Jump to content
danbickell

DYRL VF-1 WIP

Recommended Posts

I actually used to work with an artist named Jason Lewis, 10+ years ago. I think I do recall that he was a Macross fan as well (and was always admiring my Club-M 1/48 Strike model that I had in the office). I wonder if it is the same guy? I haven't been in touch with him for years now, but somebody just mentioned him at a dinner I was at on Friday, and apparently he is living in the Seattle area these days. I'll see if I can get in touch with him...

Ding, ding, ding, ding, YOU win a pig!'

Yes that is one of several Jason Lewis renders he shared with us here. I still consider his SDF-1 model legendary, unfortunately he never finished texturing it...:(

He was quite good and yes I for one miss his contributions to the group.

However, your renders are stopping just short of blowing everyone's minds....;)

Aka: Jay-Lew

http://www.macrosswo...p?showuser=3050

http://www.macrosswo..._posts&mid=3050

Two unforgettable Threads:

http://www.macrosswo...opic=16101&st=0

http://www.macrosswo...opic=19810&st=0

Edited by Zinjo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who ever knows him, ^%$#ING contact him! Getting these two artists together might cause a dimentional paradox or something.... (Maybe he's on facebook?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MW is blessed with some outstanding CG artists, these are two among many...B))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i just showed the 1st page pics to my dad (who is a Career BF Goodrich Landing Gear techrep guy) commented about the pics. He said that 1) the brace too small/thin [i didnt try to explain things like SWAG or other overtechnolgy methods to reenforce airframe components during transformation sequences] and 2) the launch bar is a bit too short... you should model it in the upright position when the Valkyrie is taxiing (since he said if the launch bar droops and catchs something, you either bend it [Pilot goes Opps to the CAG MO] or sping the aircraft around REALLY fast [Oh sh*t]. you really should look up aircraft landing gear configs to see ideas what the bar would like in taxi position since, unlike any aircraft build after perhaps VF-4, they still used more modern catapult shuttle designs...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i just showed the 1st page pics to my dad (who is a Career BF Goodrich Landing Gear techrep guy) commented about the pics. He said that 1) the brace too small/thin [i didnt try to explain things like SWAG or other overtechnolgy methods to reenforce airframe components during transformation sequences] and 2) the launch bar is a bit too short... you should model it in the upright position when the Valkyrie is taxiing (since he said if the launch bar droops and catchs something, you either bend it [Pilot goes Opps to the CAG MO] or sping the aircraft around REALLY fast [Oh sh*t]. you really should look up aircraft landing gear configs to see ideas what the bar would like in taxi position since, unlike any aircraft build after perhaps VF-4, they still used more modern catapult shuttle designs...

Good information, and we're on the same page.

Of course, the brace should certainly be much beefier, and was drawn much bigger in the lineart. Unfortunately, the lineart configuration doesn't actually fit inside the bay when retracted. That's why this one is offset to the side, a triple piston (instead of double), and smaller in diameter. This is what will actually fit, and work mechanically.

The launch bar is straight from the lineart. There is a little bit more room to lengthen it (before it won't clear the front door anymore), though. The lineart catapult shuttle design hitches to the bar pretty high off the deck, though. Of course, it would not be in that position for taxi! That position is simply part of my animation test, which goes from fully retracted to fully extended, so the cat bar swings all the way down through its complete arc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey i was thinking of doing my own VF-1 model, do you know if this hasegawa model you are using as reference looks good at battroid mode????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey i was thinking of doing my own VF-1 model, do you know if this hasegawa model you are using as reference looks good at battroid mode????

One of the reasons I decided on the Hasegawa 1/48 as the basis for my model is the proportions of the legs, which are larger and beefier than on previous models (and the odd leg angle of their 1/72 models has been fixed), and should look excellent in battroid mode.

It seems that the Hasegawa 1/48 proportions are very similar all-around to the Yamato 1/60 V2, which is my favorite of the transforming toys and models for looking good in all 3 modes. My biggest planned deviation from the Hasegawa 1/48 would be the arms, which will more closely match the Yamato 1/60 V2, but even those aren't too far off between the 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a study I put together, comparing various fighter side plans:

VF1_fighter_side_study.jpg

The blue and red boxes are all identical, and matching the Hasegawa 1/48.

You can clearly see how close it comes to the Yamato 1/60 V2 proportions. Likewise, you can see how much skinnier the legs are on the Hase 1/72 (and the angle problem), and also on the VF-1 Master File version (based on the M+:TIAS plans), which is also much flatter top to bottom. We know how poorly the latter transforms to battroid and gerwalk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a study I put together, comparing various fighter side plans:

The blue and red boxes are all identical, and matching the Hasegawa 1/48.

You can clearly see how close it comes to the Yamato 1/60 V2 proportions. Likewise, you can see how much skinnier the legs are on the Hase 1/72 (and the angle problem), and also on the VF-1 Master File version (based on the M+:TIAS plans), which is also much flatter top to bottom. We know how poorly the latter transforms to battroid and gerwalk.

Very interesting comparison, I don't think I've seen all of those together at once before.

I am liking the newer Hasegawa model, but I loath the look of the Yamato 1/60 v2 (and I say that having two of them). The contours of the nose and canopy just look atrocious.

With the Master File one, you can trace back where it comes from, it's just an up-detailed version of the one from This is Animation: Macross Plus. You can compare it to this one. http://www.macross2.net/m3/sdfmacross/vf-1a-valkyrie/schematic-vf1a.gif It fits closer with the production art from the show, which shows a very skinny and flat-looking VF-1. http://www.macross2.net/m3/sdfmacross/vf-1a-valkyrie/vf-1a-fullyarmed-fightermultipleviews.gif Notice the intake trunks stay flat, instead of coming down like the Hasegawa ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting comparison, I don't think I've seen all of those together at once before.

I am liking the newer Hasegawa model, but I loath the look of the Yamato 1/60 v2 (and I say that having two of them). The contours of the nose and canopy just look atrocious.

With the Master File one, you can trace back where it comes from, it's just an up-detailed version of the one from This is Animation: Macross Plus. You can compare it to this one. http://www.macross2.net/m3/sdfmacross/vf-1a-valkyrie/schematic-vf1a.gif It fits closer with the production art from the show, which shows a very skinny and flat-looking VF-1. http://www.macross2.net/m3/sdfmacross/vf-1a-valkyrie/vf-1a-fullyarmed-fightermultipleviews.gif Notice the intake trunks stay flat, instead of coming down like the Hasegawa ones.

I totally agree about the the nose contours on the Yamato V2. The limitations of a transformable toy, using thick plastic, and trying to do a cockpit interior and working landing gear in that scale, they sacrificed the contour and made it look "fat". The overall proportions, however, worked out quite well for making it look good in all 3 modes, even if the details aren't ideal. No other transforming toy or model gets this as well, in my opinion.

The Hasegawa 1/48 matches these proportions quite well, without sacrificing the proper contours, and this is why I like it so much.

I also agree that the VF-1 Master File / M+ TIA plans do match the original TV art very well. The problem, for me, is that it doesn't transform well, and requires the "anime magic" of the show to re-scale and re-proportion everything to look good in the other modes. I throw-up in my mouth a little every time I see the VF-1 Master File plans of what those proportions translate to in gerwalk and battroid.

Again, I think they have nailed the proportional changes on the Hasegawa 1/48 so that it will look great in battroid and gerwalk, and I absolutely love how it looks in fighter as well. I don't care for the old flattened fighter look, and much prefer this taller profile that evokes the Su-27, to me.

I also really like the lower intakes, which seems to be a nod to other modern fighters such as the F-16, F-18E, and F-22 where the intake is not flush with the fuselage. It looks good, is realistic, keeps it straight with the larger legs, and allows more space for the arms to be the proper size as well. It also creates much-needed extra room for the mechanism to swing the legs down for battroid. I think it is a genius solution to a number of problems with the original design, and I embrace it.

I love fighter mode as much as anybody, and will always sacrifice the other modes for fighter, but I want to do that as little as possible. Hasegawa did a really nice job re-designing their model, and it was my excitement over seeing this on the plans included with the model kit that got me motivated to start this CG model project. I love their new proportions, but it still has problems with a number of details not matching between the TV and DYRL versions of the VF-1.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan,

For what it's worth, here's the orthos of my old model. I'm sure your solutions to the proportion issues will blow mine away (it's been a few years and I can see many things I'd've done differently!) but might make for an interesting discussion point nonetheless

post-235-0-14926300-1300297736_thumb.png

Edited by Doktor Gonzo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 years.....in 10 years, I predict a fan-made re-animated (or live CGI) version of SDF-Macross and DYRL, using the original sound track and voices, just new animation.....it will be epic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan,

For what it's worth, here's the orthos of my old model. I'm sure your solutions to the proportion issues will blow mine away (it's been a few years and I can see many things I'd've done differently!) but might make for an interesting discussion point nonetheless

Doktor Gonzo, nice model - it's definitely one of the best looking battloid I've seen. You did a great job with the proportion issues (something I am also struggling with). I'd love to see more renders of your model. Do you have an online gallery somewhere?

Tipatat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

never mind found it.....nice CG BTW!!!

Edited by mojacko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doktor Gonzo, nice model - it's definitely one of the best looking battloid I've seen. You did a great job with the proportion issues (something I am also struggling with). I'd love to see more renders of your model. Do you have an online gallery somewhere?

Tipatat

Tipatat, thanks for the kind words! I don't have a dedicated image gallery anywhere but I found some old renders here and here. That said, though, it wasn't my attention to threadjack Dan's WIP thread, but rather to toss up my own interpretation as a point of comparison in the proportions discussion he inititated. Back in the stone age when I started this, I only had access to scans of the Hasegawa 1/72 blueprints, and I guess that's sort of still the model's DNA. But that left me with a gangling, thin-limbed, awkward battloid that I loathed and immediately began proportions-tweaking to revise. it also left me with the downwards-canting engine nacelles, which I never liked and soon abandoned, but I never beefed up the height of the nacelles the way the recent Yamato and Hase offerings did -- looks like I should, eh? The 1/72 profile also left me with backpack problems via the shape and positioning of the tailfins. I resolved those by cheating mightily - nothing changes shape or size, but the backpack is on an armature with additional joints to get it into a reasonable position against the back in battloid mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 years.....in 10 years, I predict a fan-made re-animated (or live CGI) version of SDF-Macross and DYRL, using the original sound track and voices, just new animation.....it will be epic.

Ten years could be as little as 5 computer power is increasing so quickly and all the new and more powerful software.

I am totally blown away, I wish I'd taken 3d modeling at college instead of my engineering stuff, which lead me into I.T. It takes me an hour to make a basic box structure or something in Sketch up or Milkshape. I have Maya and a DVD full of tutorials but never got round to it :(

This thread should get pinned :)

Edited by big F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have Maya and a DVD full of tutorials but never got round to it :(

Honestly, more helpful than any tutorial ever, was this one BOOK I actually got way back in the days of 3ds Max 4. It was called "Mastering the Art of Production with 3ds Max 4" and the basic methodology is still the same today. Some of the tools have evolved, but ultimately, it's a great place to learn language of modeling. Animation and all that is another beast altogether, as are lighting and rendering and texturing, but I think as far as fundamentals go, that book is priceless. Even if it's like 9 versions out of date, now.

I think the only thing keeping fans from recreating an episode is time and organization. From my own experience, Aria has been a challenge, as various team members all have different tools, schedules, interest levels, and goals. Real life commitments seem to be the biggest monkey wrench thrown into the mix. I believe that a college or grad school campus would be the best place to launch a project like that, because you would have an talent base not only dedicated to the subject matter, but to the process. Anyway, I just hope that Aria is released before the 10 or 5 years are up for the DYRL or SDFM CGI redux hits!

I didn't mean fans are disorganized, I meant there isn't a central organization like in a production. Contributors are free to come and go, and they are not bound to see a project through, and they're all working on personal gear of varying kinds, qualities, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, more helpful than any tutorial ever, was this one BOOK I actually got way back in the days of 3ds Max 4. It was called "Mastering the Art of Production with 3ds Max 4" and the basic methodology is still the same today. Some of the tools have evolved, but ultimately, it's a great place to learn language of modeling. Animation and all that is another beast altogether, as are lighting and rendering and texturing, but I think as far as fundamentals go, that book is priceless. Even if it's like 9 versions out of date, now.

I think the only thing keeping fans from recreating an episode is time and organization. From my own experience, Aria has been a challenge, as various team members all have different tools, schedules, interest levels, and goals. Real life commitments seem to be the biggest monkey wrench thrown into the mix. I believe that a college or grad school campus would be the best place to launch a project like that, because you would have an talent base not only dedicated to the subject matter, but to the process. Anyway, I just hope that Aria is released before the 10 or 5 years are up for the DYRL or SDFM CGI redux hits!

I didn't mean fans are disorganized, I meant there isn't a central organization like in a production. Contributors are free to come and go, and they are not bound to see a project through, and they're all working on personal gear of varying kinds, qualities, etc.

Thanks for the pointers IIRC I do have a printed book on the subject that was given to me by a client, it's in storage though along with almost all my Macross collection. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the pointers IIRC I do have a printed book on the subject that was given to me by a client, it's in storage though along with almost all my Macross collection. :(

If it's any consolation, my undergrad degree was in comp sci, not anything cg-related. Anything and everything I've learned since came from books, certificate courses, and on-the-job learning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your input, Doktor Gonzo! Your VF-1 model has been one of the best around for many years, and I have a number of your renders among my reference. Those orthos are very appreciated, and will certainly be studied and compared to other interpretations. The fighter front ortho is of particular interest to me, and it confirms some thoughts I've had regarding your interpretation, specifically the more circular cross section of nose (much like the original ortho lineart, TV era), rather than the more triangular/trapezoidal cross section (wider and flatter at the bottom) direction that some of the more modern interpretations have moved to.

Studying the many interprations of the VF-1 design is a big part of the fun of working on a project like this, for me. I would probably have a lot more of the model worked out by now if I spent less time comparing and scrutinizing the details of all the available artwork, models, and toys. I think patience has certainly come with age for me, though, and I am very happy to have such a wealth of work that has been done by all the artists and craftsman before me availble to learn from.

As far as the schooling discussion, I have never had any formal training. There really wasn't much availble when I was in college 20 years ago, and I was studying bio-chem anyway. CG art was merely a hobby of mine back then, and I learned by doing. I have never had a class, and never read any books relating to the subject. I'm coming up on 16 years in game development soon, and everything I know has come from self-learning and experience working alongside other artists (many of which, especially the older folks, also never had any related formal education).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your input, Doktor Gonzo! Your VF-1 model has been one of the best around for many years, and I have a number of your renders among my reference. Those orthos are very appreciated, and will certainly be studied and compared to other interpretations. The fighter front ortho is of particular interest to me, and it confirms some thoughts I've had regarding your interpretation, specifically the more circular cross section of nose (much like the original ortho lineart, TV era), rather than the more triangular/trapezoidal cross section (wider and flatter at the bottom) direction that some of the more modern interpretations have moved to.

Studying the many interprations of the VF-1 design is a big part of the fun of working on a project like this, for me. I would probably have a lot more of the model worked out by now if I spent less time comparing and scrutinizing the details of all the available artwork, models, and toys. I think patience has certainly come with age for me, though, and I am very happy to have such a wealth of work that has been done by all the artists and craftsman before me availble to learn from.

As far as the schooling discussion, I have never had any formal training. There really wasn't much availble when I was in college 20 years ago, and I was studying bio-chem anyway. CG art was merely a hobby of mine back then, and I learned by doing. I have never had a class, and never read any books relating to the subject. I'm coming up on 16 years in game development soon, and everything I know has come from self-learning and experience working alongside other artists (many of which, especially the older folks, also never had any related formal education).

I hear you. I'm tempted every so often to restart from scratch, both to partake of all the available versions out there (when I started this, all I had available to me were screencaps, the Hase 1/72 blueprints, and the Yamato 1/60 v1) AND to approach it as a fairly accomplished modeler rather than a novice (this thing was the first full character model I ever made, used it to teach myself modeling, and the quality of the original parts' meshes definitely shows it.) But if I were going to undertake another hobby project this size, I guess I'd rather do something wholly original than engage in the futile endeavor of trying to out-model guys like you ;)

That said, I've been tempted into revisiting parts of this thing at intervals as new interpretations became available. I thought about making the nose more trapezoidal in cross-section, but I'm not all that unhappy with the way it looks now (it would probably best be characterized as egg-shaped, with the narrow top of the egg flattened forward of the canopy.) I redid the fronts of the lower legs to give the bottom panels a bowed-in hourglass shape, rather than rectangular. I beefed up the forearms at some point as new interpretations showed me how. Most radically, I redid the nose shape and the positioning of the forward fuselage in battloid mode once I saw the Yamato 1/60 v2, since their solutions blew away prior interpretations and gave by far the cleanest, most heroic silhouette.

I think this piecemeal "magpie eye" approach to the vf1 has given me a model that's very pleasing to ME, as it incorporates my favorite interpretations of various parts. The downside is that the whole perhaps appears a bit disjoint, like the collection of pieces from many different vf-1s that it in fact is! Bottom line I guess is that I'm watching avidly to see how you approach these issues and what your ultimate solutions are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a study I put together, comparing various fighter side plans:

The blue and red boxes are all identical, and matching the Hasegawa 1/48.

You can clearly see how close it comes to the Yamato 1/60 V2 proportions. Likewise, you can see how much skinnier the legs are on the Hase 1/72 (and the angle problem), and also on the VF-1 Master File version (based on the M+:TIAS plans), which is also much flatter top to bottom. We know how poorly the latter transforms to battroid and gerwalk.

Thx man!

I see that the legs will look ugly in B-mode with those 2 last.

Edited by akt_m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the schooling discussion, I have never had any formal training. There really wasn't much availble when I was in college 20 years ago, and I was studying bio-chem anyway. CG art was merely a hobby of mine back then, and I learned by doing. I have never had a class, and never read any books relating to the subject. I'm coming up on 16 years in game development soon, and everything I know has come from self-learning and experience working alongside other artists (many of which, especially the older folks, also never had any related formal education).

I figure that we must both of the same era then :) Well when I get time from my 1:1 scale model (my house), then I will bee trying to get into it.

I need an outlet for my various P.C's that is actually going to tax the innards of the P.C's because web and email letters and streaming media don't even get close to maxing them, although editing Hires 200 meg + scans in Photoshop can. :)

For now though I'll just watch excellent threads like this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also really like the lower intakes, which seems to be a nod to other modern fighters such as the F-16, F-18E, and F-22 where the intake is not flush with the fuselage. It looks good, is realistic, keeps it straight with the larger legs, and allows more space for the arms to be the proper size as well. It also creates much-needed extra room for the mechanism to swing the legs down for battroid. I think it is a genius solution to a number of problems with the original design, and I embrace it.

I was wondering about the lower intakes on the 1/48 scale Hasegawa. I thought it was just poor fitment of the model, but that's the way it's supposed to be? Wow, I'm not sure if I like it or not like it, but you raise a lot of good points. It just looks...I dunno, like it doesn't fit right, especially when we're used to seeing it comepletely flush all these years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if anyone knows if there is avaliable a lowpoly transformable VF-1 valk model anywere???

I already started my model, but wanted something to work on for all the transformable parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of these days I need to make a fully rigged VF-1. I've never gotten around to it because I've always been absorbed in other projects, but I would love to tackle the design entirely from a realistic perspective.. ie, making everything fit, and look realistic (even if we don't have the technology to do it).

I started making an X-Wing with a similar method, and the results are actually really good. It's fun throwing in all those little details you know should be there for things to work in real life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I HIGHLY approve of this. This does drive me more in the direction of starting that Macross 3D model repository. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, nothing much new to show. I've done a little work on the A head, but that's about it.

My boss wants me to learn Zbrush, so my spare time has been sucked up with that. Hard for an old dog to learn new tricks like this, but I'm starting to see some light at the end of the tunnel. I hadn't paid much attention to Zbrush since I last evaluated an early version years ago, and there is a lot of new stuff that makes it much better suited for hard-surface mechanical models than it used to be.

I will probably start importing pieces of my VF-1 model into Zbrush, retopologize them, and detail them. I'll probably start with the seat cushion, get some nice cloth details on that, and then move on to the rest of the seat to see what I can do. I'm thinking I can stick to Maya for the major modelling, and do all the detailing in Zbrush. All the panel lines and such should be much easier to do in Zbrush, compared to the way I've been doing it so far. Likewise for rivet details and such.

One of the things that really impresses me about Zbrush is the ways you can edit topology. I'm thinking this is the perfect road for making extremely detailed models that are much more suitable for 3D printing, which is ultimately what I would like to do with this VF-1 model. I've always wanted to produce a large scale cockpit model, maybe 1/24 or 1/32 scale models of the whole thing, or maybe detail parts (cockpit, etc.) for the Hasegawa 1/48.

I will be sure to post progress, as soon as I have something worth posting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's really interesting, Dan. I've always been interested in 3d CG and printing myself. One thing I've always wanted to do was to be able to make well-detailed renditions of some of the rarer planes, like the VF-11MAXL, the stock VF-11D, or the different Advanced Valkyries. I'll have to look into Zbrush sometime, but I really should learn modeling in general. I've actually been slowly working on a top view of the VF-19F/S just for that purpose.

Speaking of 1/24th scale VF-1s, have you seen this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's really interesting, Dan. I've always been interested in 3d CG and printing myself. One thing I've always wanted to do was to be able to make well-detailed renditions of some of the rarer planes, like the VF-11MAXL, the stock VF-11D, or the different Advanced Valkyries. I'll have to look into Zbrush sometime, but I really should learn modeling in general. I've actually been slowly working on a top view of the VF-19F/S just for that purpose.

Speaking of 1/24th scale VF-1s, have you seen this?

Yeah, I've been watching the progress on that 1/24 VF-1, and I certainly give him an A for effort! I've done my share of scratch building, molding and casting, and I know how much hard work that is. Plenty of people seem to be excited about it, and I hope he is able to produce some kits and sell them. One of the nice things about scratch building is that it isn't nearly as expensive as 3d printing, so hopefully he can offer kits at a reasonable price.

The tricky thing with larger scale models is that the larger scale SHOULD afford better detail than a smaller scale model of the same subject, but they usually don't. Historically, a lot of 1/32 scale aircraft kits are simply scaled up versions of pre-existing 1/48 or 1/72 kits, and it shows. Hasegawa did a great job with their 1/48 VF-1 because it isn't derivative of their 1/72 kits. They mastered a new model from scratch, and besides the proportional differences I keep harping on, they used the scale for more detail, with more realistic scale on the size and depth of the panel lines and rivets, and the thickness (or thinness) of the parts.

A 1/24 scale model should be able to have double the detail quality of a 1/48, ideally, and that is what I would be targeting. A panel line, scribed into a physical model with a panel scriber, will tend to be much too big and deep to be realistic for modern aircraft tolerances, even at 1/24 scale. Even at 0.5mm (width and depth), that would scale up to 12mm at 1/1 scale (half an inch), which is much too large. The largest panel lines on my CG model so far are 4mm (panels with hinges), down to 2.5mm for the smaller ones. CG modeling makes this easy to control. Trying to scribe such details on a physical model at 1/24 scale would mean they would need to be 0.1 to 0.16 mm, which would be quite a feat to pull off!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I think I've made enough progress on the DYRL VF-1A head to merit posting. My Zbrush experimentation has been interesting and informative, but I'm nowhere close to getting the sort of results I was hoping for. Perhaps I can get there eventually, but it will be a real trick to get intricate hard-surface modelling as clean as I'm aiming for, so back to good old Maya!

head_geo2_8_AO4.jpg

I've always loved the A head, especially the updated DYRL version. The shape is a little tricky, and it seems that most interpretations of it are often quite wrong. Mine is primarily based on the Hasegawa 1/48, which is pretty good, despite trying to do double-duty as both TV and DYRL versions (with or without the eye extension). They did a great job, but there are more differences than the eye extension they overlooked. Yamato did a nice job with the 1/60 V2 versions, with completely different models for TV and DYRL (though the proportions of the DYRL version is weighted a bit much to the front, much like one of the models in Vol. 2 of the VF-1 Master File).

head_geo2_8_AO7.jpg

I've always wanted to take a shot at replicating the eye detail, but I saved it for last to keep myself motivated. This is based soley on the Kawamori detail sketches. There's certainly some interpretation going on, but I tried to keep it as close as possible to what was designed, and resisted the urge to make up my own details as much as I could manage.

head_geo2_8_AO3.jpg

Here are various shots without the ambient occlusion, but with some color, and the glass parts in the eye:

head_geo2_8_5.jpg

Lastly, here's the head in context with the nose:

head_geo2_8_AO8.jpg

While I have the basic geometry setup for the transformation mechanism (based on the Yamato 1/60 V2), it hasn't been detailed yet. That, and the details on the back of the nose and the head cavity under the nose are next up!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing. That is some fantastic interpretation of the eye detail sketches and the overall head. Can't wait to see the other head variants.

Tipatat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That head looks awesome! It appears like there's a lens behind a retractable cover, down in the corner if I'm looking at this right.

I can't wait to see more, this is going to be the best VF-1 CG model ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing. That is some fantastic interpretation of the eye detail sketches and the overall head. Can't wait to see the other head variants.

Tipatat

Thanks! Your models helped motivate me to step up my game. I had been jonesing to do the eye that way all along, and you beat me to the punch. Cheers!

That head looks awesome! It appears like there's a lens behind a retractable cover, down in the corner if I'm looking at this right.

I can't wait to see more, this is going to be the best VF-1 CG model ever.

Yeah, that secondary lens with a clam-shell cover is an interesting feature, that shows up in both the detail sketches that were done for the A and S heads for DYRL, and also in another DYRL sketch (busts of S and A battroids, with Claudia sitting on top of Roy's S head and Misa and Minmei fighting over Hikaru's A). It is shown with the clam-shell open and closed, but it is consistently there, with the same placement, and I would assume the other models have them as well.

Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×