Models by MaNGusT (AR)

Improving the artwork in Warzone2100 - not for mod discussions
User avatar
whippersnapper
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1183
Joined: 21 Feb 2007, 15:46

Re: models by MaNGusT

Post by whippersnapper » 11 Sep 2009, 08:21

MaNGusT wrote:What do you think about this version of model?
I think the sleek geometry will dovetail perfectly with hover propulsion especially.

Regards, whip :ninja:
.

User avatar
Olrox
Art contributor
Posts: 1999
Joined: 03 Jul 2007, 19:10

Re: models by MaNGusT

Post by Olrox » 11 Sep 2009, 17:33

whippersnapper wrote: I think the sleek geometry will dovetail perfectly with hover propulsion especially.

Regards, whip :ninja:
.
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...
:D

User avatar
MaNGusT
Art contributor
Posts: 1106
Joined: 22 Sep 2006, 10:31
Location: Polar region, Russia

Re: models by MaNGusT

Post by MaNGusT » 12 Sep 2009, 00:00

I have made a body of a viper as in sequences, but a cobra, and other bodies don't show there. I only imagine, how a cobra will look with additional details.
What will I need to add or change? I only want to make each body to looks more individually...

I hope you understand me... O_O

User avatar
MaNGusT
Art contributor
Posts: 1106
Joined: 22 Sep 2006, 10:31
Location: Polar region, Russia

Re: models by MaNGusT

Post by MaNGusT » 13 Sep 2009, 17:47

New version of Viper - 246 faces, like in "factory" sequence but my model is low poly. :P
viper3_3.jpg
viper3_1.jpg
viper3_2.jpg

User avatar
Olrox
Art contributor
Posts: 1999
Joined: 03 Jul 2007, 19:10

Re: models by MaNGusT

Post by Olrox » 13 Sep 2009, 19:14

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.

I think you could taper the turret mount a little, it looks like a separate part of the model. The rest is ok, really good.

User avatar
Zarel
Elite
Elite
Posts: 5770
Joined: 03 Jan 2008, 23:35
Location: Minnesota, USA
Contact:

Re: models by MaNGusT

Post by Zarel » 13 Sep 2009, 19:29

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)

User avatar
MaNGusT
Art contributor
Posts: 1106
Joined: 22 Sep 2006, 10:31
Location: Polar region, Russia

Re: models by MaNGusT

Post by MaNGusT » 14 Sep 2009, 05:36

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.
I agree with you.
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)
"You're the BOSS" :D

186 Faces.
viper4.jpg
158 Faces.
viper5.jpg

User avatar
Olrox
Art contributor
Posts: 1999
Joined: 03 Jul 2007, 19:10

Re: models by MaNGusT

Post by Olrox » 14 Sep 2009, 16:30

That's better, yeah. Some nice textures and It'll be truly great. ;)
I could help with that is you send me the model, but I can't guarantee perfection (or quickness) :cool:

Regards, Olrox

User avatar
MaNGusT
Art contributor
Posts: 1106
Joined: 22 Sep 2006, 10:31
Location: Polar region, Russia

Re: models by MaNGusT

Post by MaNGusT » 14 Sep 2009, 20:50

what version should i save? 158 or 186?
I like version with 186 faces.

User avatar
Olrox
Art contributor
Posts: 1999
Joined: 03 Jul 2007, 19:10

Re: models by MaNGusT

Post by Olrox » 14 Sep 2009, 23:35

Are there really 186 faces (regardless of the number of points each face) or that is the triangle count already?
I really think that the difference between the first and second version won't be seen during gameplay, also, viper is so small and there's the propulsion and the turret around it...

I must vote on the second version ;)

User avatar
MaNGusT
Art contributor
Posts: 1106
Joined: 22 Sep 2006, 10:31
Location: Polar region, Russia

Re: models by MaNGusT

Post by MaNGusT » 14 Sep 2009, 23:50

Olrox wrote:Are there really 186 faces (regardless of the number of points each face) or that is the triangle count already?
Yes, it's the triangle count. ;)
vipers.jpg

User avatar
Olrox
Art contributor
Posts: 1999
Joined: 03 Jul 2007, 19:10

Re: models by MaNGusT

Post by Olrox » 15 Sep 2009, 00:40

hmmm, that one to the left looks better
(NOT) xD

Oh, then the geometry is just fine. But I'll mantain my pick.

User avatar
Zarel
Elite
Elite
Posts: 5770
Joined: 03 Jan 2008, 23:35
Location: Minnesota, USA
Contact:

Re: models by MaNGusT

Post by Zarel » 15 Sep 2009, 03:50

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.

User avatar
MaNGusT
Art contributor
Posts: 1106
Joined: 22 Sep 2006, 10:31
Location: Polar region, Russia

Re: models by MaNGusT

Post by MaNGusT » 15 Sep 2009, 08:49

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.
As you said. 10-sided. 170 triangles. ;)
viper6.jpg

User avatar
Olrox
Art contributor
Posts: 1999
Joined: 03 Jul 2007, 19:10

Re: models by MaNGusT

Post by Olrox » 15 Sep 2009, 14:45

Yeah, I think that's it. The proportionality between the model size and the details is ok, the poly count is fine, and geometry details won't be lost due to zoom distance, in my perception. :cool:
Nicely done, congrats!

Post Reply