F-18 Hornet WIP
-
“eyebrows” are done haha, -
@okayasugf - real nice!
-
Hi everyone, im back with some questions from @Radium and @Stevie which have been a great help from the start. My question is which one is better in your opinions.
Normal mesh with normal maps of panels baked into the 3d model or
procedurally generated panels through some scripting which will be a physical model on top of main model. -
@okayasugf Definitely not 3D panels, because soon, we will have bump mapping
-
-
@okayasugf Hello,
Usually, it’s good to stay around 100k maximum.
For example, my Mitsubishi F-1 tricount is 100,639.
Can you share some screenshots of your wireframe ?
Radium
-
@Radium
ah, now im realizing i have too many faces where i dont need them, the engines are very dense -
-
Hello,
Look mine :
I think 108k is good as a release version, but as I see, your gears are still WIP, and will need a huge amount of poly to be completed !
Which method are you using to reduce triangles?
Radium
-
@Radium i remove extra edges present in topology, which i had a lot of haha
-
@okayasugf said in F-18 Hornet WIP:
@Radium
optimized my mesh, still looks good haha, got it to 108k, is that good enough?
also wanted to ask @Stevie or anyone else for the matter
are there any good close pics of these “nail” sensors, the ones near the doors of the landing gear
-
@Fresco thank you fresco for the high quality references, you’re a lifesaver
-
-
@okayasugf Hi !
Please check this :
I made this from photo (this is how I work), as blueprints are always wrong.
I suggest you to give it a check, I think that I found a couple of little modeling mistakes !
What do you think ?
Radium
-
@Radium i follow real life pictures too radium, but the problem with them is usually they use different fov of lenses for their cameras, and because of that the image becomes useless, i still use images for small details but unless i can also find the size of lens used for image aswell then, i will use that image as my main reference
-
@okayasugf - I was about to say that your cut at the small radome under the chin was a bit on the large side, but it looks like you’ve since fixed it and it’s much better! Note that it’s also not round, but a bit teardrop shaped, fore to aft - I can’t tell if you’ve caught that or not.
My put would be to go ahead and build your mesh as fine as possible, and to you satisfaction - then optimize it for panel count to produce a final product once you are satisfied with shape and level of detail - then archive your finer mesh work. That way you’ll be able to more readily do other sim-specific optimizations based on your original work, down the road.
-
@Stevie it is still using a mesh modifier called a subdivision modifier which essentially increase mesh details with more polygons, so i model at a high subdivision(level 3)(around 500k triangles) and then once im satisfied with the detail, i check subdivision(level 1)(100K triangles) and check if im not ruining my mesh details.
-
@okayasugf - sounds like you’ve got it handled…just don’t lose all your hard work!
I agree about pictures of real jets - it’s really hard to find pictures that are taken as a truly orthogonal angles to get accurate detail from. Your best bet is to get hold of 3-view and illustrations from plastic model kit directions and use those drawings.
Revell of Germany released F/A-18E and F kits in 1/32 last year (that I have both of) that have some pretty nice drawings in them. In a lot of cases, the model companies may get their drawing(s) directly from the manufacturer to produce their kit from - look for ones that carry “under license of x” labelling, and that will be more likely to be the case. The instruction sheets for the Revell of Germany kits are available online, for free.
Just about all Super Hornet plastic kits in production these days have something wrong with them, shape or detail wise…from undersized landing gear, to problems with the shape of the spine and/or aft fuselage, to the jet just being too small when compared to a C/D. The RoG kits are actually about the best in 1/32, from a shape/size standpoint…even if there are a lot of people out there complaining about fit - which IMO is because they are trying to follow the instructions instead of fitting them together in a way that actually works!
-
@Stevie The spines of every F/A-18E/F kit ain’t right. There’s something going on with it.
-
@Stevie said in F-18 Hornet WIP:
@okayasugf - sounds like you’ve got it handled…just don’t lose all your hard work!
I agree about pictures of real jets - it’s really hard to find pictures that are taken as a truly orthogonal angles to get accurate detail from. Your best bet is to get hold of 3-view and illustrations from plastic model kit directions and use those drawings.
Revell of Germany released F/A-18E and F kits in 1/32 last year (that I have both of) that have some pretty nice drawings in them. In a lot of cases, the model companies may get their drawing(s) directly from the manufacturer to produce their kit from - look for ones that carry “under license of x” labelling, and that will be more likely to be the case. The instruction sheets for the Revell of Germany kits are available online, for free.
Just about all Super Hornet plastic kits in production these days have something wrong with them, shape or detail wise…from undersized landing gear, to problems with the shape of the spine and/or aft fuselage, to the jet just being too small when compared to a C/D. The RoG kits are actually about the best in 1/32, from a shape/size standpoint…even if there are a lot of people out there complaining about fit - which IMO is because they are trying to follow the instructions instead of fitting them together in a way that actually works!
Hi,
this is really the worst thing to do to make a 3D model, for the following reasons :
-
No final manufacturer give their plans or drawings to model companies, mostly due to industrial IP., even when there is a license. They make their own, with their 2D/3D artists. This is why some models have a lot of mistakes.
-
All 3 views drawing (especially the ones that are used at the decals chapter are wrong, because companies don’t want their competitors to get their source angles. Hasegawa is for example very good at this 3 views alterations.
-
A nice model is always made from photos, time, and adjustements. It’s totally wrong to believe that you can get 95% of the model may be done in one dash. It simply does not work like that.
-
@okayasugf is just following the good path : he makes a basic model, and bring it to evolve, by adjusting, to reach the final design, that will still change even during unwrapping, because it’s like that. Transforming 2D into 3D is a complex task, and is not only about following guides : it’s also about understanding, and feeling the final aircraft.
By the way, @Stevie , you look to have knowledge about 3D, and advises as well. What about helping the community by creating models, like us ? It’s good to learn from each other, and new ways of working is always interesting !
Radium
-