, I'll try to remember your tips, but in the manual I don't understand half of what they are trying to tell me and i don't have a credit card yet to purchase any software from Internet as I am only fifteen.

[Kangaroo]

I didn't want to make a new thread about this, so i'll post it here - my remake of the planet-hud.png picture.

[Kangaroo]

Here is another base made by me, probably a space orign material factory (like concrete or other stuff that needs to dry for usage) as space made materials and crystals are much more durable than those made on planets.

[klauss]

Not bad.
You have a way of coming up with good concepts.
However (more than a however, it is indended an "guess what would be cool, though?"), I think they could end up being too low poly for base models. They don't need more "geometric detail"... rather, they need greebling. Good work. If you find someone to texture your bases, perhaps there will be some more variety after all - I wouldn't oppose their inclusion when properly textured and all.
Have in mind, though, that you can't have pure variety. A certain line has to be followed by those designs... something that says: this is terran... this is aeran... this is rlaan. Until now, everything looks terran. Perhaps it's best if you focus on terran bases... rlaan/aeran bases should be made by someone else, mostly to mantain an independent style, but I thought I should point that excessive variety is not always good - work out your style, and keep it.

[Kangaroo]

Here is a tuned base picture. Made the pyramids look less crude and added a landing tube. Btw, i don't think that a station for growing crystals should be very complicated, but i don't know much about living in space : . Just tell me when i'm going to the wrong direction in editing the base . Any suggestions are welcome.

EDIT: uploaded a better photo

[hurleybird]

I kinda liked the way the pyramids were before, made the station look more massive IMO.

[Kangaroo]

I have both the original and the modification in my PC... just in case.
Cheers for the Latvian Hockey Team - 3:3 against USA!!!

[chuck_starchaser]

Yeah, I like the original pyramids better, too; my only worry being that the flatter a wall is, the harder it has to be to stand pressure... How about spherical sides, like... Let me do some in blender; I'll be back..

[Ryder P. Moses]

What Hurleybird said.

Maybe some scaffolding instead- stuff like refineries and powerplants now have? Though really, it's probably fine as it is.

[chuck_starchaser]

Something like this..



Scaffolds too, of course; all kinds of greebles; but a bit of curvature in those shapes can save tons of material, literally.

Here's the inflated tetrahedron file, in .blender and wavefront .obj formats, if you like it.

[Kangaroo]

Thanks, Chuck, meanwhile I made a concept art of an antimatter generator - more curved for durablity. Anywhay, VS takes part in many years futher, so couldn't people find use of much stronger materials for space ships? Like space-grown crystals of some sort? I'm sure the future materials could achieve much better results in pressure dissipation.

[chuck_starchaser]

Anywhay, VS takes part in many years futher, so couldn't people find use of much stronger materials for space ships? Like space-grown crystals of some sort? I'm sure the future materials could achieve much better results in pressure dissipation.

Possibly, but then again, adding a bit of curvature allows you to use a lot less of the however stronger material.

That generator looks great!