ClawViper
Community Forums/Graphic Chat/ClawViper
| ||
| Here is a screenshot of my latest model for a fps. 2500 triagles. What do you think?  |
| ||
| It reminds me of a mechanical veloseraptor. |
| ||
| Screenshot makes model look very dark, hard to see the detail. Look like it could be done with fewer polygons. |
| ||
| Perhaps it show up better here??? http://hometown.aol.com/djerrymcclure/page1.html I am just trying out concepts for the moment. I am sure I could loose a few hundred trianges by using 8 or 6 sided cylinders, and changing the front of the rail guns. |
| ||
| Um, you been watching star wars |
| ||
| Top bit looks ok... then it looks like you got fed up and rushed the legs. |
| ||
| Star wars was and still is The Best sci-fi ever so thats ok. GFK; What do you not like about the legs? |
| ||
| no dune is much better... .....hihihihihi |
| ||
| I think it looks good, it has its own flair. OT: Dune is awsome |
| ||
| Story line for Dune was at least as good as Starwars, but have you watched it latly. Just look at the corny ships they had. Starwars had it all. |
| ||
| GFK; What do you not like about the legs? They lack detail, like you haven't spent any length of time on them. For instance, the lower half of the leg seems to be constructed from a single, elongated cube. |
| ||
| I agree with Gfk that the lower half lacks detail - even putting some detail in through the texture would look better. Have a look at this for some ideas perhaps:  |
| ||
| Here is an updated version, adding detail to the legs, rebuilt the hull, turret, feet, glass and the guns (I am still not sure I like the guns). 27 groups (independent meshes), 2400 triangles. Thanks all for the feed back. How does it look now? (edited picture removed) PS Matty; Thats a great picture. Where did you get it? Are there more? I have bin looking all over the place for ideas. |
| ||
| http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=ED209&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N&tab=wi http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=mech&btnG=Search http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=mechwarrior&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=battletech&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial |
| ||
| Meh |
| ||
| Meh? What? Heh? |
| ||
Hows This? |
| ||
| Just found the meaning of (Meh). Man that's cold dude. |
| ||
| is that an insect? make those legs stronger... |
| ||
| Looks a lot better with the details on the legs, but could still have some more detail packed into them, particularly the lower legs (below the "knee") |
| ||
| I also think the top half of the leg needs to be much shorter - perhaps about 30% of what it is now? |
| ||
| Matt(or anyone); What kind of detail would you put on the lower calf. I keep trying things but nothing seems to look right. I have shortend the upper thigh and that looks alot better, but what else can I do? |
| ||
| Just found the meaning of (Meh). Man that's cold dude. I apologize unreservedly! :) I made that post whilst 'a bit tipsy'. No idea what I was thinking. :/ The model is actually very good. (Note to self: stop posting here when drunk!) |
| ||
| @RiverRatt - the lower legs look a little too 'plain'. It all depends on what look you are after - and also the amount of screen space the machine is to take up in game. If it were for an overhead view RTS then extra detail would be not noticed anyway. It also depends on the look you are after, ie compare the style of spacecraft in the old starwars movies versus the new ones. The original movies had a more gritty, bulky and mechanical look to them - similar to the robot from Robocop I posted earlier - if that is the style you are going for then more detail is needed. However if you are making it for a game where the technology looks "clean" "crisp" and "shiny" then what you have already done seems okay. This is merely my opinion however, and I am not an artist. |
   |