Topic: X Ships Project....

[Khalee1]

Looks good so far. If your doing this in max 9 how are you going to convert it to mod format, as i've rebuilt my connie 4 times sofar and still have shadowing issues with the mesh. Im thinking maybe if I export it out of gmax befor I convert it,that might solve the shadow problems.

[Centurus]

Ive got MAX 5, so I'm gonna export the model to 3DS and then if I can find a mapper, I'll send it off to get mapped.  I can't map, and I have tried, but without someone there to kinda show you how to map, it's practically impossible.

I tried Joker's old vid tut, but could never map.

[Kreeargh]

Ive got MAX 5, so I'm gonna export the model to 3DS and then if I can find a mapper, I'll send it off to get mapped.  I can't map, and I have tried, but without someone there to kinda show you how to map, it's practically impossible.

I tried Joker's old vid tut, but could never map.

Its not as hard as you think, try this its one way of many Step 1, find editable mesh select the area you want to map ie top saucer in this case. Select all those polys they should turn red in all max versions after 4.2,in the roll out pannel to the right find detach , detach them the popup should say object1 then click on modyfiers/ UV coordniates/Uvwmap that will give you the option to select plainer,cylynder,sphere,and others ,select plainer  the x y z coordniates is the one you need to mess with to apply the map. Step2 the globe with the texture i use gmax now so my memory of max 4 and 5 are old but i remember them as matierial editors? select a sphere/globe and click on new,under blinn basic parameters/ diffuse/ bitmap , find your texture and select. Click apply it should apply the map click the 3d checkerd box it should show you the applyed texture in the viewport.  Max users if i missed a step please update it 

[Kreeargh]

Looks good so far. If your doing this in max 9 how are you going to convert it to mod format, as i've rebuilt my connie 4 times sofar and still have shadowing issues with the mesh. Im thinking maybe if I export it out of gmax befor I convert it,that might solve the shadow problems.

Max 9 is not much better than gmax useing the meshsmooth options , the shadow issues you are haveing i bet are caused by 1 of 2 things extra verts or the verts are off kilter slightly makeing it show up as it is. Try looking at the model with out mesh smooth applyed and if you see edge line the vertex got moved some how if it looks smooth then i bet you need to weld verts together to fix. Just a wild guess here 

[Centurus]

Using mesh smooth on a model isn't always the best thing to do.  At least from what experience I've had with mesh smooth.  Also, I don't think he was using Meshsmooth to begin with.

I think his problems are with smoothing groups.  Low poly models sometimes have problems when it comes to smoothing.

[Spartan-039]

Looks very good. I just can help but to be bugged though over the fact it looks like a refitted version of an Execlsior class. Not enough to make think it is, it just gives me that feel. Especially with engineering hull, along with the one spot where the nacelles meet the engineering hull.

[Kreeargh]

Using mesh smooth on a model isn't always the best thing to do.  At least from what experience I've had with mesh smooth.  Also, I don't think he was using Meshsmooth to begin with.

I think his problems are with smoothing groups.  Low poly models sometimes have problems when it comes to smoothing.

If i recall there are 2 types of mesh smooth 1 type increased the poly the other type does not either way i am no help so i will just watch and wait for your results 

[FoaS_XC]

Smoothing is one thing, Meshsmoothing (also called Subdivision or Turbosmoothing) is different.
Smoothing basically just peturbs the normals of vertexes across different groups of polygons. Meshsmoothing basically subdivides meshes and places the new verts on a certain averages based on the normals of the old verts.

[Centurus]

Looks very good. I just can help but to be bugged though over the fact it looks like a refitted version of an Execlsior class. Not enough to make think it is, it just gives me that feel. Especially with engineering hull, along with the one spot where the nacelles meet the engineering hull.

I know how you feel.  I had the same impression the first time I ever saw the XCA, even the stock Taldren models from OP.  However, after a while, at least for me, you begin to start seeing them as separate classes, even though they may generally look like an established class.

[Centurus]

Here's an update.  I made the bridge.  Kinda elaborate, but I think I nailed it.  The smoothing isn't permanent.  I just didn't want rough edges in the renders.

[FoaS_XC]

Just my 2 cents, but i wouldn't just put a lip around the impulse engines, perhaps in conjunction with an reverse-extruded, but not alone.

[Centurus]

They're extruded in, just not that deep.

[FoaS_XC]

then I would deepen it so as not to cheapen it.

[Centurus]

I'm thinking about giving the impulse engines a different look to be honest.  My last attempt was very poor, that's why I did what I did.  There's still time for it.

In the meantime, I've already finished the placements for the saucer's phaser emitters.  I now have to make the emitters themselves, but with the boxes in place, that should be easy.  This ship is gonna have some recessed emitters in the banks.

[GotAFarmYet?]

Depends on how high poly you want the model I guess but I would remove a few things.

The recessed area around the bridge dome is not really needed, and can be removed.
The next area is the valley around the impulse dome you made a valley there that you could have used a simple V shape instead

[Centurus]

Those were intentional.  The impulse dome, I like cause it gives it a little character.  The bridge, same, but also controls height, albeit to a very small degree.

[Bernard Guignard]

Very nice work Keep it up.  My only concern is l the location of the impulse dome  it seems a little too far forward on the saucer
moving it back a little  would look good but that is my opinon and you are free to use it or not   

Great work all round 

[Centurus]

Here's a slight update.  I know it's been a while but I've been preoccupied and lazy.

I decided to take Bernard's advice and I resized the impulse crystal and repositioned it.  It was fairly easy to do.

I've finished cutting out the launchers for the saucers for the various ships.  The CA version will have 2 forward launchers in the saucer, the DN with 3 engines will have 3 forward launchers in the saucer, and the BB with 4 engines will have 4 saucer launchers.

The neck will have 2 launchers for all versions.

I haven't decided if I should do a single or dual deflector theme with the ships.  I thought about doing a single deflector for the CA, and dual deflectors for the DN and BB.

And I'm constantly redoing the impulse engines.  I just can't seem to find anything I am comfortable with.

Anyway, deflector, should I do a dual deflector for all ships, single deflector for all ships, or a dual deflector for the DN and BB while the CA gets a single deflector?

[Bernard Guignard]

I like the idea for the impulse crystal to be Single for the ca and depending where you are mounting the extra warp engines go Dual for the DN and Battleship.   

[Centurus]

I'm going to keep the impulse crystal as a single for all ships.  The deflector though I can't decide if I should go single, dual, or a mix.