Jump to content

Macross Variable Fighter Photos


ron5864
 Share

Recommended Posts

I like the concept and your execution is stunning. One thing I've noticed is the inherent shininess of the Bandai Valks makes the pictures ever so slightly more believable. The VF-1's look great but they might require a little more modification to keep the plasticy feel away. In this latest pic it's pretty good looking but the feet thrusters kind of ruin the illusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the concept and your execution is stunning. One thing I've noticed is the inherent shininess of the Bandai Valks makes the pictures ever so slightly more believable. The VF-1's look great but they might require a little more modification to keep the plasticy feel away. In this latest pic it's pretty good looking but the feet thrusters kind of ruin the illusion.

Now that you mention it, you are right, I don't believe the VF-1A's thruster feet are color coded to the Valk. I also noticed that the amount of "sheen" on the canopy is quite thick for a real canopy reflection and takes away from the illusion of size in the fighters. I am not sure how well you can hide that since you also have to deal with pilots inside the clear canopy as well and you don't want to ruin that image if you can avoid it.

Edited by Zinjo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I think the canopy is the most realistic looking part of that last pic. It's the rest of the valk that's not shiny enough to match it.

The trick is, real aircraft, when they're fresh from the factory, truly are as dull as a fresh Yamato.. but they don't stay that way. Wear and tear on the planes, and touch-ups in the paint over time actually turn the dull paint shiny, and you get uneven levels of gloss all over the aircraft.

Normally, weathering techniques are used to add dirt and stuff, but rarely do I see people weather models purely in the specular range, which is where a lot of it happens.

f-18-hornet-450.jpg

If I learned one thing from my time making mods for games, it's that there are multiple levels to what makes an aircraft model look real. Game models today use multiple texture maps to make things more and more realistic. You've got your base texture level, which is your traditional styled "picture of what the plane looks like." Then, you add your bump or normal maps for details that are too impractical to build into the model.

On top of those, you've got your specular and reflectivity maps. Reflectivity is just how much of a reflection you can see, usually just a grayscale image that indicates levels between completely dull and a mirror finish.

Specularity is basically your map of "What does the light reflecting off this surface look like." You know how some metals will look one color, but when the light hits them at a certain angle, they show up a different color? That's what causes this. I think games mostly only support grayscale specular maps, but high quality rendering software will let you have objects reflect colors that are very different than what they normally apear.

Best example I know of is to go take a look at any ship in Star Trek past TOS. It's what made the Enterprise refit in TMP so impressive in that long cinematic intro. The individual panels are really not very different in color at all. But view them in different angles of light, and the panels jump out at you.

If you really want to try something fun, try painting an aircraft in a standard dullcoat, and then add your usual light weathering to it. Then, to seal it, apply varying levels of gloss clearcoat to the plane. Start with flat, then start mixing some gloss in for the parts you want to look worn. Make the leading edges, access points, etc, shinier than the rest of the plane. Places where friction in flight would wear the paint shiny. Even completely dull aircraft very rarely have a dull nosecone, because it's constantly being polished by contact with the air. :)

I haven't tried that myself yet, but I really want to someday, because I think it would look amazing.

Edited by Chronocidal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trick is, real aircraft, when they're fresh from the factory, truly are as dull as a fresh Yamato.. but they don't stay that way. Wear and tear on the planes, and touch-ups in the paint over time actually turn the dull paint shiny, and you get uneven levels of gloss all over the aircraft. (...)

Very interesting stuff. One of those hidden in plane sight things, eh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I think the canopy is the most realistic looking part of that last pic. It's the rest of the valk that's not shiny enough to match it.

The trick is, real aircraft, when they're fresh from the factory, truly are as dull as a fresh Yamato.. but they don't stay that way. Wear and tear on the planes, and touch-ups in the paint over time actually turn the dull paint shiny, and you get uneven levels of gloss all over the aircraft.

Normally, weathering techniques are used to add dirt and stuff, but rarely do I see people weather models purely in the specular range, which is where a lot of it happens.

If I learned one thing from my time making mods for games, it's that there are multiple levels to what makes an aircraft model look real. Game models today use multiple texture maps to make things more and more realistic. You've got your base texture level, which is your traditional styled "picture of what the plane looks like." Then, you add your bump or normal maps for details that are too impractical to build into the model.

On top of those, you've got your specular and reflectivity maps. Reflectivity is just how much of a reflection you can see, usually just a grayscale image that indicates levels between completely dull and a mirror finish.

Specularity is basically your map of "What does the light reflecting off this surface look like." You know how some metals will look one color, but when the light hits them at a certain angle, they show up a different color? That's what causes this. I think games mostly only support grayscale specular maps, but high quality rendering software will let you have objects reflect colors that are very different than what they normally apear.

Best example I know of is to go take a look at any ship in Star Trek past TOS. It's what made the Enterprise refit in TMP so impressive in that long cinematic intro. The individual panels are really not very different in color at all. But view them in different angles of light, and the panels jump out at you.

If you really want to try something fun, try painting an aircraft in a standard dullcoat, and then add your usual light weathering to it. Then, to seal it, apply varying levels of gloss clearcoat to the plane. Start with flat, then start mixing some gloss in for the parts you want to look worn. Make the leading edges, access points, etc, shinier than the rest of the plane. Places where friction in flight would wear the paint shiny. Even completely dull aircraft very rarely have a dull nosecone, because it's constantly being polished by contact with the air. :)

I haven't tried that myself yet, but I really want to someday, because I think it would look amazing.

Always cool to get those types of insights, but I stand by my initial assessment. If you compare the canopy glare from the F-18 real image to the canopy glare from the VF-1 composite image you will see my point. The glare is out of scale to the aircraft.

Edited by Zinjo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, if you mean how much it burns into the image, I see what you mean. The valk one looks more intense in general, though that might be due to lighting.

Probably due to the fact that the surface of the plastic is no where near as smooth as the actual canopy of an aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Another month......another photo. :lol:

For June 2012:

post-7534-0-20510800-1338520476_thumb.jpeg

Ozma, Alto, Klan, and Nene patrol.

See the rest in the Gallery below.

http://www.macrosswo...llery&album=545

Very nice!

I'd suggest giving the Q-Rhea's distance blur and the VF-25F or VF-25S (depending on which one you want to highlight, to a much lesser extent) to give the impression that the camera focused on only one subject as opposed to all at the same time. The illusion of reality is really close, but the crisp focus of all subjects undermine that illusion.

Impressive!

Edited by Zinjo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great job on the photos! and interesting discussion on the weathering.. I had always assumed that clean, new paint jobs would be high gloss (i.e. Blue Angels) and then worn surfaces would be dull/matte. I will investigate this concept on my 1/72 Angel Bird that I'm working on. Another important element to not forget about is scale - something in 1/35 would appear to be approx. 20' away from your p.o.v in 1/1 or real life; if you look at something like that, a car or a train, some of the 'dirt' or grim isn't visible anymore in that perspective!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great job on the photos! and interesting discussion on the weathering.. I had always assumed that clean, new paint jobs would be high gloss (i.e. Blue Angels) and then worn surfaces would be dull/matte. I will investigate this concept on my 1/72 Angel Bird that I'm working on. Another important element to not forget about is scale - something in 1/35 would appear to be approx. 20' away from your p.o.v in 1/1 or real life; if you look at something like that, a car or a train, some of the 'dirt' or grim isn't visible anymore in that perspective!

I suspect the "weathering" issue your describe would be fixed with some well placed blur effects that would mute their appearance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Actually, I think the canopy is the most realistic looking part of that last pic. It's the rest of the valk that's not shiny enough to match it.

The trick is, real aircraft, when they're fresh from the factory, truly are as dull as a fresh Yamato.. but they don't stay that way. Wear and tear on the planes, and touch-ups in the paint over time actually turn the dull paint shiny, and you get uneven levels of gloss all over the aircraft.

Normally, weathering techniques are used to add dirt and stuff, but rarely do I see people weather models purely in the specular range, which is where a lot of it happens.

If I learned one thing from my time making mods for games, it's that there are multiple levels to what makes an aircraft model look real. Game models today use multiple texture maps to make things more and more realistic. You've got your base texture level, which is your traditional styled "picture of what the plane looks like." Then, you add your bump or normal maps for details that are too impractical to build into the model.

On top of those, you've got your specular and reflectivity maps. Reflectivity is just how much of a reflection you can see, usually just a grayscale image that indicates levels between completely dull and a mirror finish.

Specularity is basically your map of "What does the light reflecting off this surface look like." You know how some metals will look one color, but when the light hits them at a certain angle, they show up a different color? That's what causes this. I think games mostly only support grayscale specular maps, but high quality rendering software will let you have objects reflect colors that are very different than what they normally apear.

Best example I know of is to go take a look at any ship in Star Trek past TOS. It's what made the Enterprise refit in TMP so impressive in that long cinematic intro. The individual panels are really not very different in color at all. But view them in different angles of light, and the panels jump out at you.

If you really want to try something fun, try painting an aircraft in a standard dullcoat, and then add your usual light weathering to it. Then, to seal it, apply varying levels of gloss clearcoat to the plane. Start with flat, then start mixing some gloss in for the parts you want to look worn. Make the leading edges, access points, etc, shinier than the rest of the plane. Places where friction in flight would wear the paint shiny. Even completely dull aircraft very rarely have a dull nosecone, because it's constantly being polished by contact with the air. :)

I haven't tried that myself yet, but I really want to someday, because I think it would look amazing.

Great post... Makes me want to try something with some of the 1/48s I have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great photo compositions!

Actually, I think the canopy is the most realistic looking part of that last pic. It's the rest of the valk that's not shiny enough to match it.

The trick is, real aircraft, when they're fresh from the factory, truly are as dull as a fresh Yamato.. but they don't stay that way. Wear and tear on the planes, and touch-ups in the paint over time actually turn the dull paint shiny, and you get uneven levels of gloss all over the aircraft.

Normally, weathering techniques are used to add dirt and stuff, but rarely do I see people weather models purely in the specular range, which is where a lot of it happens.

If I learned one thing from my time making mods for games, it's that there are multiple levels to what makes an aircraft model look real. Game models today use multiple texture maps to make things more and more realistic. You've got your base texture level, which is your traditional styled "picture of what the plane looks like." Then, you add your bump or normal maps for details that are too impractical to build into the model.

On top of those, you've got your specular and reflectivity maps. Reflectivity is just how much of a reflection you can see, usually just a grayscale image that indicates levels between completely dull and a mirror finish.

Specularity is basically your map of "What does the light reflecting off this surface look like." You know how some metals will look one color, but when the light hits them at a certain angle, they show up a different color? That's what causes this. I think games mostly only support grayscale specular maps, but high quality rendering software will let you have objects reflect colors that are very different than what they normally apear.

Best example I know of is to go take a look at any ship in Star Trek past TOS. It's what made the Enterprise refit in TMP so impressive in that long cinematic intro. The individual panels are really not very different in color at all. But view them in different angles of light, and the panels jump out at you.

If you really want to try something fun, try painting an aircraft in a standard dullcoat, and then add your usual light weathering to it. Then, to seal it, apply varying levels of gloss clearcoat to the plane. Start with flat, then start mixing some gloss in for the parts you want to look worn. Make the leading edges, access points, etc, shinier than the rest of the plane. Places where friction in flight would wear the paint shiny. Even completely dull aircraft very rarely have a dull nosecone, because it's constantly being polished by contact with the air. :)

I haven't tried that myself yet, but I really want to someday, because I think it would look amazing.

IMO, what really gives away is the thickness of the plastic. Making some edges thinner would help a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the inputs. Great information.

To explain the weathering, Macross aircraft travel in and out of the

atmosphere on a routine basis, like the retired space shuttles. And

spacecraft returning to earth always looked fairly weathered due to

the high re-entry temperatures and speeds. That is why the shuttle

and the X-37 spy craft looked more used than a typical Beoing 747 for

the same flight hours.

If anyone wants to put some of their own creations, please do so.

This is actually pretty cool artwork concept. Wish Yamata and Bandai

would make their box art like this for their Macross line. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Petar, are you working on any new models? The world wonders...

Yes. Not to derail the thread, but I hope to put the first coat of paint on this weekend. I have been sanding and gap-filling for weeks, it seems. It's not a VF-1. I might have to do some setups inspired by this amazing thread here.

ron5864, I understand your point on weathering completely. If you take a look at the Shuttle after re-entry, or even the new SpaceX Dragon after its mission, they are dirtied up to hell and back. It's quite surprising actually! And one of the things this type of weathering seems to do is emphasize panel lines quite dramatically. Perhaps it's to do with heating effects not being homogenous over the different panels as well. Anyway, something to think about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Not to derail the thread, but I hope to put the first coat of paint on this weekend. I have been sanding and gap-filling for weeks, it seems. It's not a VF-1. I might have to do some setups inspired by this amazing thread here.

ron5864, I understand your point on weathering completely. If you take a look at the Shuttle after re-entry, or even the new SpaceX Dragon after its mission, they are dirtied up to hell and back. It's quite surprising actually! And one of the things this type of weathering seems to do is emphasize panel lines quite dramatically. Perhaps it's to do with heating effects not being homogenous over the different panels as well. Anyway, something to think about.

Another thing to keep in mind that most space vehicles "fall" back to Earth. There is little controlled descent, so the speed at which they fall creates friction and thus fire. A VF can re-enter the atmosphere "under power" and thus control its rate of decent, minimizing the speed and thus the friction produced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...