Created to illustrate a game book, though when it's inserted in the
book, it's on a white backdrop.  (It just looks nicer against black.) 
Comments?  Suggestions?  Tomatoes?
-- 
ICQ#66022322

  "It's a terrifying thing, isn't it?  To live in fear.  
	 That's what it's like to be a slave."
	--Rutger Hauer, Bladerunner

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'fisher.jpg' (23 KB)

Preview of image 'fisher.jpg'

Well...

At the risk of being a nogoodnik...

You've created an atmospheric fighter here, not a starfighter.  You have 
twin engines which have thrust along the longitudinal axis, which is 
nice, but you don't seem to have any reaction control thrusters... your 
figher couldn't turn in space.

Also, it could use more surface texture... greeblies, if you will. 
 Weathering, paint, unit markings... something.  Anything.

A good start, though!


Timothy Groves wrote:

>Created to illustrate a game book, though when it's inserted in the
>book, it's on a white backdrop.  (It just looks nicer against black.) 
>Comments?  Suggestions?  Tomatoes?
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> <cid:par### [at] netscapecom>
>

Post a reply to this message

In article <3D571350.54666526@yahoo.co.uk>,
 Timothy Groves <gro### [at] yahoocouk> wrote:

> Created to illustrate a game book, though when it's inserted in the
> book, it's on a white backdrop.  (It just looks nicer against black.) 
> Comments?  Suggestions?  Tomatoes?

I guess "Starfighter" is just a name, because this doesn't resemble any 
kind of spacecraft. All aerodynamic surfaces, engines applying thrust 
close to the center of mass, that big glass cockpit cover...

-- 
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

Dawn McKnight wrote:
> 
> Well...
> 
> At the risk of being a nogoodnik...
> 
> You've created an atmospheric fighter here, not a starfighter.  You have
> twin engines which have thrust along the longitudinal axis, which is
> nice, but you don't seem to have any reaction control thrusters... your
> figher couldn't turn in space.
 
Welll...actually, it's meant to be a dual-purpose ship, both atmospheric
and space.  The two 'engines' are reaction-mass tanks;  the engine
itself is centerline.

I figured that reaction thrusters would be placed on the wingtips, nose
and tail;  haven't added any yet.

> Also, it could use more surface texture... greeblies, if you will.
>  Weathering, paint, unit markings... something.  Anything.

Yeah...no idea how to do that without using external textures, and I
don't wanna do that.  I'd definitely like to add some control surfaces
to the wings and tail...got lazy on that. 

But as for unit patches...how the heck would I do that?  The only way I
can think of is by using an external texture, and I'd rather not do
that.  It always looks like hell, compared to what the renderer itself
is capable of.  The other option is to painstakingly build it with
zillions of tiny triangles, and embed the mesh into the
wing...shudder...
-- 
ICQ#66022322

  "It's a terrifying thing, isn't it?  To live in fear.  
	 That's what it's like to be a slave."
	--Rutger Hauer, Bladerunner

Post a reply to this message

Timothy Groves wrote:


> But as for unit patches...how the heck would I do that? 


The usual way is to use an image map.  As long as the resolution of the 
image map is higher than the resolution at which your image is rendered, 
it'll look fine.

My own 'Void Sphinx' fighter (which you can find in the archives, if you 
search on those words) used this method.

You could also create a simple design as CSG objects, and difference 
them from your main object.  I've used this technique as well, and it 
works fairly well.

A unit marking doesn't have to be complicated... a red square with the 
number 12 in it, for instance, could be created using the box and text 
primitives.

Post a reply to this message

In article <3D5### [at] maccom>,
 Dawn McKnight <blu### [at] maccom> wrote:

> The usual way is to use an image map.  As long as the resolution of the 
> image map is higher than the resolution at which your image is rendered, 
> it'll look fine.

There is little relation between useable image_map resolutions and the 
render size, perspective and scaling could let you get away with very 
low-res maps or require much higher resolution.


> You could also create a simple design as CSG objects, and difference 
> them from your main object.  I've used this technique as well, and it 
> works fairly well.

An easier technique would be to use the object pattern to change the 
texture or create a new texture layer. For simple geometric designs, you 
could have the entire texture generated within POV, with no resolution 
worries.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

>
> > The usual way is to use an image map.  As long as the resolution of the
> > image map is higher than the resolution at which your image is rendered,
> > it'll look fine.
>
> There is little relation between useable image_map resolutions and the
> render size, perspective and scaling could let you get away with very
> low-res maps or require much higher resolution.
>

A guesstimate at best. However, I read on dvgarage.com somewhere that an image
resolution of 1.5 to 2 times the size of the area occupied within the final
render.

--
light_source{0,1}#macro c(J,a)sphere{0,1pigment{rgb z}scale a translate J+O}
#end#macro B(R,V,O)c(0,4)intersection{c(V,R)difference{c(-z*4x+10)c(-z*4.1x+
10)c(0<7.5,45,5>)}}#end B(12,0z*25)B(8y*4<0,12,50>)          // Batronyx ^"^

Post a reply to this message

> A guesstimate at best. However, I read on dvgarage.com somewhere that an image
> resolution of 1.5 to 2 times the size of the area occupied within the final
> render.
>
 . . . .is strongly recommended.

Post a reply to this message