The Empire has fallen and a New Republic is born out of the conflict. But in the ashes of civil war, yet another life stirs...
Imperial Star Destroyer
(view original)
Post a comment
Description
The pride of the Imperial Navy. Well known and rightly feared throughout the galaxy, the Imperial-class Star Destroyer and its variants are one of the most powerful battleships to navigate the stars. Derived from Clone Wars designs such as the Acclamator and Venator, the Imperial-class boasts a formidable array of weaponry, hardy shielding in addition to armor, and a large compliment of starfighters in its expansive docking areas. Indeed, even the Mandalorians are hard pressed to best this adversary in equal combat.
O_O Wow!
Oh my this is beautiful! I see the CR 90 in the hangar! I'm guessing it has some game element attached that won't be revealed yet. Extraordinary work, I hate to ask but is the Interdictor Star Destroyer something we could see?
I was thinking of making the Victory class next since it uses mostly the same base model as this...But the interdictor isn't far off either. I can make that happen.
Thanks for the reply! Just to clarify just I meant the Star Destroyer with the gravity wells, not the Immobilizer 418. I think in the new canon they use that name for the Immobilizer as well so I didn't want any confusion.
Can't wait to see the Victory, part of me likes it more than the ISD. Plus it keeps Brian Daley's legacy alive.
Right, the Immobilizer is in new canon, the Interdictor is not. The later will be in the mod and will be easy to make as well, now that the base model is done.
You know a mod is legit when they start showing Star Destroyers.
Are we allowed to give reasonably constructive critisism?
Absolutely.
But I promise the engines are more than 6-sided.
I really appreciate your sense of artistic vision, and overall consistent quality in both modelling and textures. Consistent art style is in my opinion pretty much the most important aspect of any mod, especially since pretty much all mods are a melting pot of art assets from different sources, resulting all these art assets looking alien and strange when seen side by side on the battlefield. Your mod in the past few years really looks to fix this issue and that is really commendable!
Once more with the ISD you deliver the same consistent quality and art style as with the other models you've built over the past few years. And taking the risk of sounding like some hipster, that is exactly what I see as a missed opportunity. This model seems to have as much detail as your corellian corvette, if you scaled this down to 160M like the 180M corvette instead of the 1600M warship this is, it'd look like it was built for that size. This model looks like the epitome of the minimal detail and overall structure needed to represent the general shape of an ISD. You have proven yourself to be such a talented artist, both 3d and 2d in the past, and the fact that you would settle for this level of overall detail on such a large ingame object is....very much in conflict with what you are capable of. I do not know if you're on time constrains, in which case disregard this commentary entirely since it is an efficient representation of the ISD, or if there's another reason for making this so...minimalistic? For a lack of better word? But damn, I was expecting the same level of detailing as from your earlier work, as in, detail per cubic meter, not detail per entire model.
This mod will run with a thousand frames per second no doubt but this looks like Petroglyph could've made this 2 years after they released EaW as an HD rerelease, we can make so much more these days, and the game engine isn't this ****** that it's forced to run with these low-poly models. Admittedly this comes from a guy whoes latest mod requires a 4 gb allocation patch for FoC to run properly, so take my talk about performance with a grain of salt, but I hope you can see my point. You have made stellar representations of WWII warplanes and I am very much intriqued as to why you decided to make this ship so low poly.
This might sound truely stupid and much like hollow banter, and I'll gladly give examples of what I mean on the model if you think it is, but I assume you understand what I am talking about and me giving a breakdown serves no purpose what so ever. I just want to open a venue for dialogue, and don't mean to make this sound like hammering your creation.
Maybe it is related to what you are saying, but for instance, while the corellian corvette seems to be of high poly quality and has a great texture, this one still has got an amazing texture with lots of detail, but doesn't look that high poly. Maybe he could increase the poly account more, and make physical details instead of depending on texture details. It gives me the feeling the surface of the ship is kind of flat.
Still, to me it looks phenomenal. And in no way, I could ever do something that could be compared to this awesome looking and time consuming piece of art. So please take this as constructive criticism :)
On what you said about the texture: No it doesn't. This texture does not have a lot of detail. Infact, it's devoid of most detail. But what lines and dots it does have, are so masterfully placed that it still represents a very stialised and high quality art work. That's why I asked why he made it like this, and didn't say it looks bad. Because it does not look bad. You could probably send this in to some "create art in the least amount of time"contest and win every award there is. This does not look like it took a lot of time to create but as I already said it is extremely efficient at looking like what it's supposed to look like.
It really is a masterpiece in its own right, just not in the sense we're used to seeing in the modelling community. Minimalistic, instead of pushing boundaries of poly-intensity on the maximum, this does it on the minimum.
One lesson I learned in a video production class at art school is that "sometimes it's the details you leave OUT that make a work impressive". For example, a common mistake with new compositing artists (the people who take the computer generated footage and add it into the live-action footage) is that they leave way too many details visible on the CGI footage so it doesn't feel like it belongs in the live-action scene. The human eye and, for that matter the human brain, can only perceive and make sense of a certain amount of visual information at a time. Then there are other things at play like lighting, atmospheric diffusion, etc. It's very tempting as a CG artist to want all of the little details to fill the screen because you took the time to make them...but is that really how it would look in real life? Do the surrounding elements really reflect that same level of detail?
Now, as this pertains to my style here and my personal approach to 3D art for video games is that not only are you attempting to make a cohesive and believable scene but you are also working within constraints placed on you by CPU/GPU/Engine limitations. You also have to keep in mind that no two users are going to have the same rig or computer setup...and if you want your game or mod to play right for the broadest audience, you have to sacrifice here and there. So, you leave some details out and keep that omission consistent across all your work so that it all looks like it's part of the same universe. Then, the omission of detail becomes less noticeable because everything is at an equal level. You address this in your own comments.
For the ISD specifically, it is about 7000 triangles, which is pretty high for an RTS game. For example, an entire character from the original Gears of War is approx 7-10 thousand triangles. The remainder of the details are made up for in the texture and normal maps. As an aside, the CR90 you talk about in your comments is less than half that many triangles, clocking in around 1500 to 2000. This is something I try to emulate with my work (making up details in the texture, not the model) but EaW has other limitations on it that a game like Gears does not. Firstly, it's an older and much less robust graphics engine. It can't render as high resolution textures, it's shaders are older and less versatile and generally are lower quality, and it's rendering of normal maps is...workable but leaves a lot to be desired. That said, the max texture resolution you can have is 4096x4096. It's decent size but not really enough to add super-fine details, particularly to the normal mapping . Therefore, the best approach is to be selective with your details, knowing that you are working within limits. You thoughtfully and purposefully add things to your texture that enhance it...not just filling up pixels ...not just details for their own sake. The end result does leave a simpler overall look but, in my opinion, offers a more polished and satisfying result that looks like it was created with intention; every piece being there for a reason.
This isn't to say that my way is the only way... It's art after all, there is no wrong answer and that's why it's so fun! This is merely an explanation of why I take the road I do; my logic and thought process as I create.
Exactly the type of reply I was looking to provoke with my comment, thanks for sharing.
Unrelated: I was under the impression that FoC could only render 2048^2 textures, knowing that it can also render 4096^2 is interesting.
Seriously, this part of discussion and discourse is what makes you people great. Sharing knowledge and perspectives to not only reflect what you do but also why you do it in a certain way. It's a matter of fact that we all may have similar biological mechanisms of perception, but we all perceive things individually. It's always a great pleasure to read such substantial discussions in addition to the great work you do.
Glad for the conversation.
By default, that is the max resolution. I believe that Mike.NL's 64 bit unofficial patch expands texture memory and makes 4096 possible though.
Thanks everyone
Sweet mother Theresa... The amount of detail is outstanding, it looks gorgeous.
Just noticed the corellian corvette inside the hangar, is it going to have a tractor beam + boarding ship ability or something of the sort? Or is it just a screenshot easter egg?
Can you elaborate on the detail you speak of? In my opinion this is an extremely minimalistic design, using the absolute minimum detail required to still get the job done, and I'd like to hear about your different point of view.
As I replied you, I was talking about how he uses textures in order to create detail even though the surface seems to be kind of flat and the model itself is quite low poly. And for that reason it is something outstanding, because not many people achieve this level of detail by textures alone. Still, due to the size of this ship I also think it would need something more in order to be perfected. But to me still it looks great, maybe because I cannot manage to do something that looks this good, there is no comparison lol
But in your case you have a lot more skills and experience than I do, so of course, if you have a different point of view and opinion, that is to be expected. Both of you, keep up the good work, you do incredible stuff!!
See above reply for a comprehensive answer to the details question ;)
But thank you both for your valued input!
Oh and the CR90 was just to show scale. It was a shot taken in the map editor.
As i see this Star Destroyer i can hear the imperial march and feel a warmth in my heart.
i dont know its a very simple and minimal look for the ship. i like that.
Woah..
In words of Darth Vader : Impresive , most Impresive !
Awesome Can't wait till the next release!
Thanks for the feedback and conversation everyone. The comments section is always enjoyable on Moddb, thanks to a great community!
Now this is how i like models, detailed as ****
Looks excellent Farseer.
Ah, still the most iconic battleship in Star Wars, possibly in all of Science Fiction. And my personal favourite.
I really like this rendition, it looks very... meaty for lack of a better word. I always felt that the original ISDs in EaW looked a bit flimsy, not sure why. Might have to do with their bow, the stock ones had a quite sharp point and yours basically has the tip of the triangle cut off. I think that does help quite a bit in making it look bulkier.
The proportions of the original ISD are all wrong and I think that's the problem. Just like the original ATAT walker, it's too narrow in some places and the triangular shape is wrong. It's too short, so that back end looks too wide and the bridge structure and actual bridge tower also look off, as a result.
If the Petro modelers actually modeled from orthographic reference, instead of just guessing or modeling from memory, it would have fixed little things like this.
Finally!
The turrets on the sides aren't just flat textures are they? The cell shaded look combined with those angles kinda make it look like they are... or maybe I need glasses. lol
No, they are geometry. They have to be if I want them to rotate and stuff ;)
wow wow wow
@the_Farseer
Hey Modder, got a question for you. I can see that you model has these black outline, will we see that in the next full file download? I personally think it looks great (has the Borderland-ques feel to it). Btw, Is the next Full DL coming anytime soon?
Every screenshot you see here is in-game footage and is exactly how the mod will look if run at full graphic settings. The next release will be this year.
Oh I see, Is Screenshot from the upcoming version or Version/Patch 4.2 OR it is visible regardless of what version it is?
All screenshots and videos on the site here are for the upcoming version 5. All shots from previous releases have been removed.
Aww Cool! looks so good, can't wait to play V5 :)
Very COOL!
This is one of the sexiest star wars assets I ever saw!
Woot
I like it when you compliment my sexy assets
Please take a good look to the ISD I and II models as well as its armaments:
Starwars.wikia.com
Your model is great but its weaponry is wrong.