Modeling Challenge Thread

[Dr Lee]

^^
I agree... IMHO the focus shoud be on the modelling..... but a short backstory and explenation of that the model is and the fictional backstory is needed.

[Ed]

its a moddelling challange thread. but if you draw a map, is it any use whitout legenda, to tell whats what? other way around, a book describing a map, is it any use without the map?


but as its a MODELLING challange, i said 2/3 model, 1/3 description. and ofcourse, an overlapping area where the description has to match the model, and vice versa

That map ledgened analogy is exactly what im trying to say.

[Crazy Tom]

No the fundemental thing which seperates your ship from another is the backstory, its stats, the model is important visually but you can tell more from specs and backstory than from a model 9/10.

A common mis conception. Your ships's exterior stongly refelects it's purpose and capabilities.

[thekillman]

but doesnt say all. thus: 1/3rd discription

[Crazy Tom]

but doesnt say all. thus: 1/3rd discription

Personaly, I anylise what the ship has to do, and then design it do do it in the most efective way possible.

[knowles2]

Personally,
Modeling contest.
5% description 90% modeling, 5% for others such as texturing and backgrounds, lighting and so fourth.

ship design contest

80% description, 15%model and 5% for the rest.

texture contest
90% percent texture, 5% model 5% for others.

That how I would grade different contest. For this thread a description should optional because a descent model would make it clear what each part does.

[RJB]

Personally,
Modeling contest.
5% description 90% modeling, 5% for others such as texturing and backgrounds, lighting and so fourth.

ship design contest

80% description, 15%model and 5% for the rest.

texture contest
90% percent texture, 5% model 5% for others.

That how I would grade different contest. For this thread a description should optional because a descent model would make it clear what each part does.

I agree with you on this. A modeling contest has always been about the model. It's how you take the concept given and bring it to life. This covers stuff like creativity, originality, and modeling ability.

[Semmer]

Actually modelling is

50% concept
50% modelling
specs are born along the way

[immhotep]

A common mis conception. Your ships's exterior stongly refelects it's purpose and capabilities.

Ever heard of the TARDIS. I rest my case. And by common you mean what?

Personaly, I anylise what the ship has to do, and then design it do do it in the most efective way possible.

Can you give an example of a ship you have actually designed? I mean seriously. I cant think of one, and you know i have a certain amount of knowledge about this field so please point one out, i may have missed your design or model, but if i havent please dont patronise others about thier design process.

[knowles2]

[QUOTE=immhotep;9313949]Ever heard of the TARDIS. I rest my case. And by common you mean what?

Tardis is the exception rather than the rule. Most vessels you can usually tell the purpose of it from the outside. Especially BSG type models, even the most stargate vessels you can tell what they are just from the look. With the only one not being the case is the Ha'tak.

Using the TARDIS as you example for designing a vessel. I give you my always cloak vessel.

[ATTACH]7270[/ATTACH]

See my point. Of course where the modeling skills in their. I bet if you decloak you could tell the purpose of the vessel, same if you turn of the chameleon circuit you be able to tell the purpose of the TARDIS.

We all know that is not the true form of the TARDIS and is just appear like that because the BBC actually wanted a model people could see. And not an invisible ship, which was the first idea for the TARDIS.

Can you give an example of a ship you have actually designed? I mean seriously. I cant think of one, and you know i have a certain amount of knowledge about this field so please point one out, i may have missed your design or model, but if i havent please dont patronise others about thier design process.

Actually that is how the design process work in the real worldand how is most people should design their vessels, you analyze the problem , you build/design the solution. It does not really matter if he has design a vessel, his point is correct.

However in the realm where you are not govern by normal physics or normals technologies you can express far more creative freedoms than you can in the real world.

[thekillman]

in space you arent dealing wiht "normal physics" anyway, as you would with a building:
theres no gravity, so the thing wont collapse under its own weight. a supermasssive building wont collapse, well maybe inside eventually, but hey.

[Merlin1701]

Can you give an example of a ship you have actually designed? I mean seriously. I cant think of one, and you know i have a certain amount of knowledge about this field so please point one out, i may have missed your design or model, but if i havent please dont patronise others about thier design process.

Knowles2 entered the first round of this thread, to help in your search immhotep.

Ever heard of the TARDIS. I rest my case. And by common you mean what?

Tardis is the exception rather than the rule. Most vessels you can usually tell the purpose of it from the outside. Especially BSG type models, even the most stargate vessels you can tell what they are just from the look. With the only one not being the case is the Ha'tak.

Actually that is how the design process work in the real worldand how is most people should design their vessels, you analyze the problem , you build/design the solution. It does not really matter if he has design a vessel, his point is correct.

However in the realm where you are not govern by normal physics or normals technologies you can express far more creative freedoms than you can in the real world.

In the majority of science fiction based programs the function of a vessel is taken into account during the design...a shuttle must be small, convey X amount of crew etc. However the appearance of the ship is the overriding factor. The design team must create a ship that the majority of the fan base will like, or grow to like; and in the case of bigger shows have it enjoyed by the fans so they will be willing to buy merchandise.

Usually a vessel created to be a warship/ battleship will be more angular to depict an edgy offensive beast. Any new design must also fall within an existing outline, if one already exists so that fans can identify and understand. Tauri and Atlantean vessels have strong geometrical influences, whereas the Nox have a more rounded appearance to their city in the sky.

In the real world we are either given a loose brief or depending on the client a strict brief that can not be deviated from and the design process has a few more stages than analyse then build/design! In fact there are 3 to 4 initial stages before you begin to design, sometimes this can be longer depending on the client and their needs!!! ;-S

As for the round 2 challenge
It was a struggle to find the time to design a vessel, create a believable back story within the current Stargate universe and specs for the model. I hate doing specs, as every one else envisions a ship differently, but those were the rules set down.

To be honest I enjoyed creating the company and back story, it enabled others to understand a little clearer what I was trying to create. I think for every round a small back story should be provided to assist in understanding each model.

[immhotep]

Actually that is how the design process work in the real worldand how is most people should design their vessels, you analyze the problem , you build/design the solution. It does not really matter if he has design a vessel, his point is correct.

Oh i absolutely understand that that is the process, its the process i use and hope others do, however the difference between specs and model can be quite revealing. What i did with the Tardis example was give an exception, your right. But the Tardis is a time travelling supership while it looks like a police box. The Ori mothership is looks like a toilet seat yet is one of the most powerful ships ever created. The Aurora class looks immensively powerful and impressive yet in battle is rather lame.
The differences between model and capabilities can only be found when we compare specs and model. The model's in stargate have been wildly inaccurate and in constant flux with few exceptions to that rule. At least on the forums we have some level of consistency which we have by using specs to pin down various aspects of our models to thoerettical facts in the specs. Eg we can show scale and size by comparing height, width and length specs, We can look at numbers of weapons emplacements of the ship and compare to specs, the same for engines, number of fighter bays, likely crew capacity. In stargate we havent got specs for any ship in the show, not one that is actually valid. Our ship designs at the very least have what i consider essential to any design work, and thats a balence between the visuals and the specifications. Without the specs a model is picture, and without a model specs are just words. Now there are great examples of specs and models which dont go together which are fantastic, but to make a ship design, IMO requires both elements.

[Buba uognarf]

Aurora lame in battle? It can take out a Hive ship in seconds...far from lame.

[knowles2]

Oh i absolutely understand that that is the process, its the process i use and hope others do, however the difference between specs and model can be quite revealing. What i did with the Tardis example was give an exception, your right. But the Tardis is a time travelling supership while it looks like a police box. The Ori mothership is looks like a toilet seat yet is one of the most powerful ships ever created. The Aurora class looks immensively powerful and impressive yet in battle is rather lame.
The differences between model and capabilities can only be found when we compare specs and model. The model's in stargate have been wildly inaccurate and in constant flux with few exceptions to that rule. At least on the forums we have some level of consistency which we have by using specs to pin down various aspects of our models to thoerettical facts in the specs. Eg we can show scale and size by comparing height, width and length specs, We can look at numbers of weapons emplacements of the ship and compare to specs, the same for engines, number of fighter bays, likely crew capacity. In stargate we havent got specs for any ship in the show, not one that is actually valid. Our ship designs at the very least have what i consider essential to any design work, and thats a balence between the visuals and the specifications. Without the specs a model is picture, and without a model specs are just words. Now there are great examples of specs and models which dont go together which are fantastic, but to make a ship design, IMO requires both elements.

Yes this is a modeling contests so you should show it all in the model, Using different Perspectives of the model. Scale of the craft should be accurately model as can be. Aka you get a model of a Stargate model and make sure all the decks the model can fit into it.

Having to used specs means that you have not accurately model the pbject and are cover up the inaccuracies of the model through the specs. Thus for this competition you should loose marks for having to supply specs.

This thread is all about the visuals, and not about the details.

what is the next challenge then.