Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46 Location: Life is short, you're capable.
even IF the guy who did those ported them to spring. - They are flat with very shallow details, meaning all of that will be lost on you in game. - They have little contrast meaning everything will look like a grey blob. - The rest would take many years of work to complete.
too hard to follow? they look >decent< for a cinematic and are useless for in game. What mr. bob is producing is much better.
it looks like a big heavy gun, with very little around it (which looks like a destroyed, upside down Lego piece), but it can swim. like guardian out on the water, and it can swim. that is just my general, overactive sense of "realism" though, the guns and the tower look very nice, also ... everything i guess you did on it, Behe.
Joined: 24 Jan 2006, 21:12 Location: There is no god - and reality is his prophetess
The Problem with realizm is, that you basically get down to one standardshape for a ship, that isnt much altered at all, except for stealth and rockets replacing artillery, military ships over the last century didnt change much concerning look.
yeah true, for ultimate realism. but that is not what i am talking about. what i do not like with this model, is that the turret looks like 1/2 of the ships volume, and 3/4 of the above-water-volume. it feels like a 10t stone with a standard human swimming west, and it swims! with the old model, the relations in size seem much more natural. With the crow for example, it is the other way around; the new model makes much more sense.
Well, back then when I saw the boats I thought I'd whine about how the boat bow was in imbalance with the rest of the hull, especially with the cannon, making it look a bit silly. But now seen them again, in-game, I kinda like em' being expressive and characteristic.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum