Star Ship Polaris
- Thread starter aridas sofia
- Start date
In my opinion, this is the best version so far, by far.
Just the relatively simple changes in the markings have enhanced the realism dramatically.
Also, I like this version of the galaxy patch much better than the previous version. It also helps that it better matches the patch that is on the uniforms.
Just the relatively simple changes in the markings have enhanced the realism dramatically.
Also, I like this version of the galaxy patch much better than the previous version. It also helps that it better matches the patch that is on the uniforms.
Which is exactly why I changed it.
Incidentally, the idea of aircraft with their names painted on the nose gave me another idea: What if Polaris had some WWII-style nose art? I have no idea if Dennis would love that idea or hate it, but it might be interesting to mull over some possibilities of what form it might take.
I like the new location of the registry number. The idea of nose art is kind of...startling, to tell you the truth. Interesting.
Don't a lot of military ships have a kind of painted "drop shadow" on their hull numbers? Like this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...ng_her_arrival_for_a_scheduled_port_visit.jpg
That might be nice.
Don't a lot of military ships have a kind of painted "drop shadow" on their hull numbers? Like this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...ng_her_arrival_for_a_scheduled_port_visit.jpg
That might be nice.
This might work to distract enemy gunners.
Afraid that's completely inappropriate for a ship with a lot of women in the crew. This isn't the Starship Hooters.
When do we get to see it with the sails closed again? It'll be in that configuration a lot and it's hard to say with certainly if the detail looks good overall if it's only being seen with the sails opened up.Last one for this weekend. Added detailing, panel lines, more saturated blues, and an alternate name and registry scheme.
As to the size of the identification numbers, this is a small production with a possibly limited VFX pipeline, so any details that make the ship asymmetrical limit what can be done in editorial, as it's often necessary to flop a shot to re-use or repurpose it. It's up to Dennis what level of asymmetry he's comfortable with.
Just as an example, the locomotive in The Wild Wild West was number "8" precisely so they could flop the shots of it and the number would read correctly (the real engine number is 25).
I'm fine with assymetry where this kind of thing is concerned. Frankly, while rendering outer space shots have their challenges it's also probably also where we have the broadest experience and resources to rely on.
I'm thinking now that we'll see the ship with its sails folded mainly when it goes into combat.
I'm thinking now that we'll see the ship with its sails folded mainly when it goes into combat.
I'll be in mah bunk.
I used this configuration with the sails about half open so I could work on detailing for the "tail fins" that would otherwise be hidden. I don't plan to do any more paintovers of different views unless specifically asked to do so. I would rather spend the time building the added details into the actual model. I'm pretty confident, however, that it will look fine with the sails closed or completely open.
I haven't seen the storyboards but my recollection of the script is that it doesn't call for much re-use of "stock footage" in the sense of flopped shots, etc. I'm actually more concerned with the size of the model than its asymmetry. Currently it is well over half a million polygons with hardly any of the detail from these concept paintovers having yet been added. I'm already working to optimize the base objects before I proceed to the detailing in the hopes of keeping the poly-count down as much as possible.
For my money, I could go either way on the drop shadow, but I think I prefer the simple white stroke you had before. Seeing as how my money in this project is "none-at-all" my opinion is nothing more than my opinion.
As for nose-art, In principle I love the idea, but somehow it seems unlikely on a capital ship to me. Such things are more the purview of small craft, like fighters, bombers, or maybe even utility craft like shuttles assuming they have dedicated crews. Such "non-regulation" graphics would more than likely be there only if that specific vehicle's crew put it there. For a ship originally meant for exploration, I suppose a mascot could be painted on, or, much more believably, a logo resembling a mission patch or some such. Something graphical and iconic, but not relying on human figures or "cheesecake." (And don't get me wrong, I adore cheesecake. Just doesn't seem right in this context.)
--Alex
As for nose-art, In principle I love the idea, but somehow it seems unlikely on a capital ship to me. Such things are more the purview of small craft, like fighters, bombers, or maybe even utility craft like shuttles assuming they have dedicated crews. Such "non-regulation" graphics would more than likely be there only if that specific vehicle's crew put it there. For a ship originally meant for exploration, I suppose a mascot could be painted on, or, much more believably, a logo resembling a mission patch or some such. Something graphical and iconic, but not relying on human figures or "cheesecake." (And don't get me wrong, I adore cheesecake. Just doesn't seem right in this context.)
--Alex
Of course, the "nose art" could just be a stylized logotype of the ship's name, and not necessarily a bombshell babe or cartoon mascot
Polaris isn't a "capital ship" as I understand that term - its function is closer to a recon or patrol ship than anything else, and it's vastly smaller than the big warships in our little pocket future.
I like the dropshadow...maybe in a gray rather than black.
The ship's name seems a little too graphic in this version - a little race car or "logo-ish." More like this in size and placement, I think:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/khamis/2351298052/in/set-72157604194663733/
Yeah - I think that while nose art is probably a bit much, the use of brush script for the name or elsewhere might have a charmingly retro, WWII vibe. Not real sure about that one.
Finally, I think the galaxy/eye emblem is a little crowded where it is - maybe put it on the weapons cluster or the back ring or something the way they used to put the stars and bars on the wings of aircraft:
http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/rh/ssi/image_popup.php?id=51066
I like the dropshadow...maybe in a gray rather than black.
The ship's name seems a little too graphic in this version - a little race car or "logo-ish." More like this in size and placement, I think:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/khamis/2351298052/in/set-72157604194663733/
Yeah - I think that while nose art is probably a bit much, the use of brush script for the name or elsewhere might have a charmingly retro, WWII vibe. Not real sure about that one.
Finally, I think the galaxy/eye emblem is a little crowded where it is - maybe put it on the weapons cluster or the back ring or something the way they used to put the stars and bars on the wings of aircraft:
http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/rh/ssi/image_popup.php?id=51066
I did try the gray instead of black and it didn't look bad. I'll go back to that and maybe try eliminating the black outline as well.
I agree the nose art idea, while intriguing, doesn't really pan out for a variety of reasons. I do like the idea of doing the name in a brush script, though, and will probably try that. It just makes sense to me that the ship would retain some cues to its non-military past.
I have to admit I don't really like it where it is either. Not sure which alternate location would work best but I'll try a few.
I wasn't referring to what is planned but what almost invariably happens is that some shot ends up having to be used in a different place than planned or reversed in order to maintain directional continuity. This either means re-doing the shot or flopping it in post. It's merely a risk and I raise these questions so Dennis can evaluate them. He's made his opinion clear so I've done my job.
Well, I understand that the Galactica was nearly four million polygons. It's possible that we can simplify this one for very long or very fast shots, and load the whole thing up for close or lingering shots.
Oddly enough, Polaris is likely to have more polygons than other ships in the show that are supposed to be twenty or thirty times its size.
Oddly enough, Polaris is likely to have more polygons than other ships in the show that are supposed to be twenty or thirty times its size.
Well, I understand that the Galactica was nearly four million polygons. It's possible that we can simplify this one for very long or very fast shots, and load the whole thing up for close or lingering shots.
Oddly enough, Polaris is likely to have more polygons than other ships in the show that are supposed to be twenty or thirty times its size.
That's a good thing, given that the bulk of space shots are probably going to feature it.
Well, I understand that the Galactica was nearly four million polygons. It's possible that we can simplify this one for very long or very fast shots, and load the whole thing up for close or lingering shots.
Oddly enough, Polaris is likely to have more polygons than other ships in the show that are supposed to be twenty or thirty times its size.
Well, I'm trying to hit a sweet spot where there's enough detail, especially in the areas where close-ups are likely to occur, but not so much that the model becomes unwieldy to work with and/or kills the render times. Hopefully the translation process from Max to LW (or is Maya now?) won't make that any more difficult.
Similar threads
