AT-PT WIP

Discussion in 'Scifi 3D Forum' started by the_dig, May 28, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. The-Matt-Man Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 19, 2002
    star 4
    Lots. Is that Brazil, or something like a light dome you used to fake it? Either way, I can't tell.
    -Matt
  2. Macho Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 21, 2001
    star 4
    he uses Lightwave :) best built in renderer out there
  3. Lots Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 7, 2001
    star 4
    im liking how the cocpit is coming out.. however the part right over the windows is bothering me.. it looks like one polygon.. maybe you should try and increase the poly count there.. or turn off smoothing, or something ... anyway lookin good..

    Btw: my renders are done with lightwave's built in GI (Radiosity) which is pretty similar to brazil.. or max5's GI renderer.. ok maybe not in method.. but the result is something approximately the same.. (no debates about which is better/faster plz this thread's about the_dig's at-pt :) which is pretty good :p, better than mine .. partly in the reason its more complete :))
  4. Dr. Jones Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 6, 2000
    star 4
    "no debates about which is better/faster plz this thread's about the_dig's at-pt"

    Brazil is the best! -this close debate-
  5. the_dig Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jun 6, 2002
    star 1
    I have Brazil - but I don´t find any difference between my original Render and the Brazil-Render (only the Rendertime). Ok I only have it since one week, but any tipps or good tuts (I only found so much useless stuff...) would be helpful
    (And: yes I know that I have to use the Brazil Materials, but...)


    Edit:
    UPDATE (I replaced the last Pic with a newer version.)
  6. George Mezori SCIFI 3D Scifi 3D Forum

    VIP
    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 1999
    star 4
    Yea... a GI renderer is not just a switch you flip on unfortunately... it does take a bit of know-how and practice to use it effectively.

    You've detailed the back nicely. But were you gonna follow my one suggestion about the legs? The suggestion I had would greatly improve it and it is in the reference too. Didn't know if you could figure out what exactly I was talking about or not. Kinda hard to describe.
  7. the_dig Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jun 6, 2002
    star 1
    Erm... I am not 100% sure what you mean but I wanna redo the joints at the legs anyway...
    (What is a G.I. (letters: GI) Render?)
  8. The-Matt-Man Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 19, 2002
    star 4
    I can't much tell the difference between a brazil render, a GI render and a faked brazil/ whatever render. They all look good to me.

    -Matt
  9. Dr. Jones Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 6, 2000
    star 4
    Wrong, brazil is a GI renderer. GI mean global illumination. Brazil can make GI but only if youctivate it, that's why you don't see any diference. just put one light in you scene, and activate skylight an secandary lightning, in brazil luma render options, and you'll see a difference
  10. the_dig Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jun 6, 2002
    star 1
    Thanks Dr. Jones

    This Brazil-Render is made with your mentioned settings.
    Looks quite different now (at-pt is the same from the last side):

    [image=http://www.8ung.at/the_dig/atpt04brazil.jpg]
  11. George Mezori SCIFI 3D Scifi 3D Forum

    VIP
    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 1999
    star 4
    A GI renderer can make a HUGE difference. I think there are some pics in the WIP for Mos Espa Arena that show this. The huge main rock shows the diff. it can make. All the little details in the model it can bring out, all the diff. levels of shadows. It basically calculates all the diff. rays of light that bounce off the environment. There's not just one ray of light that hits and object. There are millions of rays that go in all directions and create all sorts of shadows. Creates color too by these rays of light hitting over objects of color and creating a new ray/shadow of that color. Hopefully that not only explains it well enough to understand, but also good enough to satisfy the experts here.

    Let me know if this still doesn't make sense then I'll just send you the reference with some markings on it showing you what I mean.

    The last leg joint the meets the body.. the big huge round piece... needs more detailing. It's like one big round cylinder now. What it needs is like the reference has... several circular rings around it.

    Yea.. that rendering looks better.. and that's without textures still.

  12. SevenJedi Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 20, 2001
    star 1
    i hope this hasn't died
  13. Desann2002 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Apr 13, 2002
    star 3
    (hums the death march)
  14. the_dig Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jun 6, 2002
    star 1
    No-
    it definitely not died.

    I have so much other things to do/learn - so I make a little break...

    It also helps to see mistakes and other not so good things ;)

    I´ll finish it soon...
  15. the_dig Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jun 6, 2002
    star 1
    All - I was able to do the last week:

    [image=http://www.8ung.at/the_dig/atpt06.jpg]

    (still not changed the joints - sorry ZOO ;) )


    Edit:
    A very important modelling question: Every time I want to chamfer some objects, 3D Max has an error... It works with very simple objects, but if they are little more complicated the error occurs and I have to restart.
    Is that normal? I tried it in Win98 and Win2000 with the same error.
  16. Desann2002 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Apr 13, 2002
    star 3
  17. Dr. Jones Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 6, 2000
    star 4
    No, it's not normal. I'm used to bevel a lot of edges, and I don't get problem with this. Yeah that doesn't really help you, but it was just to say the problem come from your max
  18. Thewiruz Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 29, 2002
    star 1
    oki that looks awsome!! have to ask ,how do you make the details??? Do you cut the polys and then extrude?? i need a very detailed explination,if its okay? Good work !!
  19. Dr. Jones Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 6, 2000
    star 4
    From the pics, I would say it's motly made of extrudes shapes, and edited primitives, but I may be wrong
  20. Golden-Y Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 2000
    star 3
    I like the model a lot. Can't see nothing wrong with it. Good work. :)
  21. George Mezori SCIFI 3D Scifi 3D Forum

    VIP
    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 1999
    star 4
    You are saying you are running MAX under Win98... and tried W2K to test it out. I'd say this might be your problem too... especially Win98. It's not a very good OS and even more unstable with MAX.
  22. the_dig Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jun 6, 2002
    star 1
    No, I use Max 4 under Win2k and tried it under Win98, too. I never had problems with Win2k and MAX until now...
    I hate it, because if I could bevel the edges, some parts would look much better. I can do it by hand, but...


    Thewiruz:
    Yes it is like Dr.Jones said. Many of the details are cut out and extruded. Many other details are extra modelled objects on the surface of the bigger parts (with auto-grid) (like at the cockpit, engines)

    http://www.ap3d.com/betterspace/index.htm
    On this page is a good shipdetailing-tutorial (It is for Lightwave but you can use it for other programs, too.)
    It helped me very much...
  23. bobabert Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Dec 24, 2002
    star 2
    I like it good details
    after my ATAT I'll try to do one(just for fun);)
  24. George Mezori SCIFI 3D Scifi 3D Forum

    VIP
    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 1999
    star 4
    Sounds like MAX is just corrupted in some way. Like you need to reinstall it or something.
  25. the_dig Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jun 6, 2002
    star 1
    I had some huge problems with my computer (Max, Windows crashes) and not much time to fix them...

    But I will continue tomorrow - and I think the at-pt should be ready this weekend.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.