Discovery Gaming Community
BAF- Carrier Re-imagined - Printable Version

+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Media Center (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=18)
+--- Thread: BAF- Carrier Re-imagined (/showthread.php?tid=133073)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

RE: BAF- Carrier Re-imagined - Unlucky_Soul - 11-30-2015

Added a re tweaked model of the carrier.Check OP.

RE: BAF- Carrier Re-imagined - Thunderer - 11-30-2015

Still too much shape repetition and symmetry for my taste.

RE: BAF- Carrier Re-imagined - Wesker - 11-30-2015

(11-30-2015, 01:17 PM)Thunderer Wrote: Still too much shape repetition and symmetry for my taste.

As the leader of BRF| and BAF|A who commands caps your opinion is deemed irrelevant : )








Jk <3

RE: BAF- Carrier Re-imagined - Hidamari - 11-30-2015

is there some reason why this ship has been completely ignored that im not aware of?

[Image: rJ1q5pQ.png]

RE: BAF- Carrier Re-imagined - Hidamari - 11-30-2015

Lmao, i cant even edit that post because the image stretches the forum so wide... v.v

I meant this ship.

[Image: K9XC33m.png]

RE: BAF- Carrier Re-imagined - Wesker - 11-30-2015

I think it was an old model that used to be ingame but I'm not positive at all I've only been around for like 1 year.

RE: BAF- Carrier Re-imagined - Hidamari - 11-30-2015

this model hasnt ever been used, its been sat in the drydock at souths for like 3 years now, it wouldnt even take that long to get it ingame ready.

RE: BAF- Carrier Re-imagined - FallenKnight - 11-30-2015

(11-30-2015, 01:41 PM)Hidamari Wrote: is there some reason why this ship has been completely ignored that im not aware of?
That thing is nothing but a model, which was rejected by the community. On top of that it is unplayable due to too many polys. The reasons why it's in the game are primary RP ones - back then we did RP scenarios to represent that Southampton is building a new ship that was about to come after a lot of time - the prototype was acting as an in game spoiler/notification. The shipyard got its new model so it was one of a time chance to add the prototype in there as a cosmetic detail. That model served its purpose and can be removed from the shipyard in order to remove misguidance. The carrier "ship" is already present in bretonian line so to keep this prototype there is of no use. The "model" on the other hand remains to be changed in future.

@Unlucky_Soul, I see you've read my feedback and did some changes but I don't know why you pumped that engine so much nor why the main reactor is so massive. Anyway I've prepared another feedback for you to fix some eye spiking issues, so there we go again.
[Image: ApRg7wE.png]
- The "1" and "2" engine tubes are missing from your final model. It is like the engine is connected via magnets. Add back the tubes. The "connection" I've told you about in my early feedback was about number "3" to make it look like a one complete engine "holder" platform. Also "4" and "5" could get some extrusion not to look so small. (They act as "fins" and would make sense to be slightly longer)
- The engine is the first thing that got my eye spiked with needle. Its size is unfitting. Look at your First model's engine - I've taken the one from there to do comparison of how well you've done it back then. From "6" you can see your V3 model engine one but scaled by 50%. The new one (150%) should be used as the "big one". Of course do your own job but make sure it is looking fitting not just massive. Also you can try to use Destroyer engine instead of dunkirk, make it larger (its slightly different) and place it in same location. The less connections to dunkirk - the better.
- Look at "7", I've prepared example of the bretonian gunboat engines with their tubes. I've mentioned that in my early feedback, thought you would experiment with them. Do give them a try - they will only add more detail to this side of the ship, instead to look exactly as dunkirk.
- About the reactor "8" - currently its too large and like "unarmored". It is wide open for attack from above. Making it smaller (100%>75%) will give it a better look and also the gaps (filled with armor) will represent its important part and is well protected. You've followed our feedback here to make 2 reactors in to 1 but just like the Engine issue - the size is unfitting.
- I see you've extruded the middle "body" on to left/right but it is still not enough. From "9" you can see how much more is needed to make the armored "shell" fitting. The below edges of the "shell" would look better if connected to something instead to be...placed on top of the main body like a cherry on a pie. Also, it will render the model less linear, it is still following that pattern.
- Missing windows/quarters - I've shown you a rough example where to put windows and here at "10" I do the same, again. Carriers have a lot of personal and currently the model is looking "less populated" (People live only around the engine?) Just put some windows at locations I've marked on your model.
- And at the end - too many similarities. I see your "mirror" design patterns, that is why I am assisting you to change things to make dunkirk elements less-visible or hard to be noticed. So from "11" I've shown you the Destroyer armor "shell" in comparison with dunkirk one. There is no need to replace both of them (top/bottom) but do give it a try to change one of them or modify them differently. If dunkirk is sitting next to this model - it will not look distinctive but more of a "we crushed two dunkirks and put them together like that". A lot of people mentioned that here so just keep experimenting on repetition issue.
[Image: LxJ8a4a.png]
Now some important hints to note: I've prepared a rough comparison considering the parts you've taken from dunkirk to make this image as accurate as possible. Like you see the carrier is massive compared to dunkirk and that is of issue if we consider your model.
Your model is currently falling in to "light" and slightly "medium" carrier line. The problem is that main carrier is currently classified as "heavy" one. So if you continue to tweak your V3 model you need to come with solution to this very huge problem. To make it easier for you I've prepared one simple image here:
[Image: VIrzCKM.png]
Bretonian ships have "Head"+"Body"+"Engine/Fin" so like you see from the image your ship have only two of the necessary elements to properly classify it as "bretonian" considering vanila elements. These parts are with similar size of the first comparison image but are separated to match the carrier size. So the problem could be solved easier if you think of a "Main Body" - the part marked with "?" - to fill the gap of your current model.
So here some hints of what to add at this middle part considering what your model is missing:
1) Quarters - Even if you add the windows where I pointed you out, they would not be enough. The carrier needs quarters placed in the middle body but not only represented by "windows". The Middle body itself needs to be the "Home" element of this ship, a place where all these people live.
2) There is no need to add armor "shells" at this area.
3) Command Bridges - with antennas or some sort of fighter coordinator tower. You can even experiment with 2 towers (one for top - hangar and one for bottom one). These towers could be placed in front of the hangars (to let some gap of space for snubs to come out).
4) Support Hangars - Lets say these 2 hangars currently present on your model are "main" ones. But a ship with that size - a carrier to be exact - is serving a lot of duties not only assault ones. Maintenance hangars for shuttles would be nice and to make it more interesting - place them left/right side on this "middle body". In this way you will end up with 4 hangars covering all sides of your model instead to stick to linear - one sided hangars.
5) Good Connectors - The main body should be connected properly with the engine edge (where the reactor is) and the "head" (where the red middle "tube" is currently present. These connectors should be visible and yet good looking and not weak ones.
Well thats pretty much what I can think of so far, considering your model only of course. I hope you wont give up on experimenting and thank you for your time investment in to it. Again - I do want to assist you that is why I keep giving you heavy feedback.
In the end will add one last image I've made - idea of mine for the middle body:
[Image: uHj53BE.png]

PS: If anyone else is interested to assist @Unlucky_Soul with ideas about the "middle body", just draw it at this image and upload.

RE: BAF- Carrier Re-imagined - Hidamari - 11-30-2015

the one in the dock of southampton is a million times better than any of the propositions being made here, and the current model combined.

RE: BAF- Carrier Re-imagined - Unlucky_Soul - 11-30-2015

Thanks for the feedback.will get to work on it. @FallenKnight Your pics are over sized.It doesn't fit in my screen Big Grin Big Grin