http://www.interstellarmarines.com/m...ifle03_001.jpg
I am not adding anything thats not there, and yes its boxy.
The rail, i didnt want to copy that one for some reason, its just for a halo game so im not particularly interested in making it real life accurate.
But saying that, what could i do to make the rail better?
Heh. Even though you're given a fully unobstructed side view and a marginally obscured top view, along with a perfect 3d view, you're still managing to get many of the basic dimensions and important curvatures just... wrong. You're making it look too sci-fi, and thus unwieldy. The individual pieces are being lost, and therefore the piece as a whole is becoming actually less unified - the indents, curves, and facets are losing their purposes, and making the whole thing just look silly. Make it look like something that a soldier could actually hold, use, and trust in.
oh well, ill try make my next model better i guess.
I have to say, the Russians make some BEAUTIFUL fighter jets.
Was Googling for some sci-fi stuff to model, and instead, I came across an incredibly awesome real-life (experimental) fighter jet.
I know I'm missing the piece jutting out of the nose; for some reason I forgot to unhide it when I made the render.
While I'm here, you guys got any other beautiful Russian jets to model? Top, front, and side views are all nice.
E: A-ha! Next in line:
Sukhoi Pak Fa T-50:
Last edited by English Mobster; November 24th, 2009 at 01:54 PM.
Nobody ever makes biplanes.
also, here's some explosion sprite I made for a class game
Dude STOP THE FUCKING CLAY RENDERS. I can't see SHIT about the model's surface information. It looks like you have some really bad surfaces behind/around the cockpit but I CAN'T TELL WITH THE CLAY RENDER HIDING ALL YOUR MISTAKES.
Make a larger render because we can't see anything.
E: There you go.
Last edited by English Mobster; November 24th, 2009 at 02:49 PM.
You've got a shitload of errors near the cockpit, and you're not even following the form of the actual plane, when you've got a PERFECT top-down view of the thing with shading to show where the definition is at. Also; maybe it's just me but why would you just extrude where the ailerons are supposed to be and not make them separate objects?Originally Posted by English Mobster
E: There you go.
Hmm...
I see what you mean about not following the form of the plane; specifically, you're talking about the area behind the canopy, correct? About how its a "hump" when it should be more smoothened out?
There are currently 29 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 29 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks