I think the sleek geometry will dovetail perfectly with hover propulsion especially.MaNGusT wrote:What do you think about this version of model?
Regards, whip
.
I think the sleek geometry will dovetail perfectly with hover propulsion especially.MaNGusT wrote:What do you think about this version of model?
I agree, and also I think that making new paradigm's bodies more sleek and the collective bodies more bulky would be more intuitively correct, also. In addition, maybe Nexus' bodies should be bulky with some slight "V" patterns pointing towards to produce a strong-swift blend. Textures on my mind, ahhh...whippersnapper wrote: I think the sleek geometry will dovetail perfectly with hover propulsion especially.
Regards, whip
.
I agree with you.Olrox wrote:I think that this model is better than the previous, as it doesn't have too many small details. I mean, most of those small details can't be seen properly when you zoom out (and during gameplay, the camera is fixed, if not all, most of the time, at far zoom).
If wz had a similar system to the Homeworld series, in which the geometry and textures detail adapt to the zoom distance, such details would be interesting for watching skirmishes at drive camera position. In homeworld, you can follow even the smallest ships very close by and watch dogfights or zoom out for watching Ion cannon clad battle cruisers eat ships alive. As the performance doesn't lower because of this detail level control, every single battle can be cinematic, and that's a very good thing for those who like some eyecandy.
However, I believe that WZ has only the texture quality reduction system for far zooms (can't really remember, lol), but geometry remains unaltered and the GPU process every polygon all the same. Therefore, careful modelling is needed because we won't see the smallest faces anyway.
"You're the BOSS"Zarel wrote:Also, dodecagons are a bit too detailed to work as circles. Use octagons or decagons. (Heck, you could probably get by with a hexagon on the turret mount)
Yes, it's the triangle count.Olrox wrote:Are there really 186 faces (regardless of the number of points each face) or that is the triangle count already?
As you said. 10-sided. 170 triangles.Zarel wrote:It's nice, but I must point out that the second one is still using a dodecagon (12-sided). A decagon (10-sided) should work just fine. Other than that, it looks great.