How long does it take on average to do something like this?

AMP: sci-fi art, regular art, pictures, photos, comics, music, etc.

Moderator: Beowulf

Post Reply
User avatar
Shinova
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10193
Joined: 2002-10-03 08:53pm
Location: LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

How long does it take on average to do something like this?

Post by Shinova »

Image


And what's the best program out there to do this kind of work?


NOTE: Credit for the model goes to Mad_Wookie of Starport33 and Spacebattles.
User avatar
Enlightenment
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 2404
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:38pm
Location: Annoying nationalist twits since 1990

Re: How long does it take on average to do something like th

Post by Enlightenment »

Depending on the software used and the modeler's skills something like that would take somewhere between 50 and 100 hours of work.
Shinova wrote:And what's the best program out there to do this kind of work?
See the tools and resources sticky. :)

Religious wars have been fought over the subject of what's the best 3D graphics package. If you want legally free, get Blender. If you want a good all-round tool, get Lightwave. If you like unstable programs with unconvertable propritary file formats and/or need character animation and NURBS tools not available in Lightwave, get 3DSMax. If you want to use modeling tools beyond basic polygons and have money to burn, get Maya.
It's not my place in life to make people happy. Don't talk to me unless you're prepared to watch me slaughter cows you hold sacred. Don't talk to me unless you're prepared to have your basic assumptions challenged. If you want bunnies in light, talk to someone else.
User avatar
paladin
Jedi Master
Posts: 1393
Joined: 2002-07-22 11:01am
Location: Terra Maria

Re: How long does it take on average to do something like th

Post by paladin »

Shinova wrote: http://gvtc.com/~dspreiss/jmpreiss/images/carrier4.jpg


And what's the best program out there to do this kind of work?


NOTE: Credit for the model goes to Mad_Wookie of Starport33 and Spacebattles.
One word about that vessel:
UBER-COOL!!!!

I want one. NO, I want a fleet of them!!!


[Quoted pic eliminated because it's widening the thread. -- Enlightenment]
User avatar
Einhander Sn0m4n
Insane Railgunner
Posts: 18630
Joined: 2002-10-01 05:51am
Location: Louisiana... or Dagobah. You know, where Yoda lives.

Post by Einhander Sn0m4n »

Found out that ship is a carrier named the Thor
Image Image
User avatar
jaeger115
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 1222
Joined: 2002-12-29 04:39pm
Location: In the dark corridor, behind you

Post by jaeger115 »

Looks like it launches ships from the side and not from the front. Is there any advantage that's gained from that?
Concession accepted - COMMENCE PRIMARY IGNITION
Elite Warrior Monk of SD.net
BotM. Demolition Monkey
"I don't believe in God, any more than I believe in Mother Goose." - Clarence Darrow
HAB Special-Ops and Counter-Intelligence Agent
User avatar
Shinova
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10193
Joined: 2002-10-03 08:53pm
Location: LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Post by Shinova »

jaeger115 wrote:Looks like it launches ships from the side and not from the front. Is there any advantage that's gained from that?

I guess if you're flying toward enemy capships, it'd help not to have your launch systems disabled by the enemy capships' opening volleys. Also you can launch fighters from two sides.

Also the carrier can launch its fighters while moving fairly quickly at the same time. Forward launching carriers would end up ramming their own fighters if they tried the same thing.


Side launchers are much better than front launchers in my opinion.
Last edited by Shinova on 2003-01-02 10:16pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Shinova
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10193
Joined: 2002-10-03 08:53pm
Location: LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Post by Shinova »

A different view for those of you in this thread purely for the eye-candy:


Image
User avatar
DPDarkPrimus
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 18399
Joined: 2002-11-22 11:02pm
Location: Iowa
Contact:

Post by DPDarkPrimus »

That's one damn fine looking ship.
Mayabird is my girlfriend
Justice League:BotM:MM:SDnet City Watch:Cybertron's Finest
"Well then, science is bullshit. "
-revprez, with yet another brilliant rebuttal.
Howedar
Emperor's Thumb
Posts: 12472
Joined: 2002-07-03 05:06pm
Location: St. Paul, MN

Post by Howedar »

30-50 hours for me.
Howedar is no longer here. Need to talk to him? Talk to Pick.
User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29312
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post by Vympel »

Meh ... where's the guns?
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
User avatar
Shinova
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10193
Joined: 2002-10-03 08:53pm
Location: LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Post by Shinova »

Vympel wrote:Meh ... where's the guns?

Dont' look at me! I didn't make the thing! :D
User avatar
Enlightenment
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 2404
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:38pm
Location: Annoying nationalist twits since 1990

Post by Enlightenment »

Vympel wrote:Meh ... where's the guns?
From the original thread on SB it's supposed to be a carrier rather than a cruiser/battleship. Hence, no guns.
It's not my place in life to make people happy. Don't talk to me unless you're prepared to watch me slaughter cows you hold sacred. Don't talk to me unless you're prepared to have your basic assumptions challenged. If you want bunnies in light, talk to someone else.
User avatar
Jadeite
Racist Pig Fucker
Posts: 2999
Joined: 2002-08-04 02:13pm
Location: Cardona, People's Republic of Vernii
Contact:

Post by Jadeite »

From the original thread on SB it's supposed to be a carrier rather than a cruiser/battleship. Hence, no guns.
In other words, its defenceless.
Image
User avatar
Crayz9000
Sith Apprentice
Posts: 7329
Joined: 2002-07-03 06:39pm
Location: Improbably superpositioned
Contact:

Post by Crayz9000 »

Jadeite wrote:
From the original thread on SB it's supposed to be a carrier rather than a cruiser/battleship. Hence, no guns.
In other words, its defenceless.
Its fighters are its defence, much like the Battlestar Galactica (although even the Galactica did have guns).
A Tribute to Stupidity: The Robert Scott Anderson Archive (currently offline)
John Hansen - Slightly Insane Bounty Hunter - ASVS Vets' Assoc. Class of 2000
HAB Cryptanalyst | WG - Intergalactic Alliance and Spoof Author | BotM | Cybertron | SCEF
User avatar
Shinova
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10193
Joined: 2002-10-03 08:53pm
Location: LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Post by Shinova »

Maybe the guns are hidden or too small to be seen.

It's official designation is "supercarrier", hence why its guns may be too small to see.
User avatar
Enlightenment
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 2404
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:38pm
Location: Annoying nationalist twits since 1990

Post by Enlightenment »

Jadeite wrote:In other words, its defenceless.
Just like a Nimitz...

Antishipping weapons on carriers have been repeatedly proven worthless in the real world. The fact that they keep on showing up in SF is yet another brainbug.
It's not my place in life to make people happy. Don't talk to me unless you're prepared to watch me slaughter cows you hold sacred. Don't talk to me unless you're prepared to have your basic assumptions challenged. If you want bunnies in light, talk to someone else.
Mad_Wookie
Redshirt
Posts: 15
Joined: 2002-12-17 09:23pm
Location: On the flip side
Contact:

Post by Mad_Wookie »

Actually...the guns are still being modeled. Now I am not the one that modeled what it looks like now. I did the midsection and Illuminatus99 from SB and Renderosity did everything else. I plan to do it myself once I get all of the needed plugins.


THe story behind the Launch Bays is that it works for quick launches. Also you will be able to see Point Defense Guns whihc are going to go on those platforms that stretch out from in between the hangar. The 8 main guns, which are trips, are underneath the deck plating and the come up when it goes to fulll battle alert.

Here are some are some specs on from its use in the Solar System Story Debate on SB.com:

3km long (actually 7)
Carries 2000 fighter craft
Has 8 Main Guns (6 Dorsal, 2 Ventral)
Houses 10000 missles

It is also selfsufficient, but you will most likely never see that.
To win you must first lose. Then you are ready to reap the fruits of victory. - JonathanPreiss
Acid-Snake
Redshirt
Posts: 1
Joined: 2003-01-03 02:49pm

A little something for those of you saying "Blow it up&

Post by Acid-Snake »

:D :shock: :lol: :P :cry:
Image
User avatar
Darth Servo
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 8805
Joined: 2002-10-10 06:12pm
Location: Satellite of Love

Post by Darth Servo »

Enlightenment wrote:
Jadeite wrote:In other words, its defenceless.
Just like a Nimitz...

Antishipping weapons on carriers have been repeatedly proven worthless in the real world. The fact that they keep on showing up in SF is yet another brainbug.
Except in sci-fi, the ship's shields are too powerful for starfighters to beat. Besides, what happens if all your fighters are shot down? Don't modern carriers have AA guns? Don't modern carriers have escorts? Furthermore, in space, you don't need a flat-top launch platform, so its much easier to mount big guns.

Combined arms tactics is always superior.
"everytime a person is born the Earth weighs just a little more."--DMJ on StarTrek.com
"You see now you are using your thinking and that is not a good thing!" DMJay on StarTrek.com

"Watching Sarli argue with Vympel, Stas, Schatten and the others is as bizarre as the idea of the 40-year-old Virgin telling Hugh Hefner that Hef knows nothing about pussy, and that he is the expert."--Elfdart
User avatar
Enlightenment
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 2404
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:38pm
Location: Annoying nationalist twits since 1990

Post by Enlightenment »

Darth Servo wrote:Except in sci-fi, the ship's shields are too powerful for starfighters to beat.
So why have fighters at all if they're not combat effective? There's no point in bothering with fighters if they can't accomplish the key mission of being able to kill the enemy.
Besides, what happens if all your fighters are shot down?
If a ship has taken that kind of damage to its combat effectiveness (assuming the fighters were actually useful in the first place; see above) then it's time to retreat or surrender.
Don't modern carriers have AA guns?
No. They have last-ditch systems such as CWIS and Sea Sparrow, both of which are intended to shoot down incoming missiles. Their utility for shooting down competently-employed strike aircraft is basically nil. Attacking strike aircraft will launch their missiles from well beyond the effective range of the carrier's point defenses.
Furthermore, in space, you don't need a flat-top launch platform, so its much easier to mount big guns.
Think volume and mass, not deck area. Every cubic meter and every KG used by weapons systems can't be used to carry fighters. If the main weapons system of the carrier is its fighters then this tradeoff is extremely undesirable.
It's not my place in life to make people happy. Don't talk to me unless you're prepared to watch me slaughter cows you hold sacred. Don't talk to me unless you're prepared to have your basic assumptions challenged. If you want bunnies in light, talk to someone else.
Mad_Wookie
Redshirt
Posts: 15
Joined: 2002-12-17 09:23pm
Location: On the flip side
Contact:

Post by Mad_Wookie »

Fighters are extremely combat effective if employed correctly. Look at the Star Wars Universe. Fighters can take down entire starships.
To win you must first lose. Then you are ready to reap the fruits of victory. - JonathanPreiss
User avatar
Darth Servo
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 8805
Joined: 2002-10-10 06:12pm
Location: Satellite of Love

Post by Darth Servo »

Enlightenment wrote:So why have fighters at all if they're not combat effective? There's no point in bothering with fighters if they can't accomplish the key mission of being able to kill the enemy.
So all missions are to take out large capships? All cap ships have shielding powerful enough to stop fighters? Please justify this hasty generalization you've cooked up.
If a ship has taken that kind of damage to its combat effectiveness (assuming the fighters were actually useful in the first place; see above) then it's time to retreat or surrender.
When the cap ship has its own guns, there's no need to retreat even if all the fighters are taken out.
Think volume and mass, not deck area. Every cubic meter and every KG used by weapons systems can't be used to carry fighters. If the main weapons system of the carrier is its fighters then this tradeoff is extremely undesirable.
A variety of weapons is still the best option.
"everytime a person is born the Earth weighs just a little more."--DMJ on StarTrek.com
"You see now you are using your thinking and that is not a good thing!" DMJay on StarTrek.com

"Watching Sarli argue with Vympel, Stas, Schatten and the others is as bizarre as the idea of the 40-year-old Virgin telling Hugh Hefner that Hef knows nothing about pussy, and that he is the expert."--Elfdart
illuminatus99
Redshirt
Posts: 1
Joined: 2003-01-05 04:54pm

Post by illuminatus99 »

in all I put about 4 hours of work into it. I've almost got the guns done, it's got 8 big ones and then by the launch bays there are 32 point-defense twin AA guns
Post Reply