MechWarrior 2: Resource Forum

I could reduce the polygon count, but I see no reason to. The Kraken has around 1000 polygons, which should be OK for graphics cards these days.

Comparing the result to the original artwork, changes were to the legs mostly, and it was agreed in previous posts that the stance needed to be changed. While I seem to exaggerate joints on my mechs, that just underlines their artificial nature.

The Kraken is different from the Daishi, in that the Daishi has edgy shapes rather than round ones, as the Kraken has. And on newer incarnations of the Daishi, I would prefer the Daishi to be created with more than six "slices" for the cockpit. I'm sure you'll agree that the round shapes demand a higher polygon count to look good. Let's not forget that military shapes tend to be simple for a reason.

Col.Kell wrote:The barrels look real nice. Are the ones on the arms the ones where 10 uAC2s pour out ammo?

This config has 5 UAC's in each arm and 4 MG's. I could add other configs later. This has the advantage that it does the same damage, at longer ranges.

But not that simple. Notice on the image from Technical Readout 2055 and you'll notice some not-quite-regular curves, odd angles, and asymmetries that make the limbs and body of the original Kraken look like actual mech parts and not simple shapes:



You could easily cut the polycount down to 500, spend the other 500 polies on making the shape of the mech more complex and more detailed, and have a better-looking design. You are not using the 1000 polies you have anywhere near optimal efficiency. Compare your model with the GTF Apollo from the game Descent FreeSpace, which gives a convincing appearance of rounded surfaces plus a more complex overall shape with only 263 polygons:



Or the even rounder GVF Reshef with 678 (although this model suffers from very inefficient and sloppy texturing):


You really need to further mold the primitives you built this model out of, especially in the limbs, to make it look more natural. The knee joints in particular look very strange. With 1000 polygons you could probably reach the same level of detail seen in MechWarrior 4.

Don't forget a good, detailed texture either. A model's apparent detail can be increased fivefold with a good texture applied.

I wonder what modeling program you're using; many of the free/cheap ones are very limited in what they can do. Blender is a very good free software modeling program that can easily create professional-quality models.

Also one thing to keep in mind is that military mechs would tend to have very thick, heavily armored legs--that knee joint on the Kraken looks extremely fragile--with beveled corners to deflect glancing gunfire.

I have a long list of mechs that I want to make, so I can't invest a lot more time in this one. Having a variety of mechs, even if I can't make them look super-good, is more important to me right now than investing too much time on a single mech. I am satisfied with the results so far, but apparently I cannot please everyone.

I use Cinema4D for the main modelling work. I tested Blender, but found the interface too weird. I don't have the advanced modules for Cinema4D, so I can't do things like ambient occlusion or texture baking. For texture baking, I might be able to revive code I wrote earlier, and with some extra effort, it could even be used for baking higher LOD into lower LOD textures, but there are more important things to do on my list.

While the models you posted are nicely textured, I still see no reason to model the round shapes with a lower level of detail. My impression is that many games these days use far higher polygon counts.

Again you're missing the point. The point is not that you're using too many polies, it's that you're not actually using those 1000 polies to even one tenth of their actual potential. You're investing more polies into the least important parts of the mech (like gun barrels) while leaving important areas like the joints looking like they came off an Erector set--it's like trying to accurately render the fingernails on the Mona Lisa but neglecting her face. Regardless of how "weird" the interface might be, you should try to master Blender or 3DS Max, because the models you will be able to create with those programs are infinitely better than anything a second-rate program not designed for real-time rendering and model optimization can come up with.

Neg, Woolie Wool I think you are missing the point not sky.
He knows that the models are not perfect and are using too many polys in many cases, but that is not the problem right now.
He is just trying to get some mechs for the sim for testing. The shape and the rest of things can be sorted out in the future they are not a priority for a game in the alpha stage.
Considering he is not a modeler I think he is doing just fine. it is much better than I could do.

You are more than welcome to volunteer to make the designs too ya know Wool.

(Please drop the matter)

Ok, uh, I looked up pictures of Miniatures of the Bane and I found a few...


...THE LEGS LOOK WEIRD:



Your Bane's legs don't exactly look right (CONSTIPATION!!!) but... then again, I really wouldn't know how else the bane's legs would be fixed unless the new version's legs were used, or if they were done like this.
It baffles me how something can stand with legs like that.

I found another picture of the Bane in the Jade Falcon catalog, showing a different, more balanced stance (FASA 1644, p.101). The stance looks a lot more like the one I used.

nice find!

Sir MMPD Radick wrote:nice find!

I second MMPD.

And the legs of the Kraken in that image look a little more natrual too.