|
I've now begun revising the Gahennas Astral Carrier from 2008. After completing the Battlecruiser, this ship is the next in line to update. The updates are currently not terribly significant. I am trying to figure out what to do with the wings specifically.
I've rebuilt the whole upper area of the wings and built a component to replace the beam spires that were there on the previous variants.
![[image loading]](http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/228/6/d/Gahennas_Astral_Carrier_1_1_A_by_IskatuMesk.jpg)
Don't worry about the main hull for the moment, it's going to see a lot of screwing around with (and for some reason when I disabled smoothing it REALLY broke a lot of the lighting on the triangles and it looks awful).
My current concerns about the new design are the fact the components don't look like a part of the wing. With the Battlecruiser and the torpedo tubes I solved this by moving around vertices and then applying detail to specific sections to bring out the mounts for the Torpedo launchers. But I can't do that with curved surfaces because I fucking suck at modeling. So I'm a little clueless how to make it look better.
I'll also probably nuke the grid-like arrangements on the sides of the wings and make something else. I have a few things I can try with the upper-front and inner areas of the wings.
The Carrier is larger than the Battlecruiser (120km) and is far more advanced, featuring a dimensional drive and factories to build large corvettes. When its runes are unsealed it can build 20km frigates called Eradicators (Another model I plan to revise in the future, possibly after this one). Basically, one Astral Carrier could defeat the entire Protoss race at their prime due to its mobility and production capabilities.
Currently at 7.2k polies. Again, I'm running on a soft limit of 100k for a ingame model.
Old model from 2008,
![[image loading]](http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/022/f/1/Gahennas_Astral_Carrier_A_by_IskatuMesk.jpg)
The Eradicator I'll one day update as well.
![[image loading]](http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs48/f/2009/180/c/0/Gahennas_Eradicator_by_IskatuMesk.jpg)
*awaits meme*
|
You my friend, are the greatest modder that has ever lived. Now get back to work!
|
On the first look, I really like the 2008' model more. Wings are open towards the sides, and it gives him a nicer look in my opinon. The current model is a bit too bulky, or squared, compared to that. The 2008 model was more elegant (simple, fluid, aerial, etc.).
My 2 cents. Great work in any case.
|
On August 17 2010 14:58 Murlox wrote:
On the first look, I really like the 2008' model more. Wings are open towards the sides, and it gives him a nicer look in my opinon. The current model is a bit too bulky, or squared, compared to that. The 2008 model was more elegant (simple, fluid, aerial, etc.).
My 2 cents. Great work in any case.
Yes, this is my thoughts. It's going to take a lot more work to get something I'm satisfied with here than it did the BC.
|
United States4126 Posts
It looks really pretty :D I agree with Murlox though, the widened wingspan looks better than the boxy-look.
|
Well I haven't done anything to the wingspan or the sides or whatnot, just the upper half of the structure. The perspective makes it appear more "boxy".
|
On August 17 2010 14:58 Murlox wrote:
On the first look, I really like the 2008' model more. Wings are open towards the sides, and it gives him a nicer look in my opinon. The current model is a bit too bulky, or squared, compared to that. The 2008 model was more elegant (simple, fluid, aerial, etc.).
My 2 cents. Great work in any case.
Agreed the older model has a sleeker and nicer look to it 
|
Not sure what style you're going for, but the waffle-extrusions are a no-no.
|
On August 17 2010 15:26 mmp wrote:
Not sure what style you're going for, but the waffle-extrusions are a no-no.
Yeah. I dunno why I even did those on the sides of the wings. I just had no idea what else to do, I suppose.
I did some changes here. Moved the upper wings back a bit to curve them further, made them a bit thinner (bringing the inner structure back into the wing), and made them a bit shorter. I deleted the waffles on the sides of the wings but I'll need to rebuild the edges there - ignore the mess it made of the front blades. I left out the additional drivers so you can see the main wing structure.
Yes/no?
![[image loading]](http://a.imageshack.us/img227/4759/15787276.jpg)
/e
If I fuse two of those wing drivers together I practically get a good base for a second ship. Something small, like a Corvette or a strike craft. Neat.
/e 2
There we go. Made a Starscourge drone out of the driver symmetry. Funny how that works...
![[image loading]](http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/229/5/4/Gahennas_Starscourge_Drone_by_IskatuMesk.jpg)
|
|
|
Okay I kind of got carried away with the Symmetry modifier on that drone...
![[image loading]](http://a.imageshack.us/img84/57/ghstarscourgevariants.jpg)
|
United States9232 Posts
Wtf. Carriers aren't gigantic blimps? Or is this completely different than the SC1 carrier?!
|
Completely different. This is a demon ship.
|
Can't wait to see it textured
|
On August 17 2010 17:58 IskatuMesk wrote:Okay I kind of got carried away with the Symmetry modifier on that drone...
I lol'ed so hard @ this. Yeah you did get carried away and I like the name "Demon Ship" a lot better than Carrier :D
|
whoa... this thing looks sick. can these things be put into sc2?
|
On August 18 2010 01:31 sLiniss wrote:
whoa... this thing looks sick. can these things be put into sc2?
Yes they can.
However I cannot uv or texture.
|
On August 18 2010 07:39 IskatuMesk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2010 01:31 sLiniss wrote:
whoa... this thing looks sick. can these things be put into sc2? Yes they can. However I cannot uv or texture.
Do you think you'll ever put in the effort to learn those skills?
|
It's more a matter of my mental disabilities hindering my learning capacity. You wouldn't know it by looking at my work but I've been modeling for 10 years already. And I hardly know anything because of how long it's taken to learn the basics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
