Aztek Posted December 18, 2003 Author Posted December 18, 2003 It's looking tight Rod. I'd play with the color of the formation light on the nose though. When they are turned off they are an off-white with greenish tint. Very light tint of green. almost greenish yellow white. It's really hard to explain the color. When lit up at night they "glow" rather than illuminate with a blue "Indiglo" style glow. If you can't find real world refs, let me know ...
Doktor Gonzo Posted December 20, 2003 Posted December 20, 2003 (edited) I'll keep things rolling with another WIP texture shot This showcases further work on specular mapping in trying to realistically simulate weathered, dirtied metal Edited December 20, 2003 by Doktor Gonzo
Aztek Posted December 21, 2003 Author Posted December 21, 2003 DG, I really dig the "style" of your texture but something about it seems too metallic. Real world aircraft like most autos have bare metal, primer, and base coat layers. I know for a fact that during depot maintenance when the aircraft are painted, some degree of prep and strip occurs then anywhere from 1 to 3 coats of paint are shot. All new labels and stencils are applied, and when the aircraft returns to home station, tail flash and local markings are added. I started out with a basic layer in PS using the skin color I chose ... an off white with minor noise and gaussian blurred for texture (flat). All markings, stencils and other colors of paint are layered over the base and each has seperate weathering and blending effects applied. I tried to work with what I KNOW happens in the real world and apply it with what I think should happen to create a realistic anime paint job. Your textures are leaps ahead of where I'd like mine, but something is screaming 60's style bare aluminum aircraft to me. I'm not as versed it the ways of texturing as most here are, but I'm sure with a few tweaks it would look less "metal" and more aircraft. Case in point. Most modern aircraft are becoming less metal and more composite materials and alloys, combinations that are inherently NOT SHINY. Unless it's detail in the intake or cockpit glass and components, the bulk of our valks are dull and somewhere between flat and soft gloss finished. Soft gloss is reaching ... cause after a few aircraft washes, mostly using scotch pads and non abrasive detergent (go figure), most if not all gloss is lost. This post is half rant, half critique, half useless info, and half me - half asleep. It's all envy though cause the compositing is looking good. I'm gonna try and get some shots of the flightline here and get them to you. I'd love to see your valk parked on some tarmac - parked on my desktop. later ... Az
Mechmaster Posted December 21, 2003 Posted December 21, 2003 This post is half rant, half critique, half useless info, and half me - half asleep. Er... thats four halves Az, five if you count half-asleep I agree though that those textures do look like bare, polished metal rather than paint. Is that the effect you were after Dok? If so you've hit the nail on the head. Looks good whatever.
Gammera Posted December 21, 2003 Posted December 21, 2003 its is probably the spec map, for light colored maps the specular highlight map should be dark, if you use a light color it will get way to reflective. here are my maps the top is my normal one the bottom is my specular.
Doktor Gonzo Posted December 21, 2003 Posted December 21, 2003 Gammera, Probably a bit of a waste to use full-color images as a specularity map. Spec is a single scalar channel (Maya maps it by default to a color map's outAlpha). Looks good though. Az, Mech, I WAS kind of going for a bare material look rather than paint, though not necessarily metal. I was using the image below as a guide. It suggests the F/A-22 is largely unpainted, save for the large camo spots, and note that the specular component, particularly on the leading edges and left intake, is not just seemingly high, but also uneven, suggesting that different panels are made of different materials with a different spec index. Dunno, maybe I was misled by a bad photo example....
Aztek Posted December 21, 2003 Author Posted December 21, 2003 Good pic, and like Mech said if you were going for THAT look, good on ya man, you got it. As for painted/unpainted - chemically treated surfaces ... some surfaces depending on their function ARE unpainted. Certain sensors, control surfaces and intakes areas are unpainted. These surfaces aren't clear coated, but treated with some form of corrosion inhibitor (like alodine, a light yellow, almost goldish tint to aluminium). I'm assuming the leading edges of the -22 are bare for either friction or stealth properties. The valk is FAR from the -22, but I'm sure the composite make up would probably have been shared. Gorgon posted some kick ass pics of -14s a page ago and by far those are some of the best refs for realistic weathering on an existing aircraft. Here's an example he posted of a fresh and old -14. Notice the top one is the clean version one would want to texture with little focus on weathering. The second or lower of the two in the pic, has been around the block a few times and is probably at the extreme end for what weatherers are trying to achieve (minus battle damage itself). I myself would like an in-between of the two extremes mostly because most aircraft I've encountered fall somewhere in the middle themselves.
Chronocidal Posted December 24, 2003 Posted December 24, 2003 Judging by that comparison, I'd say that factory fresh aircraft are definitely fully painted. Also, from a modeler's perspective, if you research certain aircraft, they are painted in specific shades of colors, mostly flat shades of grey. That top Tomcat looks completely dull. Actually, they both do, but the lower one seems much darker.. I'd attribute this to a combination of things, mainly, accumulated dirt, oil, grease, etc (you can't run a Tomcat through your local Chevron auto-wash after all). The paint may also be wearing thin, and we're seeing through slightly to the metal underneath. Also, one thing about flat paint: if you rub it enough, it polishes to a dull shine. Simple friction with the air would probably be enough to polish planes to some extent, while panel lines would probably catch more air, and either shine up the paint quite a bit, or wear it off entirely. If you look closely, on those worn Tomcats, the nose cone is the shiniest part, while on the freshly painted one, the nose doesn't reflect at all (the shine on the canopy stops suddenly at the edge of the glass). Since the nose and leading edges of the wings receive the brunt of the friction during flight, it makes sense that they are glossier than the rest of the plane. Imperfections in the smoothness of the metal may also play a part... if some section of the fuselage is even a millimeter above the section behind it, that higher portion will receive much more friction in flight, and will probably wear faster. Newer aircraft may indeed use bare composite parts, but in the case of a supposedly stealthy aircraft like the F-22, they most likely have a special "stealth paint" they use that reduces radar returns, and those parts would probably be coated with that. Now, whether that coating is clear or colored, I couldn't say. Seen in that light, weathering would probably have to be done in two parts: one, in the color map, where paint is visibly darker from dirt, or visibly blotchy where paint has worn off part way, and two, in the specular map, where the specular level will be higher on high-wear surfaces like control surface edges and nose cones, blending to darker shades in the less exposed areas. Also the two types would have to interact somewhat.. ie, you're not going to find much dirt on the leading edge of a wing or tail, since these areas get blasted by the full force of the air (and any pollution, dust, etc. that's in it ). So, in the case of the Valkyrie, that means several key areas will be noticeably shinier than the rest of the plane... the nose cone and the leading edges of the wings and tails should be obvious.. but also the area around the upper intakes of the chest plate should be included (it's very exposed) as well as any other obvious thing that would cause drag: the fronts of the small pods on the sides of the nose and intakes, the leading edges of the intakes themselves, the front and top of the battroid's head, even possibly the tops of the shoulders, since they're flat and facing forward in flight. You could probably get a good idea where the air would wear down the paint with a spotlight.. just set up a spotlight directly ahead of the plane (in line with it's normal, level flight angle of attack) in an otherwise perfectly dark environment.. the places that are lit should be glossier, and as the light fades, so should the glossiness. It's a rough model, but I guess it could work to give an idea of which parts get the most wear from friction.
Aztek Posted December 24, 2003 Author Posted December 24, 2003 ... what he said. JK Good insight Chrono, I overlooked alot of the info you brought up when weathering, mainly the paint ripping off at panel lines exposed to airflow over the length of the aircraft. It's normally NOT found on panel lines parallel to airflow, and on panels reasonably flush with adjacent panels. Thanks!
Doktor Gonzo Posted December 24, 2003 Posted December 24, 2003 ... what he said.JK Good insight Chrono, I overlooked alot of the info you brought up when weathering, mainly the paint ripping off at panel lines exposed to airflow over the length of the aircraft. It's normally NOT found on panel lines parallel to airflow, and on panels reasonably flush with adjacent panels. Thanks! ...and of course an additional consideration, one not to be found on real-world-aircraft: paint would likely crack and abrade at transformation joints, where the parts are frequently subject to high-speed parting and/or slamming together....
mighty gorgon Posted December 26, 2003 Posted December 26, 2003 That top Tomcat looks completely dull. Actually, they both do, but the lower one seems much darker.. You are right, but that's what they call it "low viz". Low viz is by definition "dull". And the top aircraft is unfinished: it does not have any paint in the tail fins. I think that after the major paint work, an experienced modeller should come and do a decent wash and panneling job on that one!!! . BTW, and to compare with Rodavan's rendering, check nose panels, rivets and difference in surface reflection (radome vs. other) in this grey-on-grey (Nose) high res close up (feb 2003). It is worth noting how "low viz" are the stencils in this one... they are almost invisible. Regds, Gorgon
DatterBoy Posted December 30, 2003 Posted December 30, 2003 (edited) Just got my first 1/48 Yamato VF, so I made a few proportion changes, mostly on the size of the fastpacks: :Dat Edited April 28, 2004 by DatterBoy
DatterBoy Posted December 31, 2003 Posted December 31, 2003 DOK: When animating, where do you chnage the setting so that the animation does not interpret any loose frames... or in other words, so that it moves the way you tell it to. I did some animating and the thing moves like it's organic as opposed to mechanical.. know what I mean? :Dat
Doktor Gonzo Posted December 31, 2003 Posted December 31, 2003 DOK:When animating, where do you chnage the setting so that the animation does not interpret any loose frames... or in other words, so that it moves the way you tell it to. I did some animating and the thing moves like it's organic as opposed to mechanical.. know what I mean? :Dat I think so - if I understand you, you're saying that you don't like the "curve fitting" Maya is doing with the motion paths - i.e. when you set two keys for a joint, it's rotation starts out slowly, gathers speed, swings, and brakes slowly to a stop at the 2nd key, rather than rotating at a constant rate of speed and stopping without preamble, like a servo motor might? Okay, easy to fix if you know what to look for. Do this: -Highlight the object you've set keys on. -Go to Animation Editors>>Graph Editor. -On the left, all of the "channels" pertaining to the object will appear. Highlight the specific one you wish to change the motion characteristic of (i.e. "Translate X", "Rotate Y" or whatever). Select View>>Frame Selection. You will now see, in the righthand window, the keys you've set plotted against time on the vertical axis. -Select by clicking the keys whose motion interpolation you wish to "turn off". Select Tangents>>Linear. -Do this for all appropriate objects/channels/key frames. Quit the graph editor and replay your animation sequence. It should now behave as you want it to.
DatterBoy Posted December 31, 2003 Posted December 31, 2003 (edited) Thanks DOK! That's exactly what I meant. I'll have to take care of that once I get home and see how it works out. Just a few more details on the valk and I'll be conmpletely done modelling. :Dat Edited April 28, 2004 by DatterBoy
CoryHolmes Posted January 1, 2004 Posted January 1, 2004 Datter, "wow" can't describe how incredible I find your model. You MUST texture it. And then take pics. Lots of pics. And when you're done taking pics, give us movie clips of that sucker. Aww, just give us the movie right off the bat. It'd make the rest of us happy
Aztek Posted January 1, 2004 Author Posted January 1, 2004 The material your using looks so plasticky claylish. For lack of a better word. Your valk gives me a chub Dat. Add a pair of "radomes" to the chestplate and texture it pink and I'll love you forever man! Seriously, you have one of the best valk meshes I've seen.
mk16 Posted January 1, 2004 Posted January 1, 2004 Datterboy your valk is amazing. It has movie quality written all over it. Heck the mesh is better better detailled than the ones in Zero, and some motion pictures. Hmmm maybe the people at cgtalk could have mutch more to say than me. I have to see this in motion.
Chronocidal Posted January 1, 2004 Posted January 1, 2004 Agreed.. that thing looks beautiful.... Personally, I'd add more detail to the landing gear though. Right now, they look kinda like donuts on pipes. It looks like the rest of the model is based off the 1/60th, so I'm guessing that's where that comes from. For detailed landing gear your best bet is to look at the Hasegawa kit, if you have one. They look about as true to life as you can get. If you need scans of instructions, I'd be glad to help out.
DatterBoy Posted January 1, 2004 Posted January 1, 2004 Hi guys, The model is based primarily on the 1/60th, so you're right CHRONOCIDAL, and the landing gear... you're also right, it's crap. Spent little to no time on it so it's no where as true to what it should be, and the wheels are nothing but donuts from MAYA. I really will have to make those better. Other than that, the model has a few 1/48 type modifications in there since the 1/48 is superior, but I still envy AZTEK's upper leg/thigh area, it's got that roundness to it I want to get but have failed miserably to model each time. I want to add afew more panel lines to the chest and the remodel the legs so I can put panel lines on them before I texture but I'll try and post a transformation movie here if I can. :Dat
Chronocidal Posted January 2, 2004 Posted January 2, 2004 (edited) K, here's a couple of shots that may help... I should'a known those were placeholders.. no way you'd leave them on a plane that beautiful. Edited January 2, 2004 by Chronocidal
Chronocidal Posted January 2, 2004 Posted January 2, 2004 Here's some landing gear details.... I would've sent these by email, but my email doesn't like attachments sometimes.
Chronocidal Posted January 2, 2004 Posted January 2, 2004 (edited) *Screwed up post, see below* Edited January 2, 2004 by Chronocidal
Chronocidal Posted January 2, 2004 Posted January 2, 2004 Here's some rear details.. the doors aren't visible in this part, but they're not too hard to figure out.
DatterBoy Posted January 2, 2004 Posted January 2, 2004 A Quick Transformation movie: VF-1A Transformation :Dat
rdenham Posted January 3, 2004 Posted January 3, 2004 (edited) I may be wrong, however the missiles in the armour on the arm seems to narrow in comparison to the total width of the arm armour. Edited January 3, 2004 by rdenham
DatterBoy Posted January 4, 2004 Posted January 4, 2004 AZ: I love it. Looks comfy, not a bad place to be when shootin down baddies. :Dat
Aztek Posted January 4, 2004 Author Posted January 4, 2004 Texs need tweaking, but yeah ... good spot to pilot a valk.
mk16 Posted January 4, 2004 Posted January 4, 2004 Wow man, just as i thought. Its really amazing seeing the level of detail in your valk Datterboy. Your demonstration animation makes my yaw drop. Dude keep up the great work. You guys in this forum have great tallent.
Chronocidal Posted January 7, 2004 Posted January 7, 2004 Well, it's not exactly cg, but I have some news from the flight sim front:
Recommended Posts