Staticstarter Staticstarter

Alternative Ship Models

▼

Alternative Ship Models

FalShia and Staticstarter Mod Project- suggestions are welcome.

from Sins Forums

Instead of spending months and months working on a TC or IP mod for Sins, can someone please, o please, do new models for existing units!? 

Redesigns for:

Garda Flak
Kodiak Heavy
Aegis Drone Ship

and a few others.  Some of the ship models are completely non-sensical, even for alien races.  I'm capable of producing concept artwork for anyone who is interested in doing the modeling.  This game doesn't need Star Trek, or Star Wars, of Babylon 5 mods.  What is need is good ship models- plain and simple.  Most of them are good (All the cap ships are great in my opinion)- just a few are so disappointing that I'm compelled to post this.

Private Message me if you are interested.

76,072 views 172 replies
Reply #101 from Sins Forums Top
This thread is full of epic lulz and fails. One particular forumite in particular, but I shan't name names.

"Realistic" capital ships would not have windows anyway, engagements are beyond VR and the risk to structural integrity by installing windows would be nigh suicidal in a military engagement.

As is, the capital ships, in order to better convey their proper size need texture work done; easiest thing would be to emphasize "smaller" (visually) armor plates, detail work, etc. in proportion to the smaller ships. With the windows as is, it is quite obvious visually that they look "blown up" (waaaay out of proportion), thus ruining any perspective gained by comparing said ship to a smaller one; it simply looks like it was a blown up version of the small ship texture-wise.

On the topic at hand, the LRM redesign is actually quite good, my compliments on it.
Reply #102 from Sins Forums Top
just thought id say those new models look superb, and i agree with you that the kodiak actually is a tank in space, and looks crap, so seeing how goo it looks without that turret was great!, keep up the good work
Elemental: Reforged
Reply #103 from Sins Forums Top
I think all of you spend waaaay too much time zoomed in on individual ships :P
Reply #104 from Sins Forums Top
Here's another Kodiak alternative. Model was based the Tradeship heavily modified for a more 'naval' look. The size is about the same as the civilian build but twice the length.





Reply #105 from Sins Forums Top
Hmmm, very "bluewater" feel to it; the main turrets could use some additional detail, but it's pretty darn nice.
Reply #106 from Sins Forums Top
FalShia, I suggest mounting the gun closest to the bow on the underside (ventral?).

Reply #107 from Sins Forums Top
Or just add a fourth one there...I'm trying to resist calling it a chin-mount.

EDIT: The more I look at it, the more I like it, but I can't help but feel it's out of place. I think it would be awesome as part of a TEC ship overhaul overall, if all of the ships were redesigned to a more blue-water feel. Battlespace 3057TR has some excellent designs in that regards as well if you need general guides. I personally feel it's more of an either-or situation, rather than selectively changing them, as the current TEC do--very much so in fact--have a aesthetic theme, and just replacing one or two designs would be rather jarring, IMHO.
Reply #108 from Sins Forums Top
Ooh, ooh! Am I too late to get in on the window size argument? ^_^

Anyone who says window size isn't a critical part of defining scale in a spaceship model is... wait for it... wrong.

I know, I know, "personal opinion", right?

Nope. I can say with quite a bit of certainty that I'm the only person on this forum who has professionally designed spacecraft for Star Trek, so believe me when I say that the windows on a ship MUST match its proposed scale.

Yes, there can be big cathedral windows, or nice picture windows that give pretty views, but they have to look like cathedral and picture windows.

My theory is that the TEC craft were some of the earlier ones made, since the Vasari and especially the Advent textures show lovely scale, and more attention to detail in general.

Also note the way when you look at the windows on an Advent ship, it looks like there's stuff inside there, while on a TEC vessel they're just glowing white blocks.

I hope the TEC ships are earlier work, because otherwise I'd have to say the Advent texture artist is simply more talented.

Now, back to the actual thread topic!

(I love the Advent carrier, by the way. Not everything has to be flat and boxy.)
Reply #110 from Sins Forums Top
Look at a WWII Battleship and tell me they were actually worthwhile outside of their majestic look, proud naval background, and intimidation and morale factor.It's not all about what is most efficient. Efficiency and utility are great for science, but this isn't science. This is war. War carries with it a few extra variables.And yes yes I know
End of quote


Several points:
1. Battleships of all variants (battlecruisers, dreadnought, fast battleships etc etc etc) have been the optimum of naval battle for hundred of years, they were designed to stand in the "line of battle" and survive, the only intimidation factor to a ship of the line was it fearsome streangh.
The only reason why battleships and cruiser looked so slick was because it made them sail faster, saltwater ships were the upscale of engineering of their time and still do today.

2. BB played in WWII a crucial role in fleet defence, lets not kid our selves, combat naval air ops were at their opening stages in WWII, no one knew how succesfull they will be against enemy naval units, forther more, with the uncertainty of airial attacks on ships of the line you couldn't leave your own battle groups and carriers undefended against the possibility being attacked by the enemys cap-ships.

3. By the end on WWII nearlly all new BB and BC hulls the were laid down for construction were converted to aircraft carriers due to the advancment in carrier combat ops science and advanced ammunition and aircrafts, no one kept building them (even for their majestic look, proud naval background, and intimidation and morale factor))

4. And last but not least, you clearly haven't spent a day in uniform cause if you have you would have know that it's not the look of a weapon system that effect morale it how many motherfracking ******** you can kill with it that count.

Warder

[Moderator notice: This is no place for racist epithets. Please refrain from using them in the future.]


Reply #111 from Sins Forums Top
Ooh, ooh! Am I too late to get in on the window size argument? ^_^Anyone who says window size isn't a critical part of defining scale in a spaceship model is... wait for it... wrong.I know, I know, "personal opinion", right?Nope. I can say with quite a bit of certainty that I'm the only person on this forum who has professionally designed spacecraft for Star Trek, so believe me when I say that the windows on a ship MUST match its proposed scale.Yes, there can be big cathedral windows, or nice picture windows that give pretty views, but they have to look like cathedral and picture windows.My theory is that the TEC craft were some of the earlier ones made, since the Vasari and especially the Advent textures show lovely scale, and more attention to detail in general.Also note the way when you look at the windows on an Advent ship, it looks like there's stuff inside there, while on a TEC vessel they're just glowing white blocks.I hope the TEC ships are earlier work, because otherwise I'd have to say the Advent texture artist is simply more talented.Now, back to the actual thread topic!(I love the Advent carrier, by the way. Not everything has to be flat and boxy.)
End of quote


Nice post, I found Bubb's posts rather amusing myself, he has really convinced himself he is right. From a designers point of view I can safely state that some things are visually expected to be at a certain scale. A cathedral and a house have to be the worst examples ever, one is a special case, if one window on the ship was extra large it would be within reason, but one ship isn't going to randomly have every floor on its decks 3x higher than needed for no reason.

As for ship designs, there are some odd ones in all the races, The Advent seems to go from curvy organic "shell" like designs (carrier) through to smooth curves all the way to hard square shapes (temple of hostility really sticks out) TEC have already been mentioned and the Vasari are also quite odd.
Reply #112 from Sins Forums Top
Look at a WWII Battleship and tell me they were actually worthwhile outside of their majestic look, proud naval background, and intimidation and morale factor.It's not all about what is most efficient. Efficiency and utility are great for science, but this isn't science. This is war. War carries with it a few extra variables.And yes yes I knowSeveral points:1. Battleships of all variants (battlecruisers, dreadnought, fast battleships etc etc etc) have been the optimum of naval battle for hundred of years, they were designed to stand in the "line of battle" and survive, the only intimidation factor to a ship of the line was it fearsome streangh. The only reason why battleships and cruiser looked so slick was because it made them sail faster, saltwater ships were the upscale of engineering of their time and still do today.2. BB played in WWII a crucial role in fleet defence, lets not kid our selves, combat naval air ops were at their opening stages in WWII, no one knew how succesfull they will be against enemy naval units, forther more, with the uncertainty of airial attacks on ships of the line you couldn't leave your own battle groups and carriers undefended against the possibility being attacked by the enemys cap-ships.3. By the end on WWII nearlly all new BB and BC hulls the were laid down for construction were converted to aircraft carriers due to the advancment in carrier combat ops science and advanced ammunition and aircrafts, no one kept building them (even for their majestic look, proud naval background, and intimidation and morale factor))4. And last but not least, you clearly haven't spent a day in uniform cause if you have you would have know that it's not the look of a weapon system that effect morale it how many motherfracking ******** you can kill with it that count. Warder[Moderator notice: This is no place for racist epithets. Please refrain from using them in the future.]
End of quote


1. Ships of the line were most useful in very static, limited roles i.e. blockades and fleet-crushing confrontations. Outside of that there were much faster, much more effective (frigates) ships for prize capturing, patrol, and the majority of other fleet action. Yes, ships of the line were crucial in key battle like Trafalgar where they spearheaded crushing assaults on opposing navies, but unless you managed to lure that navy into a place to pound the hell out of them they were far more limited. For one thing their best point of sail is with the wind, as opposed to sloop-rigged and smaller vessels that can sail well at angles to and against the wind.

2. This is true, before people knew what the hell to do with them people kept tried the same old style of war. But don't tell me that the Bismarck was hunted down relentlessly JUST because it was being used in "fleet defense" (which it wasn't). Smaller ships are much more effective at providing a protective screen anyway, but I digress.

3. And yet they still served in active commission, fancy that. Apparently you have never heard of the Missouri.

4. You clearly have never been under fire, seeing as you don't seem to know what the hell the primary purpose of "suppressive fire" is. I'll give you a hint, it sure isn't to "kill motherfracking ********s" What something looks like is not the only thing I refer to when I say its "intimidation" factor. It's also how it is used. Tell me Atomic Weaponry's strength lies in its devastation capabilities alone. Hmm it must be that, right? Since, you know, human kind has only really used it twice in 60 years? Your comments deny the entirety of the Cold War.
Reply #113 from Sins Forums Top
What something looks like is not the only thing I refer to when I say its "intimidation" factor. It's also how it is used. Tell me Atomic Weaponry's strength lies in its devastation capabilities alone. Hmm it must be that, right? Since, you know, human kind has only really used it twice in 60 years? Your comments deny the entirety of the Cold War.
End of quote


Just a comment - intimidation is indeed a factor with nuclear warfare, but there is a slight difference between that and mutual nuclear deterrence. I've never really heard of mutual battleship deterrence; it's intimidating for a different reason, in my opinion.
Reply #114 from Sins Forums Top
I like pretty much all the ship models. The human ships are supposed to have that random, cobbled together look about them. The Vasari ships all look appropriately badass for warmongering aliens. The Advent ships look just what I would expect from hyper-advanced, telepathic Children of the Corn girls bent on ripping out their enemies' souls through their foreheads. As for the discussion regarding the scale of the windows and weapons...who friggin cares? It's a video game. Make a realism mod if you want the rotating turrets and true-to-life scaling. From what I understand this game is extremely mod-friendly.
Reply #115 from Sins Forums Top
I really like your new Kodiak model, any possible chance that you can release it to the public?
Reply #116 from Sins Forums Top
As for ship designs, there are some odd ones in all the races, The Advent seems to go from curvy organic "shell" like designs (carrier) through to smooth curves all the way to hard square shapes (temple of hostility really sticks out) TEC have already been mentioned and the Vasari are also quite odd.
End of quote


The Advent design philosophy is to be based mainly on pronounced curves, though there are some deviations. While the Seeker Vessel, Disciple Vessel, Illuminator Vessel, and Aeria Drone Host use this kind of curve-based design and look nice and sleek, some of their ships like the Iconus Guardian, Defense Vessel and Purge Vessel go overboard with it and end up looking hideous or too 'look-at-me!' for their own good. The Progenitor Mothership also looks like a hulking club/stick and is probably the ugliest ship in the game.

And then the Advent have some ships(the Destra Crusader, Radiance Battleship and the drone strike craft) which ignore this design philosophy entirely and look more to the point and, IMO, better than their other ships. The Destra is IMO the best looking Advent ship with it's catamaran hull housing it's Plasma cannons, with the weapons being the stand-out feature of the entire design(similar to Vasari's Enforcer heavy cruiser) and not some random curvy structure.

As for the Vasari, the Assailant and Overseer are absolutely hideous. Their capital ships all look OK, except with the Evacuator's unwieldy bulbous design standing out. The Jikara Navigator, Junsurak Sentinel and the strike craft also look semi-sleek and are fine, but not really mean enough for evil aliens.
The Lasurak Transporter is probably the Vasari's idea of a utilitarian design with it's oversized hangar bay standing out, and the Skarovas Enforcer is the meanest looking ship they have with it's huge Wave cannon and long, thin 'windows' on a semi-flattened, well-curved base. The Karrastra is also evil-looking with it's big pulse beam bombardment weapons standing out in front on two long arm-like structures bolted on to the hull. But the Vasari have no central design philosophy like the TEC and Advent do, they're more varied and somewhat random instead.
Reply #117 from Sins Forums Top
As for ship designs, there are some odd ones in all the races, The Advent seems to go from curvy organic "shell" like designs (carrier) through to smooth curves all the way to hard square shapes (temple of hostility really sticks out) TEC have already been mentioned and the Vasari are also quite odd.The Advent design philosophy is to be based mainly on pronounced curves, though there are some deviations. While the Seeker Vessel, Disciple Vessel, Illuminator Vessel, and Aeria Drone Host use this kind of curve-based design and look nice and sleek, some of their ships like the Iconus Guardian, Defense Vessel and Purge Vessel go overboard with it and end up looking hideous or too 'look-at-me!' for their own good. The Progenitor Mothership also looks like a hulking club/stick and is probably the ugliest ship in the game.And then the Advent have some ships(the Destra Crusader, Radiance Battleship and the drone strike craft) which ignore this design philosophy entirely and look more to the point and, IMO, better than their other ships. The Destra is IMO the best looking Advent ship with it's catamaran hull housing it's Plasma cannons, with the weapons being the stand-out feature of the entire design(similar to Vasari's Enforcer heavy cruiser) and not some random curvy structure.As for the Vasari, the Assailant and Overseer are absolutely hideous. Their capital ships all look OK, except with the Evacuator's unwieldy bulbous design standing out. The Jikara Navigator, Junsurak Sentinel and the strike craft also look semi-sleek and are fine, but not really mean enough for evil aliens. The Lasurak Transporter is probably the Vasari's idea of a utilitarian design with it's oversized hangar bay standing out, and the Skarovas Enforcer is the meanest looking ship they have with it's huge Wave cannon and long, thin 'windows' on a semi-flattened, well-curved base. The Karrastra is also evil-looking with it's big pulse beam bombardment weapons standing out in front on two long arm-like structures bolted on to the hull. But the Vasari have no central design philosophy like the TEC and Advent do, they're more varied and somewhat random instead.
End of quote
You know, it's been said that opinions are like a certain part of the anatomy in that everyone has one.

It seems to me that if we're to make that comparison, some people would be downright riddled with holes. ^_^
Reply #118 from Sins Forums Top
What i find most irritating is that all TEC-ships look rusted an weathered. But first it would be ridiculous to build spaceships out of simple iron it rather should be some sort of alloy. Second in space is no oxygen for rust (at least not on the outside).
So the ships should be much more "shiny".
Reply #119 from Sins Forums Top
Space is not a (complete) vacuum. You're going to run into dust, micrometeorites, etc, and if you happen to be going fast enough, even something very small is going to leave one hell of a mark. Weathered looking ships are definitely realistic.
Reply #120 from Sins Forums Top
Space is not a (complete) vacuum. You're going to run into dust, micrometeorites, etc, and if you happen to be going fast enough, even something very small is going to leave one hell of a mark. Weathered looking ships are definitely realistic.
End of quote


That's why it seems the United Federation of Planets knew what they were doing when it came to deflectors :P
Reply #121 from Sins Forums Top
Wow When can we DL these nifty new changes??!!! I wish i new how to model and texture.
Reply #122 from Sins Forums Top
The TEC might was maybe only made up by traders in all shapes and sizes...

but after 10 years! of war they should have developed real fighting machines. just think at actuall warfare...
and the TEC DO HAVE scientists and space craft architects, so they surely would have develpoed designs for pure military purpose...

i think the designs at the moment are well done.... but by way not militaristic enough...

My personal favorite for a huge battleship is still formed like a triangle with lots of fighters and awesome firepower ( ;) ), where space battles can take quiet some time...

So i definetely looking forward for mods with new models to play around...
Reply #123 from Sins Forums Top
Actually, in space, vacuum ablation has a simmilar effect on the hull as "weather" - discoloration, flaking etc.

My personal issue with the vanilla ships is not design, actually some of those designs are pretty much on the spot. Its the feel, the ships feel somewhat... cartoonish. I don't know why. It may have something to do with the unit coloring, which is too smooth. For example, windows. :p Look at them, there is no light variation at all. They look like neon lighting panels. Actually, it the most common mistake when doing spaceship windows, especially on small ships. With a bit of attention to detail, you can have windows which convey that there are lots of complicated things in there, which adds depth to the ship and makes it look more convincing. Or unit faction coloring. The new models I am doing for the Last Stand don't have that at all. Unnecessary, with the overview and icons, and having big nasty ships with pink stripes on their hull is just... meh.

Anyway, since it takes me about two days to make a decent new model and texturing, I *may*, if someone doesn't beat me to it (and by the looks of some of models out there, they most certainly will), redesign all the ships eventually. But as someone said already, such a thing does take time and is quite demanding.
Reply #124 from Sins Forums Top
Space is not a (complete) vacuum. You're going to run into dust, micrometeorites, etc, and if you happen to be going fast enough, even something very small is going to leave one hell of a mark. Weathered looking ships are definitely realistic.
End of quote


True. But the Advent and Vasari ships don't get these scratches/'rust' on them. My guess is that the Advent ships just have some low-powered shields constantly operating to knock this space junk away, and the Vasari ships have super nano-engineered scratch resistant paint.
Reply #125 from Sins Forums Top
The Tec ships must have some sort of Navigation-shield.
Lets take a small asteroid of 5 kilos traveling quite slowly with 50km/s. Such a tiny bit of space debris would contain 12,5 Gigajoules of Energy. Enough to vaporise over 5000tonns of high temperature alloys.
So as long there are no house-sized holes in the TEC ships they must have some sort of protection....