mighty gorgon Posted February 11, 2004 Author Share Posted February 11, 2004 (edited) I did not mention it, but all lights are modelled in the wireframe (example below), hence they can be used independently. The "dusk" reder below is a bit lousy, but I hope you can see the lights (really?). There is even a "lightbulb" inside each anticollision tinted glass. The effect however, is far form perfect. I must clean a couple of surfaces and I will *DECLARE* the model finished. Hope to finish this week so I can start with a VF-11 and a (non-Macross) F-117 variant (A/F-117X, with F-117C intakes!!!!). Thnx, Gorgon Edited February 11, 2004 by mighty gorgon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angel's Fury Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Hope to finish this week so I can start with a VF-11 and a (non-Macross) F-117 variant (A/F-117X, with F-117C intakes!!!!).Thnx, Gorgon Looking forward for that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 A/F-117X, F-117C Intakes, man I must not pay enough attention to that POS, any source photos to help? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightning Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 how bout doing a VF-17S and a F-117 so we could compare em better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mighty gorgon Posted February 14, 2004 Author Share Posted February 14, 2004 (edited) A/F-117X, F-117C Intakes, man I must not pay enough attention to that POS, any source photos to help? I't's not Macross but it is almost science fiction... These are some images of both planes here. They're only projects. But if you go "radical" as in the A/F-117X... why not adding the intakes of the "F-117C"???? Edited February 14, 2004 by mighty gorgon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mighty gorgon Posted February 14, 2004 Author Share Posted February 14, 2004 how bout doing a VF-17S and a F-117 so we could compare em better? Actually the F-117X compares "better". It has a rounded canopy! Anyway, the VF-17 is not yet on my schedule. I'm still struggling with the surfacing of the "4". Man... in the modeller any improvement is immediate, but when surfacing, for each minor change you must run the renderer. As I already told before... I hate the surfacing... Regds, Gorgon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akilae Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 (edited) yeesh... a few months away from the CG board and the board is filled with monsters... I actually got a question for Mighty Gorgon(and all other CG masters here..) though, since my abysmal modelling techniques don't seem to be cutting the mustard... Do you guys model using NURBS, Sub-Ds, or pure vertex modelling? I started modelling using vetices on Blender (hey, I don't have $2000+ to blow on 3DS, Maya, or Rhino... and I do believe in legit software usage =), and while the results do seem to work out, the surfaces are often uneven, and any time I need to make a change, it's a friggin lot of vertices to move around. I managed to complete half a VF-2SS (fuselage, chest plate, wing, and arm) before finally giving up due to constant changes... Sub-Ds seem to be nice, although I'm not quite sure how one models with Sub-Ds. Do you build a rough frame, Sub-D, then tweak the frame to satisfaction? NURBS just escape me completely... EDIT: cut out unnecessary information.. Edited February 14, 2004 by Akilae Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mighty gorgon Posted February 14, 2004 Author Share Posted February 14, 2004 Do you guys model using NURBS, Sub-Ds, or pure vertex modelling? I started modelling using vetices on Blender (hey, I don't have $2000+ to blow on 3DS, Maya, or Rhino... and I do believe in legit software usage =), and while the results do seem to work out, the surfaces are often uneven, and any time I need to make a change, it's a friggin lot of vertices to move around. I managed to complete half a VF-2SS (fuselage, chest plate, wing, and arm) before finally giving up due to constant changes...Sub-Ds seem to be nice, although I'm not quite sure how one models with Sub-Ds. Do you build a rough frame, Sub-D, then tweak the frame to satisfaction? NURBS just escape me completely... Hi, I am using LW 7.5 and I am following Ethangar's excellent tutorial on WW2 aircraft as a guide (check it at lwg3d.org, even if you do not use LW). Basically I do a rough vertex model, SubD-it tweak it in Sub-D (here you go back and forth of the SubD mode), until I am satisfied with the overall shape. At that point, the mesh is "frozen" and subdivided. Frozen means that no major shape changes will be done after this moment. for the VF-4 I modeled separately wings, fuselage, tailfins, etc. which allow you to tweak each part to satisfcation. The Mig-3 of the lwg3d tut was modeled as a single solid, hence you "freeze" the whole mesh at once. Hope this helps... BTW, did some work on the engines and tailfin surfaces. Not finished yet, but looking closer and closer... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Gonzo Posted February 14, 2004 Share Posted February 14, 2004 Not so fast Gorgon, time for the REAL challenge: Make it transformable. You have to admit, it'd be a hell of a challenge... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mighty gorgon Posted February 14, 2004 Author Share Posted February 14, 2004 You have to admit, it'd be a hell of a challenge... Ugh! That would be a *REAL* challenge, but I should have to do it anew... Let's see what the VF-11 looks alike when I start modelling it Regds, Gorgon, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mighty gorgon Posted February 22, 2004 Author Share Posted February 22, 2004 (edited) I've been working on the surfacing. The model is by no means finished... this morning I rendered this, with 3 levels of "dirt", 1) Engine inner starboard (as the previous models) 2) Engine outer port, upper wings... (new, HEAVY) 3) Fuselage, intermediate I would stick to the fuselage level. Of course this is easiest said than done, as the f***ing "dirt map" seems to blend differently in each surface!!!!! In any event the big change is adding "high frequency" dirt. I mean, not too soft edged, and with small detail. Regds, Gorgon Edited February 22, 2004 by mighty gorgon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 Wow that's one dirty airplane! The weathering looks good but you might want to tone it down. I don't think any self respecting crew chief would let a junior officers plane out of a hangar that dirty, never mind the CAG bird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mighty gorgon Posted February 22, 2004 Author Share Posted February 22, 2004 (edited) Wow that's one dirty airplane! The weathering looks good but you might want to tone it down. I don't think any self respecting crew chief would let a junior officers plane out of a hangar that dirty, never mind the CAG bird. Indeed! I'll try to keep the high freq. "noise", but reduce the dirt "amplitude", a non easy task in Photoshop... (I make the textures in photoshop). Edited February 22, 2004 by mighty gorgon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Wow that's one dirty airplane! The weathering looks good but you might want to tone it down. I don't think any self respecting crew chief would let a junior officers plane out of a hangar that dirty, never mind the CAG bird. Indeed! I'll try to keep the high freq. "noise", but reduce the dirt "amplitude", a non easy task in Photoshop... (I make the textures in photoshop). Well, is the dirt a seperate texture, or a layer in a photoshop file? If it's the latter you can just fiddle with the opacity of it and tone it down that way. I don't know much at all texturing (or any aspect of 3-D modeling for that matter) but you may be able to do it for the former to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mighty gorgon Posted February 25, 2004 Author Share Posted February 25, 2004 Well, is the dirt a seperate texture, or a layer in a photoshop file? If it's the latter you can just fiddle with the opacity of it and tone it down that way. I don't know much at all texturing (or any aspect of 3-D modeling for that matter) but you may be able to do it for the former to. Dirt is spreaded in several Photoshop and LW layers. There is part of it as a a layer in the color map. Then you have additional dirt (I should say unevenness?) in the diffusion map and in the specular map. The one you see so evident in the above render is a sublayer of the color layer . I can fiddle with it in photoshop, but when I send it to LW the color map is already fixed (I use only one color map for each element)... and appropiately enough, LW smooths a lot the dirt. What you see in photoshop is NOT what you get after rendering. Normally the dirt must be a bit overdone in Photoshop to render decently. In addition, you can add several layers in the LW color map. I used that technique for the diffusion map of the former renders (one procedural layer + one jpg -from photoshop- layer), but it is currenlty beyond my ability. You have too many variables and each render takes several minutes. If the above seems confusing... well it is because it reflects my own confusion at this point!!!!!! Regds, McG (Mc Gorgon) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mighty gorgon Posted March 8, 2004 Author Share Posted March 8, 2004 Well, after 3 hectic weeks finally I got some time to go back to the VF-4. And I spent half of the last sunday trying to get a decent looking dirt (no pun intended). When I look at the results, I must say I feel disappointed. I still cannot obtain a "realistic" dirt. My last attempt is "multi-resolution dirt map" of which I show a detail here. It is a part of a 3 layered, 4000x4000 px Photoshop file. Looks nice? Well in the next posts I has been rendered on the VF... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mighty gorgon Posted March 8, 2004 Author Share Posted March 8, 2004 Now... rendered on the standard 3/4 back view of the -4... (large file) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mighty gorgon Posted March 8, 2004 Author Share Posted March 8, 2004 ...were are the small textures? the sharp edges? the subtle details of the "dirt"? GONE! So I tried a radiosity render, with similar results (attached image). Man! 4 hs of photoshop, 500 Mb of temporary files and 2 hs of several LW renderings for this????? So, I am considering a last addition to the model and I will declare it "completed" (or hibernated): kill marks. I already posted this question in the "movies & series" forum. So, after I must move to the next project, the VF-11 or the 5000. Regds, Gorgon, the unhappy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 The radiosity render looks good. Real good! It's still dirty but it's very subtle, which is what you'd get when a plane is in heavy use but well maintained. I like how the reflectivity of the paint changes subtly, it makes it look like the paint has oxidized in the sun a little. You might see if you can lighten the dirt up just one notch more, when you combine it with your dirt streak map it might get too dirty again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akilae Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 I probably have no idea of what I'm talking about... but how about putting something in for engine exhaust? I know you took out the blue flaming stuff cause it looked hokey.. how about some sort of distortiion, just something to let viewers know that the engines are actually in use? Just my two pennies... cause right now the plane looks like it's hanging there... maybe a slight motion blur? Also, speaking of dirt streaks... most planes have streaks along the edges of the wings, wing roots, what not.... any chance of working those into your model? :-p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mighty gorgon Posted March 9, 2004 Author Share Posted March 9, 2004 I probably have no idea of what I'm talking about... but how about putting something in for engine exhaust? I know you took out the blue flaming stuff cause it looked hokey.. how about some sort of distortiion, just something to let viewers know that the engines are actually in use? I have tried with no success yet... Check an extreme case in this Mirage photo, one of my alltime favourite air photos. Or in this F18 shot: exhaust, blurred background, condensation, it has everything... But this still seems above my skills. Also, speaking of dirt streaks... most planes have streaks along the edges of the wings, wing roots, what not.... any chance of working those into your model? :-p In the February renderings the streaks were there (see above)... and somehow they disappeared!!! I mean, really, I messed with the textures so much, that they are gone! But you are right, I'll redo them (they did not look right) and add them to the texture again. Not today... but the VF-4 will be back, soon... Thnx, Gorgon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellohikaru Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 I would love to see the heat efflux(distortion) like the in the Swiss Mirage pictureon your next rendering Gordon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mighty gorgon Posted March 10, 2004 Author Share Posted March 10, 2004 I would love to see the heat efflux(distortion) like the in the Swiss Mirage pictureon your next rendering Gordon. If I can "photoshop" my render over the mirage.... Did you notice the vortex trails from the canard tips? If you can, check all Axalp photos at airliners.net... they are AMAZING. I guess the atmospheric conditions there create those amazing effluxes (??). Now, seriously, I'll give it a try AGAIN. I already made and tried to use a map for the refraction index (which is how these effluxes work. But I could not get LW doing what I wanted (YET!). Gorgon the blurred! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mighty gorgon Posted March 13, 2004 Author Share Posted March 13, 2004 I would love to see the heat efflux(distortion) like the in the Swiss Mirage pictureon your next rendering Gordon. Not quite the same yet... but a first attempt without using hypervoxels. Note also some kill marks. I'll be working on the exhaust again tomorrow... Regds, Gorgon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mechmaster Posted March 13, 2004 Share Posted March 13, 2004 If I can "photoshop" my render over the mirage.... I wouldn't rule that idea out entirely, maybe not with the mirage picture, but you may find one better suited. Thats what I did with one of my Legioss models, I found a picture, of an F18 if I recall correctly and simply used it as a backdrop when I rendered the image in Cinema4D (after erasing a few bits of the original plane which stuck out from behind the model) I've tried to "build" that heat wake myself, playing with a texture that had all the properties switched off except transparency and bump and giving both of those fields the C4D animated water shader, not quite right but I've not given up yet either. Good luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mighty gorgon Posted March 17, 2004 Author Share Posted March 17, 2004 It sems that hypervoxels is the way to solve this. I've started experimenting with them and so far the results are promising. Attached is a comosite of 3 images: Uppermost: image in Layout. There are 3 particle emitters that tunnel the particles through the nozzle. It is not evident in this image, but the jet is shaped by the nozzle that acts as a rigid body. Middle: rendered image. I tinted the hypervoxels to see how they look. Somehow, even if they are travelling at 45 m/sec and the motion blur is turned on, they appear static (must correct this) Lower: renered image, transparent (but refracting) hypervoxels. Semms OK, except for the problem cited above. The HV are too static. Also the background is a bit lousy. I'll continue experimenting with this. Regds, Gorgon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingPika Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 OMWOMWOWMWOMW that is the sweetest thing i have seen in a long time, and of one of my favourite valks, and for once its not another VF-1 great work, hope to see more! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodavan Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Nice ! I am goin gto try that out ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mk16 Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 (edited) The only way to get better results is to use separate VFX software, really theres so much you can do in the 3D software. Engine effects, fire and smoke are better done in a VFX package. Thats really what ive picked up ,in cgtalk,when this effect comes into play. Edited April 5, 2004 by mk16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mighty gorgon Posted April 4, 2004 Author Share Posted April 4, 2004 MK16 recommended separate SFX programs: I've been trying Napalm 3D for LW. Seems Ok so far... Regds, Gorgon (on holidays) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.