Random WIP 2006-2011
Moderators: MR.D, Moderators
@PressureLine:
Hey, that's definitely looking tanky! Good work there, build on that.
For under the turret, my suggestion, given your polycount and detail elsewhere, is that you use a simple, angled box under the turret. It does not need to be much bigger than the base of the turret, and can be quite flat. That'd take care of the problem, at screenshot angles and distances. From overhead, it won't matter nearly as much.
Now, as an aesthetic thing (i.e., completely disregard me if you want, this is just my opinion), I would suggest making the barrels smaller, remove one of the supports, increase the depth of one of the supports and put it more towards the middle. I would also lower the height of the turret about 10% or so. Lastly, I can't tell from the rendering how the mechanism turns- is the right half the only part that rotates?
@SABOT Enthusiasts:
Um, I'm aware of these facts, but in point of fact, all modern tanks use smoothbore cannons that fire SABOT rounds. They're called SABOT rounds, because of the "shoe", but it's the accepted generic name for the type of ammunition.
Now, some of the SABOTs fired by modern tanks contain HE / SMOKE / AP / etc. contents... I'm just guilty of referring to what kind of ammo the weapon uses primarily (er, in Spring, that'd be "all the time, unless I want to make scripting the thing a real pain in the butt"). And the fact is that SABOT is one of those concepts that is pretty much timeless- I doubt if it'll get replaced any time soon.
I could've said, "it's a linear accelerator, pushing neutrons", or "it's a gamma-wave emitter" or "it fires an x-ray laser, powered by the nucleonic decay of dark matter" (whatever the hell that means, I actually read that somewhere, lol, showing that my knowledge of Physik may be lousy, but there are dumber people out there), or any other sci-fi trope I wanted to dig out've the basement, frankly. Matters not!
@Wolf-In-Exile:
Thanks. Actually, my opinion is that it's good for a quickie, but at the scales of Spring, going down to rivets for anything but screenshot / porfolio purposes is a waste of time.
@LordLemmi:
Er, Nazi mode? <reads further> oh, nvm.
@Comp1337:
Well, David Drake, one of my favorite authors about futuristic warfare (he admits, wholeheartedly, in basically writing about "Vietnam with rayguns" in his forewards, so I actually try to steer farther into the real future than he often does), often described a weapon where a liquid propellant was converted to plasma extremely rapidly by sending enormous amounts of electrical power through a small tungsten coil. It's a halfway-plausible way of designing a "caseless" weapons system. I've always thought it was an interesting idea, and that's where I stole it from.
Hey, that's definitely looking tanky! Good work there, build on that.
For under the turret, my suggestion, given your polycount and detail elsewhere, is that you use a simple, angled box under the turret. It does not need to be much bigger than the base of the turret, and can be quite flat. That'd take care of the problem, at screenshot angles and distances. From overhead, it won't matter nearly as much.
Now, as an aesthetic thing (i.e., completely disregard me if you want, this is just my opinion), I would suggest making the barrels smaller, remove one of the supports, increase the depth of one of the supports and put it more towards the middle. I would also lower the height of the turret about 10% or so. Lastly, I can't tell from the rendering how the mechanism turns- is the right half the only part that rotates?
@SABOT Enthusiasts:
Um, I'm aware of these facts, but in point of fact, all modern tanks use smoothbore cannons that fire SABOT rounds. They're called SABOT rounds, because of the "shoe", but it's the accepted generic name for the type of ammunition.
Now, some of the SABOTs fired by modern tanks contain HE / SMOKE / AP / etc. contents... I'm just guilty of referring to what kind of ammo the weapon uses primarily (er, in Spring, that'd be "all the time, unless I want to make scripting the thing a real pain in the butt"). And the fact is that SABOT is one of those concepts that is pretty much timeless- I doubt if it'll get replaced any time soon.
I could've said, "it's a linear accelerator, pushing neutrons", or "it's a gamma-wave emitter" or "it fires an x-ray laser, powered by the nucleonic decay of dark matter" (whatever the hell that means, I actually read that somewhere, lol, showing that my knowledge of Physik may be lousy, but there are dumber people out there), or any other sci-fi trope I wanted to dig out've the basement, frankly. Matters not!
@Wolf-In-Exile:
Thanks. Actually, my opinion is that it's good for a quickie, but at the scales of Spring, going down to rivets for anything but screenshot / porfolio purposes is a waste of time.
@LordLemmi:
Er, Nazi mode? <reads further> oh, nvm.
@Comp1337:
Well, David Drake, one of my favorite authors about futuristic warfare (he admits, wholeheartedly, in basically writing about "Vietnam with rayguns" in his forewards, so I actually try to steer farther into the real future than he often does), often described a weapon where a liquid propellant was converted to plasma extremely rapidly by sending enormous amounts of electrical power through a small tungsten coil. It's a halfway-plausible way of designing a "caseless" weapons system. I've always thought it was an interesting idea, and that's where I stole it from.
Um, they have to use some sort of SABOT, right? I mean, it's the same barrel...
<googles>
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... s/m242.htm
It's not quite clear whether the HE rounds for this weapon system use SABOT, or not. But in the main, you are correct, most modern tanks don't fire HE at all.
However, tanks in WWII and in the 1950s, which had smoothbore guns, did fire HE rounds (yes, I'm aware that lots of tanks in WWII used rifles, but meh, what is this, a historical armaments thread, or a thread about art, anyhow?). At any rate, I don't see any reason why this should be technically impossible.
<googles>
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... s/m242.htm
It's not quite clear whether the HE rounds for this weapon system use SABOT, or not. But in the main, you are correct, most modern tanks don't fire HE at all.
However, tanks in WWII and in the 1950s, which had smoothbore guns, did fire HE rounds (yes, I'm aware that lots of tanks in WWII used rifles, but meh, what is this, a historical armaments thread, or a thread about art, anyhow?). At any rate, I don't see any reason why this should be technically impossible.
I think you might get better projectile velocity by using the same electrical energy and using it to drive a rail or gauss gun- plus, that way you don't need to carry drums of liquid propellant around with you.
Also, there is the question of, as tank-killing equipment becomes more common and portable (And as armor technology falls behind weapon tech. in general) whether the war of the future would have tanks at all.
Also, where are the projector spheres for the point defense lasers?
Also, there is the question of, as tank-killing equipment becomes more common and portable (And as armor technology falls behind weapon tech. in general) whether the war of the future would have tanks at all.
Also, where are the projector spheres for the point defense lasers?
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
Tell ya what, whenever somebody gets around to allowing for more types of Interceptor weapons, I will happily add that feature to a tank. I think that would be cool, if we could have a Hammer's Slammers sort've thing, but I'm not holding my breath, either- I'll just stare at FLOZi, and glance meaningfully at my watch, instead.Also, where are the projector spheres for the point defense lasers?
WWII tanks got used (usually in the Second and Third World) well into the 1960's.WWII tanks in the 1950s?
No, they dont. And there's no need for it, infact, you would want low-medium velocity for throwing smoke and HE rounds about.Argh wrote:Um, they have to use some sort of SABOT, right? I mean, it's the same barrel...
Modern american tanks don't... mainly they have been replaced with multipurpose rounds.<googles>
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... s/m242.htm
It's not quite clear whether the HE rounds for this weapon system use SABOT, or not. But in the main, you are correct, most modern tanks don't fire HE at all.
Name me one service tank of WWII or the 1950s with a smoothbore gun (hint: you won't find one). A SABOT round doesn't require a smoothbore, they have just been adopted because they can give better performance now that SABOT rounds are fin-stabilised.However, tanks in WWII and in the 1950s, which had smoothbore guns, did fire HE rounds (yes, I'm aware that lots of tanks in WWII used rifles, but meh, what is this, a historical armaments thread, or a thread about art, anyhow?). At any rate, I don't see any reason why this should be technically impossible.
Anyway, yeah, enough of the history/modern day armament lecture.
edit: and yeah, don't hold your breath, i've promised to look at it but not do anything about it until I know how big a job it is.
-
Pressure Line
- Posts: 2283
- Joined: 21 May 2007, 02:09
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
Just over 1400 tris. A bit torn on the skin, actually- going down to 512, with this many weird-shaped pieces, and so little mirroring (the body's mirrored, the head, but I didn't swap arm-sides or leg-sides, because they're slightly different shapes)... means that the loss of resolution is quite apparent, unfortunately. Kind've grumpy about that, but meh, that's what happens when you design something that takes 2 hours to make the map for, and then try to squeeze it into a small texture space, I guess.
-
KingRaptor
- Zero-K Developer
- Posts: 838
- Joined: 14 Mar 2007, 03:44
UVMapping is the art and science of taking your polygons' normals (imagine little rays, coming out of the center of each triangle) and arranging their projection angle (the direction of the little rays) so that a flat, 2D texture, or "skin", can appear to "wrap" around the object's polygons, making it look kewl 
There is a tutorial around here, about UVMapping with Wings, and I wrote a short tutorial on the very, very basics of it. I've been wanting to do a more advanced tutorial, but events have kept me from being able to do so.
There is a tutorial around here, about UVMapping with Wings, and I wrote a short tutorial on the very, very basics of it. I've been wanting to do a more advanced tutorial, but events have kept me from being able to do so.
-
Guessmyname
- Posts: 3301
- Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 21:07
I could widen the head at the base, those verts are seperate from the body, and the size of the texture there is small enough that the stretching probably won't be too noticable... I'll give it a whirl, the worst that happens is that it looks terrible and I go back to what I've got. I was trying to avoid referencing any particular anime source with the head design, whilst obviously drawing on many, starting with Armored Trooper Votoms and other sources.
<edits>
Here. Better? Can't go much wider, it'll start clipping the "raised area" to the side, in the skin, on the "shoulder" area... and for reasons I think are probably obvious, I'd rather not have to mess with the skin more- time to work on something new (a sniper-bot is being done by another artist, and it looks sexy, doing final workup tomorrow, plus I have the Land Factory unwrapped, just need to skin it). I think it feels better, but it might need a bit more preshading now, I'll look at it when I have had some sleep, though, too tired to do any more.
<edits>
Here. Better? Can't go much wider, it'll start clipping the "raised area" to the side, in the skin, on the "shoulder" area... and for reasons I think are probably obvious, I'd rather not have to mess with the skin more- time to work on something new (a sniper-bot is being done by another artist, and it looks sexy, doing final workup tomorrow, plus I have the Land Factory unwrapped, just need to skin it). I think it feels better, but it might need a bit more preshading now, I'll look at it when I have had some sleep, though, too tired to do any more.
Last edited by Argh on 21 Aug 2007, 12:29, edited 1 time in total.
-
BrainDamage
- Lobby Developer
- Posts: 1164
- Joined: 25 Sep 2006, 13:56
while it can be argued that "it looks cool", having the eye/cam enclosed in a narrow deep fissure is a bad design choice in practical.
such robot would have an cone of view of something like 30 degs, maybe even less, the eyes should instead be extruding from the face in order to have the best view angle.
any argument about vulnerable points & armor would be weak, such robot would have to turn itself to watch things on it's sides, so would be dead before even noticing the enemy incoming
such robot would have an cone of view of something like 30 degs, maybe even less, the eyes should instead be extruding from the face in order to have the best view angle.
any argument about vulnerable points & armor would be weak, such robot would have to turn itself to watch things on it's sides, so would be dead before even noticing the enemy incoming
Well, "it looks cool" is the main guiding rule here. I will happily concede, to anybody who wants to bother arguing the point, that there are a number of obvious mechanical and design flaws with this robot, starting with the design of the hips, which obviously aren't going to flex sideways, and would make this an unworkable design, IRL But, meh, it still looks cool. <goes to bed>
But, meh, it still looks cool. <goes to bed>