Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23

Thread: Destroyer

  1. #1
    Registered User SonicN2O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    485

    Destroyer

    I have a spaceship that is a little bit bigger. (about 1km in length) I put arrows pointing do different nurnies in the perspective view, so people know what's going on:

    Front view (in perspective):
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Boston front view.jpg 
Views:	105 
Size:	53.6 KB 
ID:	89044

    Side views (in perspective):
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Boston Left view.jpg 
Views:	76 
Size:	123.3 KB 
ID:	89046Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Boston Right view.jpg 
Views:	71 
Size:	118.7 KB 
ID:	89047

    Back view (in perspective):
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Boston Back view.jpg 
Views:	79 
Size:	97.7 KB 
ID:	89045

    Perspective view:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Boston Perspective view.jpg 
Views:	95 
Size:	135.2 KB 
ID:	89048

    On the next post are some renders (I put a distant light behind the camera, so that's why the lighting looks flat, and to save time, II didn't use antialiasing):
    "'Sup, Djents?"

    iMac Quad Core i7
    24GB RAM 1600MHz
    GeForce GTX680MX 2GB

  2. #2
    Registered User SonicN2O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    485
    Here are the renders:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Nurnies.jpg 
Views:	62 
Size:	500.1 KB 
ID:	89052Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Name.jpg 
Views:	55 
Size:	417.0 KB 
ID:	89051Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Docking_Bay.jpg 
Views:	66 
Size:	464.4 KB 
ID:	89050Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Airlock.jpg 
Views:	47 
Size:	288.8 KB 
ID:	89049Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Weapons.jpg 
Views:	82 
Size:	231.5 KB 
ID:	89053
    "'Sup, Djents?"

    iMac Quad Core i7
    24GB RAM 1600MHz
    GeForce GTX680MX 2GB

  3. #3
    Registered User SonicN2O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    485
    here is a render of the mesh in it's full glory, with motion blur, radiosity, and antialiasing ON:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Reflections.jpg 
Views:	115 
Size:	315.7 KB 
ID:	89054


    If anybody has any suggestions on how to improve upon the project, please tell me. also, I REALLY don't want to redo the whole thing, so "oh, dear!" or "plain and simple, your model sucks" obviously doesn't help.
    "'Sup, Djents?"

    iMac Quad Core i7
    24GB RAM 1600MHz
    GeForce GTX680MX 2GB

  4. #4
    F9 key in jeopardy yaschan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Yokohama
    Posts
    712
    Nice model. You've got a nice overall mass there and bunch of nice ideas, such as the rotating solar panel (is it solar panel)? Color is nice, darkness of a destroyer..

    First advice, think of scale. If astronaut is placed next to the ship, how big every feature would be?

    Another task would be to definably smooth out those edges (edge bevel, etc). When edge doesn't have a smoothing polygon it won't be visible in the render no matter what. This is the case in your model. The camera doesn't see the edges of your model because there is nothing light could be reflected off. Try at least get one bevel in there. That alone is a big difference.

    Also, think what you want to say with the model. Is it a war ship? If it's a war ship, it should look really deadly. Go with the flow, and concentrate on making the model to show your purpose. Why Star Destroyers in Star Wars look like they "shouldn't be messed with"? They show kind of cruel, militaristic shape with dark colors, because they are star destroyers. And they have a lot of guns.

    Working with the detail is a kind of double edged sword. I basically try to avoid any detail that doesn't make sense. Space ships look kinda blocky in scifi movies. And real space ships do have blocky shapes sometimes. Sure. But when we look closer, (and that's what people in CG industry have to do) we notice that the blocky shape is actually made of more refined detail, such as platings, tubes, shafts, etc.. We have to find the sweet spot of getting enough of that stuff there without going overboard. Because you know, if we go overboard, we get scary amount of polygons as well as wasted time.

    And sometimes the detail doesn't have to make functional sense. If it makes your ship look like it should look like, why not?

    Obviously everyone go with their own workflow and it's same learning for everyone. Perhaps, instead of reworking stuff, you can take the current shape you have and refine it, keep refining, and adding detail on top of that?

    Please keep going and posting your results.

  5. #5
    Super Member crashnburn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    UK, Yorkshire
    Posts
    565
    Generally radiosity would be useless for a space scene. Your light sources will generally be the sun or planets. There's no atmosphere in space, that's why no one can hear you scream. So maybe stick with a single light source for now and maybe add a bounce light if your ship is near a planet or in the case of your last render, the super nova, which would have some light coming from it and onto your ship.

    Consider the materials your space ship is made from and make shaders around that to make more realistic surfaces.
    i7 920 2.8Ghz, 12GB OCZ Gold, Gigabyte X58A-UD3R, Nvidia 250 GTS, Cheiftec A-135 750W, Zalman Z7
    Core 2 duo E6600 2.4Ghz, 8GB Corsair Dominator, Gigabyte GA-965P-DQ6, CiT PSU, Quadro FX4500

  6. #6
    F9 key in jeopardy yaschan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Yokohama
    Posts
    712
    Good opinion about radiosity.
    But what about adjacent surfaces, don't they bounce light? I think that radiosity can give additional punch to space scenes, although we have to keep the contrast of the light and shadow pretty high, for the exact reasons you mentioned.
    Like the ring station in Kubrick's space odyssey, doesn't it have kind of "radiosity-like" feel to it? I would really like to know the lighting setup they used to light the model in studio.

  7. #7
    Registered User SonicN2O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    485
    @yaschan

    Thx, that's the first actual constructive criticism I've gotten from anyone lately. It means alot to me. and I DO see a difference in radiosity in space scenes.
    "'Sup, Djents?"

    iMac Quad Core i7
    24GB RAM 1600MHz
    GeForce GTX680MX 2GB

  8. #8
    AeroAnimator 4dartist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    1,069
    Quote Originally Posted by crashnburn View Post
    Generally radiosity would be useless for a space scene.
    I don't really agree. Light bounces in space just like it does on earth. Sure you may not get near the global fill like you would from sitting under a blue sky, but you'll get some bounce in the vehicle and from the planet below if you have the scene setup that way. I will say that you don't always need it though. I just wouldn't flatly say it is useless. One option is to use a dome light or 2 dome lights for the planet fill if you are in orbit. I do this a lot and am really happy with the results.

  9. #9
    AeroAnimator 4dartist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    1,069
    Sonic what are the big panels sticking up? Just thinking, but I think if I was building a warship I would avoid solar as a power source because you'd need huge arrays and lots of them, plus they'd be a weekspot. (shoot the solar panels!) Instead I'd put either nuclear reactors or some form of internal power, and use radiators on the outside to vent the heat. Which could look really cool with tons of fins coming off the ship in a certain area or a few areas. Also as a tip, solar arrays will usually be rotatable to always face the sun and heat radiators on space craft can sometimes rotate to avoid direct sunlight making them more efficient.

    Just some fun thinking, no need to actually do any of that.

  10. #10
    Super Member crashnburn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    UK, Yorkshire
    Posts
    565
    Hence me using the word generally.
    i7 920 2.8Ghz, 12GB OCZ Gold, Gigabyte X58A-UD3R, Nvidia 250 GTS, Cheiftec A-135 750W, Zalman Z7
    Core 2 duo E6600 2.4Ghz, 8GB Corsair Dominator, Gigabyte GA-965P-DQ6, CiT PSU, Quadro FX4500

  11. #11
    AeroAnimator 4dartist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    1,069
    Quote Originally Posted by crashnburn View Post
    Hence me using the word generally.
    Oh good point.

  12. #12
    Super Member crashnburn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    UK, Yorkshire
    Posts
    565
    I can see what you are getting at. Thats why there was controversy over the moon landing photographs where people argued that the astronauts should only have been lit on one side and not grasping the fact that there is bounce light from the moon. But in deep space where you maybe only have a distant single light source then for me radiosity would become over kill and a simple bounce light at a very low setting would be way more economical at render time.
    i7 920 2.8Ghz, 12GB OCZ Gold, Gigabyte X58A-UD3R, Nvidia 250 GTS, Cheiftec A-135 750W, Zalman Z7
    Core 2 duo E6600 2.4Ghz, 8GB Corsair Dominator, Gigabyte GA-965P-DQ6, CiT PSU, Quadro FX4500

  13. #13
    F9 key in jeopardy yaschan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Yokohama
    Posts
    712
    It is true. Radiosity might be overkill in some situations. Especially when you got 500k polys or more and you're doing animation. Getting the radiosity work without flicker does jump the render time. The small benefit of added detail in certain areas suddenly might not feel worth of it.
    I made a test with a model with half million polys. Radiosity made the render time jump 3x and there was a very little difference in lighting detail.
    Personally, I rather go with the fill light, and Dpont's lights.. But I guess this is matter of taste?
    Perhaps OP found another benefit of using radiosity in his scenes?

  14. #14
    Registered User SonicN2O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    485
    First: I changed the name of the ship to "heavy cruiser", and
    Second: I tried yachan's beveling tip, and it worked wonderfully. Thanks, yaschan!
    "'Sup, Djents?"

    iMac Quad Core i7
    24GB RAM 1600MHz
    GeForce GTX680MX 2GB

  15. #15
    Registered User SonicN2O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    485
    I changed the Textures around a bit... how do you like it?
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	NeoCruiser.jpg 
Views:	69 
Size:	374.7 KB 
ID:	92089
    "'Sup, Djents?"

    iMac Quad Core i7
    24GB RAM 1600MHz
    GeForce GTX680MX 2GB

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •