StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Front

Back

Bridge

Nice! This shows some good promise

I believe the chamfered edges on the on object visible in the bridge image are doing strange stuff in the corners.

Also to be honest, i don´t like the design. Too boxy for my taste.

salm wrote:I believe the chamfered edges on the on object visible in the bridge image are doing strange stuff in the corners.

Also to be honest, i don´t like the design. Too boxy for my taste.

INverse Blocks are more effienct to make
out of verse Blocky is easier to make

Master of Cards wrote:

salm wrote:I believe the chamfered edges on the on object visible in the bridge image are doing strange stuff in the corners.

Also to be honest, i don´t like the design. Too boxy for my taste.

INverse Blocks are more effienct to make
out of verse Blocky is easier to make

I´m not quite sure what you´re saying...

I think MoC means that in his fictional universe, it is easier to build blocky ships.

His real reason is that it it is easier to draw blocks.

Nice work there, and what software did you use to create this ship?

Redleader34 wrote:Nice work there, and what software did you use to create this ship?

3ds Max 9

I'd do something about those cannons. They don't seem to be able to track right to left, and they tilt up (why?) so you're going to basically have an off-axis spinal mount weapon. Plus, at that size, and turret movement is actually going to throw off the ship enough to change it's direction... let alone whatever it fires that needs barrels that hugenormous.

I do like that it has engines on the front and the back though, that's a good way of letting the thing decellerate, and certainly unconventional.

What are the golfballs? Sensors, like on an ISD?

What's the scale roughly? Those guns look f'in HUGE compared to the rest of the ship. If they are just place holders then carry on. I'm with Covenant about the placement. They can only engage tragets in very limited arc. It'd be better to mount them on the sides or top or both in the center of the ship. If the guns are projectile based conventional turret/mounts would work, if they are energy based, have them on ball mounts. And lose the bridge, there is no reason to have it on top. I'd add two more blocks, one each behind the engines, and make them mirror images, with only slight differences, One would have the primary bridge, crew quarters, engineering spaces and a secondary fire control, and the other would have a small secondary bridge, crew quarters, engineering spaces and small shuttle bay. The center block would be all about the guns and primary firecontrol.

Covenant wrote:I'd do something about those cannons. They don't seem to be able to track right to left, and they tilt up (why?) so you're going to basically have an off-axis spinal mount weapon.

Meh. If his roll rate is high enough, that's all the articulation the guns really need.

I find it more worrying that they appear to be unable to fire straight ahead.

Deathstalker wrote:What's the scale roughly? Those guns look f'in HUGE compared to the rest of the ship. If they are just place holders then carry on. I'm with Covenant about the placement. They can only engage tragets in very limited arc. It'd be better to mount them on the sides or top or both in the center of the ship. If the guns are projectile based conventional turret/mounts would work, if they are energy based, have them on ball mounts. And lose the bridge, there is no reason to have it on top. I'd add two more blocks, one each behind the engines, and make them mirror images, with only slight differences, One would have the primary bridge, crew quarters, engineering spaces and a secondary fire control, and the other would have a small secondary bridge, crew quarters, engineering spaces and small shuttle bay. The center block would be all about the guns and primary firecontrol.

Lets put it this way. The Barrels are 361 inch widethe Golfballs are sensors
Guns will be on bottom
its 750 or so feet long
the rule for this is simple
"Realism and "physics" are N\A"

Deathstalker wrote:I think MoC means that in his fictional universe, it is easier to build blocky ships.

His real reason is that it it is easier to draw blocks.

Oh come on there. He's got a few spheres and cylinders in there. I'm sure we can give him the benefit of the doubt that he's good at modeling all sorts of geometric primitives, which a step up from simple blocks.

Btw, I would pick up on the skill of extruding. Very simple idea but very powerful in making all sorts of cool 3-D shapes.

Pint0 Xtreme wrote: Btw, I would pick up on the skill of extruding. Very simple idea but very powerful in making all sorts of cool 3-D shapes.

To be fair, 90% of the ship consists of things extruded from a box.

Well, it's difficult to tell sometimes. You could stack boxes on each other and provide the same illusion. Extrusion with cylinders and spheres are more fun! They make all sorts of cool shapes like donuts!

Pint0 Xtreme wrote:Well, it's difficult to tell sometimes. You could stack boxes on each other and provide the same illusion. Extrusion with cylinders and spheres are more fun! They make all sorts of cool shapes like donuts!

Well, you only do that if your intended object resembles something very sphere or cylinder like. Usually you start with a box and then refine it until it looks like, say, a space ship. Or a head.
Or you build it up poly by poly. Usually it´s a mix of both techniques.

And donuts are standard primitives, aka toruses.

salm wrote:And donuts are standard primitives, aka toruses.

Okay, it's been years since I've seriously touched a 3D modeling program. I don't recall such tools back in high school.

Pint0 Xtreme wrote:Well, it's difficult to tell sometimes. You could stack boxes on each other and provide the same illusion. Extrusion with cylinders and spheres are more fun! They make all sorts of cool shapes like donuts!

All the main ship is extruded from a box(engine is beveled) and the guns are extruded from something I forgot what