MustangArbiter of Unpopular OpinionsRegistered Userregular
edited March 2010
I still hate those little teeth thing, but apart from that it's looking pretty cool.
Honestly though, consider dumping the teeth, they are absolutely killing everything that's good about this model.
I still hate those little teeth thing, but apart from that it's looking pretty cool.
Honestly though, consider dumping the teeth, they are absolutely killing everything that's good about this model.
and now, not only do they mess up the silhouette, they look so small as to perform no useful function whatsoever.
If you're really set on adding details to the wings, I would get rid of the teeth and put in small vents in their place similar to the ones surrounding the rear window of a Ferrari F430.
Back to work on this one after having been distracted by the StarCraft 2 Propaganda Poster contest, as well as StarCraft 2 it's self, for several months.
I had this crazy idea to actually model the detail on the wings using sub-d surfaces, but right now it looks more like I've thrown globs of clay at the wing and they've stuck like a 3D Jackson Pollock painting. Screenshots to come...
I guess I'm looking for advice. I might try again with polys, but I wanted it to look nice and smooth close up...
I have never been able to get Displacement maps to work on poly models in Maya. They just quadruple the render time while destroying the mesh in post. Any suggestions?
_____________________
I gave up on the sub-d details, which looked something like this:
-and I'm refining the wing and fuselage texture:
A lot of my other objects have boring or ugly textures, and I'll eventually replace them...
Also, this fighter is a prototype designed by a female pilot in my comic book. Does it say "feminine aesthetic" to you?
To me it's much too sharp and aggressive to be feminine. That has male fighter jock written all over it.
I agree with everyone else that the teeth are an unnecessary design point that's doing more to hurt it than help. But they could be a cool gimmick in a movie and in a video game they'd certainly be removed anyway.
I will say this, if you want some advice, it's one thing to keep the integrity of your idea when a couple people complain or are unsure, it's another to keep it when many people see the same thing as bad design. I've made the mistake of not listening in a situation like this and it just ended up being a completed illustration that nobody liked simply because of that one detail.
I will say this, if you want some advice, it's one thing to keep the integrity of your idea when a couple people complain or are unsure, it's another to keep it when many people see the same thing as bad design. I've made the mistake of not listening in a situation like this and it just ended up being a completed illustration that nobody liked simply because of that one detail.
Are you saying I ought to straight up remove the "teeth", or that I need to keep poking at them until they look right? Because I think I can do a lot with textures by creating a "socket" for each tooth. I've done this with the border where the largest spinal cannons meet the fuselage. It ought to make the teeth feel more natural. I think it's at least worth a shot before I give up on the idea completely.
No hes saying that the teeth look shitty and you should get rid of them.
Blunt ≠ Helpful.
If you have articulate, constructive advice, I'd love to hear it, but so far all you've communicated is that you think I ought to stop working and give up, which is about the least helpful advice one can give.
I asked what Sab thought, as he's been kind enough to put some effort into his posts. He may agree with you, but I value his words above yours for the reasons stated above.
I may reach a point where I decide that they simply don't work. As of this moment, I'm still cautiously optimistic that the concept is sound, while the execution may be flawed.
They look better than they did, which would seem to demonstrate that improvement is achievable.
As an alternative, what would you think of a shark's teeth texture along the edge of the wing, not dissimilar to this:
Well then you're ignoring the fact that the people here usually know what they're talking about. Threads aren't just for showing off your latest work, they're primarily a tool for receiving valuable critiques.
Well then you're ignoring the fact that the people here usually know what they're talking about. Threads aren't just for showing off your latest work, they're primarily a tool for receiving valuable critiques.
"the teeth look shitty and you should get rid of them." is not a crit. It offers nothing positive, no perspective, and suggests nothing beyond tapping the "delete" key.
"The teeth are ruining your silhouette" is a valuable bit of information that speaks to an understanding of the subject matter, and makes a statement based on a relate-able perspective, yet leaves the resolution of the problem up to me.
Well, it clearly isn't helping any. You're just going to do what you want to do and continue pimping your work, brushing over all of the useful posts and concentrating on the negative.
Well, it clearly isn't helping any. You're just going to do what you want to do and continue pimping your work, brushing over all of the useful posts and concentrating on the negative.
It's valuable to know what I need to work on, and VERY valuable to know how I might go about it. It's isn't valuable to be told I ought to give up. Quite the opposite actually.
While we're discussing the topic, I would like to pause and thank everyone who's contributed constructive criticism thus far. This model is slowly improving because of you.
No hes saying that the teeth look shitty and you should get rid of them.
Blunt ≠ Helpful.
If you have articulate, constructive advice, I'd love to hear it, but so far all you've communicated is that you think I ought to stop working and give up, which is about the least helpful advice one can give.
I asked what Sab thought, as he's been kind enough to put some effort into his posts. He may agree with you, but I value his words above yours for the reasons stated above.
how did you interpret the limed text as give up? How did you go on to interpret that the teeth look shitty as give up?
You do not seem to have a clear goal in mind and only after many many posts of the same thing over and over again state that you want it to look like a female pilots plane.
Do you want an ass pat? Good job it looks like a ship that can fly. It would look better if you took those teeth off of it. They are an eye sore that break up the flow for no reason.
You have pattern on the wings. I could maybe see you using the teeth to add shape variety if you didnt already have a bunch of small and intricate shapes. but you do.. So the teeth look shitty and arbitrary tacked on because you just couldn't stop adding more stuff.
Multiple people have stated they look bad and you did not heed their advice which speaks of arrogance. You would not be posting so many pictures of minute changes--to something that people have repeatedly state looks bad-- if you did not want people to tell you how awesome you are. I actually hope that you are just arrogant and not so dumbly stubborn that you cling to the first idea to bubble into your mind
how did you interpret the limed text as give up? How did you go on to interpret that the teeth look shitty as give up?
You do not seem to have a clear goal in mind and only after many many posts of the same thing over and over again state that you want it to look like a female pilots plane.
Do you want an ass pat? Good job it looks like a ship that can fly. It would look better if you took those teeth off of it. They are an eye sore that break up the flow for no reason.
You have pattern on the wings. I could maybe see you using the teeth to add shape variety if you didnt already have a bunch of small and intricate shapes. but you do.. So the teeth look shitty and arbitrary tacked on because you just couldn't stop adding more stuff.
Multiple people have stated they look bad and you did not heed their advice which speaks of arrogance. You would not be posting so many pictures of minute changes--to something that people have repeatedly state looks bad-- if you did not want people to tell you how awesome you are. I actually hope that you are just arrogant and not so dumbly stubborn that you cling to the first idea to bubble into your mind
Now this^ was a well thought out post. Thank you. There is a lot more exposition I can give you if you want:
It's never been flown before. It was designed by a female character, but manufactured by her brother as a surprise gift, and is therefore in shiny, showroom condition at the time the scene takes place. I will dirty it up for future sequences, and eventually I'll need to crash it.
It's intended to be a speedy jack of all trades, master of none.
On the battlefield it will be outnumbered 10-1 by fighters of an inferior technological level (somewhere between WW2 and Vietnam)
It's very distant future tech, and it's aerodynamics will be determined by (an invisible) kinetic shield. I titled this thread "StarFighter" to avoid the issue of aerodynamics, but in actuality this will be an atmospheric fighter.
The teeth are intended to give a rough, serrated appearance to the otherwise smooth curve of the wing. It is entirely possible that this effect could be accomplished better, or in a very different way (such as part of the texture) but it's true that it's a concept I'm fairly dead set on, as I believe it can be done, even if it's not even close yet.
Perhaps this is arrogance, but I'd prefer to think of it as optimism. Keep in mind, I have made a great deal of revisions based on the advice I've received here, and I'm far happier with my current product as a result. I'm not just looking for kudos.
You make a point I hadn't considered, that I may need to choose between the teeth and the tattoos... Perhaps I should do tattooed teeth shapes instead of physical objects? I could do this and then add a series of vents to the texture to maintain VTOL capability.
As a super-quick for instance, how does this look:
You want to rough up a perfectly good smooth edge. You can't have both, you have to have either a rough looking ship or a smooth aerodynamic ship. I think you may be making the (very common) mistake of focusing on the detail rather than the overall silhouette or function.
WHY are those there? To make it look fierce? It already does! It looks like a bird of prey and will look especially fearsome when shown in a scene with/compared to ww2/vietnam era fighters. And if you have them there for propulsion or whatnot... it's just not necessary.
I like the tattooed teeth idea. That's what detail is for, making something look badass without destroying the integrity of the overall design.
Although since WW2 fighters, at least, didn't have radar they'd be easy pickings for that jet. All it'd have to do is load up missiles and fire away from above the flight ceiling WW2/nam planes were capable of. But I leave the science and whatnot in your hands, I just happen to read a lot of Harry Turtledove.
MustangArbiter of Unpopular OpinionsRegistered Userregular
edited July 2010
I don't think it really adds anything, it still looks like more = more type of thinking.
If it were me, I'd even drop the black pattern on the wing, the little panel details look cool on their own.
It's more of a "done vs not done" thing. There are still a plethora of things that straight up piss me off (mostly ugly textures) but additionally, I feel it lacks a certain individuality. I don't want it to look like it came off an assembly line, I want it to look like a labor of love.
Ever know a Harley Rider? Know how there are basically a limitless number of accessories you can buy for your Harley? I want it to look like this one has everything and then a custom paint job to boot.
Paradoxically, I also want it to look smooth and streamlined.
Give it a few welded scars here and there plus a fancy paint job (I like that tooth design SOO much better than the actual teeth) and you'll have a lived-in fighter that doesn't sacrifice its integrity.
Better yet pull a battlestar galactica and keep the scars from every fight so the plane gets progressively more beat up throughout the series.
Sab on
0
Options
MustangArbiter of Unpopular OpinionsRegistered Userregular
edited July 2010
Do I really have to argue why this look ridiculous? Reeeaally?
Do I really have to argue why this look ridiculous? Reeeaally?
But it has THREE wheels! THREE! If a motorcycle with two wheels is 100% cool, that means that a motorcycle with three wheels is 50% cooler than that! That's 150% COOL!!!
I like the initial concept with all the guns, as a sort of heavy attack variant, and I think it would look awesome with an accessory booster pack on the tail to balance it out. Maybe even a belt of applied reactive armor like they use on tanks.
Zoku Gojira on
"Because things are the way they are, things will not stay the way they are." - Bertolt Brecht
The wing paint looks like a bad tribal tattoo right now. Theres no flow or form to it... its just spikey splotchy and looks thrown on there without any thought to what is beneath it.
Instead of looking at bad motorcycles you should be looking at things like the spoilered image below. Look at how the design follows the form. It flows around the functional portions and supports the design as a whole.
I've always disliked the whole "dogfighters in space" thing that Star Wars popularized... while it was great entertainment it bears absolutely no resemblance to how fights in space would occur. Just a couple items that I'd like to randomly beef about that your starfighter perpetuates:
(Pedantic stuff, I know.)
-> In space you don't have to worry about being aerodynamic. Only if your fighter is going to be an atmospheric fighter would you need to worry about that. Structural stability to deal with momentum, yes, but that would indicate a blockier, more compact ship. Space-navy and planetary-aerospace would probably not be mixed (just like they tend not to mix navy and air force right now) such that your space-based assets would probably not need to be designed or operate in atmospheric conditions.
-> In space you don't have to worry about aerodynamic drag. This means you can (and should) have weapons that point off in all sorts of directions. Turret-based is probably best for hardpoints.
-> Currently modern fighters with missiles engage while miles apart. In space this would be amplified by several orders of magnitude, especially since energy weapons would be firing beams that would travel at or near light speed. This means that missiles would be just as worthless as machine guns are on a modern fighter. Plus, since you aren't dealing with ballistic trajectories or atmospheric interference in space, you can simply burn apart any missile that is coming your way with an energy weapon in fairly short order.
-> Survivability would be all about not getting hit, which is hard to do since A) engagement ranges would be over 100,000 miles or more and you cannot detect incoming energy weapon blasts since they are travelling at light speed. So maneuverability (sudden, unpredictable, and non-linear) would be the best defense. Most fighters would probably be computer-controlled drones or remote-controlled drones. A human would rapidly be jellied by the acceleration forces necessary to avoid weapon fire.
-> There are virtually no parts on a combat vehicle that aren't there for a specific function. The paint job is the one area where you can get fancy, but for the most part every single structural piece has a job to do, if not several jobs. If something is there just for looks, it's not a combat vehicle.
-> In space there is no need to worry about flying "forward", as you can spin and fly backwards and shoot if you like. This folds into the comments about aerodynamics, and may obviate turrets in a way, although use of turret hardpoints allows you to engage multiple targets in different directions. Plus, you should not have to change the attitude of the whole ship to engage one target. All modern combat craft can fire on targets within a wide firing arc at least, and in all directions at best. Most of the limitations of engaging enemies in air combat have to do with the constraints of aerodynamic flight. Space combat shouldn't be modeled after such constraints, since they don't exist in that combat arena.
-> Stealth. Notwithstanding how hard it would be to hide in open extra-planetary space, the best way to not be a target that is destroyed a million miles out is to not be detected in the first place. This means a stealthy design that avoid detection. Such designs would most likely require compactness and specific types of cladding/shielding, unless the stealth effect were field-based somehow, which would likely require a specific shape of craft or externally mounted nodes extended away from the main body of the ship. The paint scheme would probably be jet black to avoid visual detection. Normal system navigation would be based upon transponder communication, just like we use today... if not some future evolution of this concept.
What reality might be like: Unexciting and boring. Small fighter craft would probably be spherical or egg shaped, with variable thrust capability in all directions. The entirety of the craft would be computer controlled (probably advanced combat AI) with the ability to engage and shoot energy weapons in all directions, including the ability to use the same energy weapons to destroy missiles. (Missiles would have been abandoned as soon as good energy weapon technology was available, since engagement ranges would make missiles tactically worthless if not incapable of closing with the enemy in a reasonable time span, and the additional problem that missiles are not a continually reusable weapon.)
So a black ovoid slinking through space undetected then firing in close coordination with other such craft to obliterate an enemy craft before they even get the slightest warning that they're under attack.
Conclusion: The future of space combat would not make a very fun game. In fact, it would be terribly boring most of the time, and then hugely frustrating or exciting for a few seconds during combat, and then back to boring. I guess we'll continue to have the "dogfighting in space" fantasy then...
The wing paint looks like a bad tribal tattoo right now. Theres no flow or form to it... its just spikey splotchy and looks thrown on there without any thought to what is beneath it.
Instead of looking at bad motorcycles you should be looking at things like the spoilered image below. Look at how the design follows the form. It flows around the functional portions and supports the design as a whole.
I see what you mean. I drew the tattoos without looking at my bump map, and that was a mistake. I then used that bump map to make changes to the color map, and the problem compounded...
Obvious solutions is to recreate the tattoos from scratch taking the shapes of those hull plates into account this time...
Just wanted to stop in and say this looks so much better without the spikey wing teeth things that you had going on earlier.
While I'm not a huge fan of the tribal tattoo look you've got going on, and kind of wonder why you have rocket launchers with rocket launchers on them, losing the teeth is a huge step towards the awesome end of the spectrum
I think the point about your ship design is that for whatever story you're writing, you should be aware of the fact that your ship is made for at least some atmospheric combat.
This makes sense. Most battles occur near something of value. If that thing of value has an atmosphere, it is very likely that combat vessels will have to pursue or flee into that. Thus, a fleet of black spheres would be at a disadvantage when trying to control a moon like Titan. Your design would allow fighters to flit in and out of the methane cloud cover.
A further argument for aerodynamic design is for forward shielding when moving at high speeds. Even if moving at a paltry-sounding 1% lightspeed, microscopic particles can cause significant damage. To minimize the amount of heavy shielding to protect from that, you would want something designed more like a spear than an egg.
If you are going to do deep space battles, I've found most fiction that treats it like the stealth-and-countermeasure game of submarine warfare works pretty well.
We (well, I) could spend all day talking about space battle. IF you're looking for reference on that point I'd suggest watching a little BSG and some Clash of the stars (anime). Both take different approaches to the matter.
If you want more a more used/individual look to it, why not get some inspiration from previous cases?
Large Red colloring as in red baron
squadron/personal symbol on tail
pin ups near cockpit
kill markers near cockpit
shark mouth on engine (kind of worked on that particular one - was it the P40?)
The thing is that a large pattern that covers large/the whole surface of a plane/ship is unmaintainable - the leading edges tend to get worn out from reentry/debris (hint, make those look more worn out that the rest of the aircraft), probably the whole under body will also get wear from reentry. And if you're in the business of getting shot/flying through debris that you've just shot through, well, paint will wear out.
So a small pattern in a mostly sideways surface will be something that won't get worn out as much, and be small enough to retouch here and there, and will look more realistic. Alternatively, a solid color can just be easily retouched, but a pattern would be too much work. Unless it's something relatively small like jaws on the front, easily accessible underside of the aircraft.
...I really like Sub-D modeling in Maya. It's like working with clay. I really like poly modeling in Maya, it's like working with wood. I hate NURBS modeling in Maya. It's like trying to paper mache a swarm of bees each anchored to lead weights with fishing line.
I believe he had mentioned that this was to be a brand-new-never-before-flown-fresh-off-the-line prototype ship
Correct, but it will get dirtied, battered, and scratched up as time goes on, and eventually I will need to crash it. So I have more work ahead of me at some point.
For the moment though, it needs to look like a "Sweet 16" birthday gift. New from the dealer, 10 miles on the odometer, freshly waxed, with that "new car" smell and plastic wrap still on the upholstery.
Posts
Honestly though, consider dumping the teeth, they are absolutely killing everything that's good about this model.
and now, not only do they mess up the silhouette, they look so small as to perform no useful function whatsoever.
Improved landing gear:
I guess I'm looking for advice. I might try again with polys, but I wanted it to look nice and smooth close up...
_____________________
I gave up on the sub-d details, which looked something like this:
-and I'm refining the wing and fuselage texture:
A lot of my other objects have boring or ugly textures, and I'll eventually replace them...
Also, this fighter is a prototype designed by a female pilot in my comic book. Does it say "feminine aesthetic" to you?
I agree with everyone else that the teeth are an unnecessary design point that's doing more to hurt it than help. But they could be a cool gimmick in a movie and in a video game they'd certainly be removed anyway.
I will say this, if you want some advice, it's one thing to keep the integrity of your idea when a couple people complain or are unsure, it's another to keep it when many people see the same thing as bad design. I've made the mistake of not listening in a situation like this and it just ended up being a completed illustration that nobody liked simply because of that one detail.
Are you saying I ought to straight up remove the "teeth", or that I need to keep poking at them until they look right? Because I think I can do a lot with textures by creating a "socket" for each tooth. I've done this with the border where the largest spinal cannons meet the fuselage. It ought to make the teeth feel more natural. I think it's at least worth a shot before I give up on the idea completely.
Blunt ≠ Helpful.
If you have articulate, constructive advice, I'd love to hear it, but so far all you've communicated is that you think I ought to stop working and give up, which is about the least helpful advice one can give.
I asked what Sab thought, as he's been kind enough to put some effort into his posts. He may agree with you, but I value his words above yours for the reasons stated above.
The spikes need to go. You seem to be ignoring the resounding opinion: loose the teeth.
They look better than they did, which would seem to demonstrate that improvement is achievable.
As an alternative, what would you think of a shark's teeth texture along the edge of the wing, not dissimilar to this:
"the teeth look shitty and you should get rid of them." is not a crit. It offers nothing positive, no perspective, and suggests nothing beyond tapping the "delete" key.
"The teeth are ruining your silhouette" is a valuable bit of information that speaks to an understanding of the subject matter, and makes a statement based on a relate-able perspective, yet leaves the resolution of the problem up to me.
Well, it clearly isn't helping any. You're just going to do what you want to do and continue pimping your work, brushing over all of the useful posts and concentrating on the negative.
It's valuable to know what I need to work on, and VERY valuable to know how I might go about it. It's isn't valuable to be told I ought to give up. Quite the opposite actually.
While we're discussing the topic, I would like to pause and thank everyone who's contributed constructive criticism thus far. This model is slowly improving because of you.
how did you interpret the limed text as give up? How did you go on to interpret that the teeth look shitty as give up?
You do not seem to have a clear goal in mind and only after many many posts of the same thing over and over again state that you want it to look like a female pilots plane.
Do you want an ass pat? Good job it looks like a ship that can fly. It would look better if you took those teeth off of it. They are an eye sore that break up the flow for no reason.
You have pattern on the wings. I could maybe see you using the teeth to add shape variety if you didnt already have a bunch of small and intricate shapes. but you do.. So the teeth look shitty and arbitrary tacked on because you just couldn't stop adding more stuff.
Multiple people have stated they look bad and you did not heed their advice which speaks of arrogance. You would not be posting so many pictures of minute changes--to something that people have repeatedly state looks bad-- if you did not want people to tell you how awesome you are. I actually hope that you are just arrogant and not so dumbly stubborn that you cling to the first idea to bubble into your mind
Now this^ was a well thought out post. Thank you. There is a lot more exposition I can give you if you want:
It's never been flown before. It was designed by a female character, but manufactured by her brother as a surprise gift, and is therefore in shiny, showroom condition at the time the scene takes place. I will dirty it up for future sequences, and eventually I'll need to crash it.
It's intended to be a speedy jack of all trades, master of none.
On the battlefield it will be outnumbered 10-1 by fighters of an inferior technological level (somewhere between WW2 and Vietnam)
It's very distant future tech, and it's aerodynamics will be determined by (an invisible) kinetic shield. I titled this thread "StarFighter" to avoid the issue of aerodynamics, but in actuality this will be an atmospheric fighter.
The teeth are intended to give a rough, serrated appearance to the otherwise smooth curve of the wing. It is entirely possible that this effect could be accomplished better, or in a very different way (such as part of the texture) but it's true that it's a concept I'm fairly dead set on, as I believe it can be done, even if it's not even close yet.
Perhaps this is arrogance, but I'd prefer to think of it as optimism. Keep in mind, I have made a great deal of revisions based on the advice I've received here, and I'm far happier with my current product as a result. I'm not just looking for kudos.
You make a point I hadn't considered, that I may need to choose between the teeth and the tattoos... Perhaps I should do tattooed teeth shapes instead of physical objects? I could do this and then add a series of vents to the texture to maintain VTOL capability.
As a super-quick for instance, how does this look:
You want to rough up a perfectly good smooth edge. You can't have both, you have to have either a rough looking ship or a smooth aerodynamic ship. I think you may be making the (very common) mistake of focusing on the detail rather than the overall silhouette or function.
WHY are those there? To make it look fierce? It already does! It looks like a bird of prey and will look especially fearsome when shown in a scene with/compared to ww2/vietnam era fighters. And if you have them there for propulsion or whatnot... it's just not necessary.
I like the tattooed teeth idea. That's what detail is for, making something look badass without destroying the integrity of the overall design.
Although since WW2 fighters, at least, didn't have radar they'd be easy pickings for that jet. All it'd have to do is load up missiles and fire away from above the flight ceiling WW2/nam planes were capable of. But I leave the science and whatnot in your hands, I just happen to read a lot of Harry Turtledove.
If it were me, I'd even drop the black pattern on the wing, the little panel details look cool on their own.
Ever know a Harley Rider? Know how there are basically a limitless number of accessories you can buy for your Harley? I want it to look like this one has everything and then a custom paint job to boot.
Paradoxically, I also want it to look smooth and streamlined.
What do you suppose the third wheel is for? Stability maybe?
Duh. >forehead smack< Chrome! My model needs chrome!
Better yet pull a battlestar galactica and keep the scars from every fight so the plane gets progressively more beat up throughout the series.
But it has THREE wheels! THREE! If a motorcycle with two wheels is 100% cool, that means that a motorcycle with three wheels is 50% cooler than that! That's 150% COOL!!!
:P
[img]http://crossovercomic.com/media/extras/Kaleas Fighter 2010/v2/kaleasfighterwipv2_09.jpg[/img]
[img]http://crossovercomic.com/media/extras/Kaleas Fighter 2010/v2/kaleasfighterwipv2_09b.jpg[/img]
Adding more cockpit detail now...
Instead of looking at bad motorcycles you should be looking at things like the spoilered image below. Look at how the design follows the form. It flows around the functional portions and supports the design as a whole.
(Pedantic stuff, I know.)
-> In space you don't have to worry about being aerodynamic. Only if your fighter is going to be an atmospheric fighter would you need to worry about that. Structural stability to deal with momentum, yes, but that would indicate a blockier, more compact ship. Space-navy and planetary-aerospace would probably not be mixed (just like they tend not to mix navy and air force right now) such that your space-based assets would probably not need to be designed or operate in atmospheric conditions.
-> In space you don't have to worry about aerodynamic drag. This means you can (and should) have weapons that point off in all sorts of directions. Turret-based is probably best for hardpoints.
-> Currently modern fighters with missiles engage while miles apart. In space this would be amplified by several orders of magnitude, especially since energy weapons would be firing beams that would travel at or near light speed. This means that missiles would be just as worthless as machine guns are on a modern fighter. Plus, since you aren't dealing with ballistic trajectories or atmospheric interference in space, you can simply burn apart any missile that is coming your way with an energy weapon in fairly short order.
-> Survivability would be all about not getting hit, which is hard to do since A) engagement ranges would be over 100,000 miles or more and
-> There are virtually no parts on a combat vehicle that aren't there for a specific function. The paint job is the one area where you can get fancy, but for the most part every single structural piece has a job to do, if not several jobs. If something is there just for looks, it's not a combat vehicle.
-> In space there is no need to worry about flying "forward", as you can spin and fly backwards and shoot if you like. This folds into the comments about aerodynamics, and may obviate turrets in a way, although use of turret hardpoints allows you to engage multiple targets in different directions. Plus, you should not have to change the attitude of the whole ship to engage one target. All modern combat craft can fire on targets within a wide firing arc at least, and in all directions at best. Most of the limitations of engaging enemies in air combat have to do with the constraints of aerodynamic flight. Space combat shouldn't be modeled after such constraints, since they don't exist in that combat arena.
-> Stealth. Notwithstanding how hard it would be to hide in open extra-planetary space, the best way to not be a target that is destroyed a million miles out is to not be detected in the first place. This means a stealthy design that avoid detection. Such designs would most likely require compactness and specific types of cladding/shielding, unless the stealth effect were field-based somehow, which would likely require a specific shape of craft or externally mounted nodes extended away from the main body of the ship. The paint scheme would probably be jet black to avoid visual detection. Normal system navigation would be based upon transponder communication, just like we use today... if not some future evolution of this concept.
What reality might be like: Unexciting and boring. Small fighter craft would probably be spherical or egg shaped, with variable thrust capability in all directions. The entirety of the craft would be computer controlled (probably advanced combat AI) with the ability to engage and shoot energy weapons in all directions, including the ability to use the same energy weapons to destroy missiles. (Missiles would have been abandoned as soon as good energy weapon technology was available, since engagement ranges would make missiles tactically worthless if not incapable of closing with the enemy in a reasonable time span, and the additional problem that missiles are not a continually reusable weapon.)
So a black ovoid slinking through space undetected then firing in close coordination with other such craft to obliterate an enemy craft before they even get the slightest warning that they're under attack.
Conclusion: The future of space combat would not make a very fun game. In fact, it would be terribly boring most of the time, and then hugely frustrating or exciting for a few seconds during combat, and then back to boring. I guess we'll continue to have the "dogfighting in space" fantasy then...
I see what you mean. I drew the tattoos without looking at my bump map, and that was a mistake. I then used that bump map to make changes to the color map, and the problem compounded...
Obvious solutions is to recreate the tattoos from scratch taking the shapes of those hull plates into account this time...
Ever read the Honor Harrington series?
I enjoy them, but that's not what I'm making. My comic is 1/2 fantasy 1/2 sci-fi.
While I'm not a huge fan of the tribal tattoo look you've got going on, and kind of wonder why you have rocket launchers with rocket launchers on them, losing the teeth is a huge step towards the awesome end of the spectrum
This makes sense. Most battles occur near something of value. If that thing of value has an atmosphere, it is very likely that combat vessels will have to pursue or flee into that. Thus, a fleet of black spheres would be at a disadvantage when trying to control a moon like Titan. Your design would allow fighters to flit in and out of the methane cloud cover.
A further argument for aerodynamic design is for forward shielding when moving at high speeds. Even if moving at a paltry-sounding 1% lightspeed, microscopic particles can cause significant damage. To minimize the amount of heavy shielding to protect from that, you would want something designed more like a spear than an egg.
If you are going to do deep space battles, I've found most fiction that treats it like the stealth-and-countermeasure game of submarine warfare works pretty well.
Just two rocket launchers, one on each side. One has an ejected loading rack, which is probably what you're seeing.
Large Red colloring as in red baron
squadron/personal symbol on tail
pin ups near cockpit
kill markers near cockpit
shark mouth on engine (kind of worked on that particular one - was it the P40?)
The thing is that a large pattern that covers large/the whole surface of a plane/ship is unmaintainable - the leading edges tend to get worn out from reentry/debris (hint, make those look more worn out that the rest of the aircraft), probably the whole under body will also get wear from reentry. And if you're in the business of getting shot/flying through debris that you've just shot through, well, paint will wear out.
So a small pattern in a mostly sideways surface will be something that won't get worn out as much, and be small enough to retouch here and there, and will look more realistic. Alternatively, a solid color can just be easily retouched, but a pattern would be too much work. Unless it's something relatively small like jaws on the front, easily accessible underside of the aircraft.
3DS: 0447-9966-6178
[edit]
Correct, but it will get dirtied, battered, and scratched up as time goes on, and eventually I will need to crash it. So I have more work ahead of me at some point.
For the moment though, it needs to look like a "Sweet 16" birthday gift. New from the dealer, 10 miles on the odometer, freshly waxed, with that "new car" smell and plastic wrap still on the upholstery.