HOME | DD

nico89-fx In reply to monitor49 [2014-05-02 07:40:35 +0000 UTC]

Oh, it totally happened to me even as I was working on this dev. so I believe it's completely normal (or maybe not, since this took so long that it's crazy I finished it). Great vid btw, thanks for commenting!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

nico89-fx In reply to ANDY1701A [2013-02-14 01:11:54 +0000 UTC]

Thanks, you are very kind!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

nico89-fx In reply to AgentTasmania [2012-11-12 14:01:30 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, there's really no official measurements for the Normandy, so that was a rough estimate at the time. It was way oversized, so I re-calculated that on my newest model: [link] to around 216 metres, which would make it a fairly large frigate (which it is, as it can't land) but it won't get mistaken for a cruiser.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

nico89-fx In reply to kaff33nd [2012-03-17 18:30:46 +0000 UTC]

Actually, I'm in the process of finishing an entirely new mesh, with loads more detail than this one. ([link] ). When that one's done I'll release THIS ONE to the public, 4k textures, rigged and all. It's a thought I've had for quite some time now.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kaff33nd In reply to nico89-fx [2012-03-18 05:24:54 +0000 UTC]

That's fantastic Nico! At the risk of sounding like a choosy beggar, do you have the hi-res normal map for the unwrap? Daz Studio's lighting is fantastic and really needs a normal (and spec mask) to get the best results. Obviously. In any case, a fully textured mesh of this quality being made available is just plain AWESOME!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

nico89-fx In reply to kaff33nd [2012-03-18 10:10:32 +0000 UTC]

Thing is, I haven't produced a normal map, as i've used the high res version even for animating (sounds crazier than it was).. And the materials are, of course, all set, even though I wouldn't know how well daz would handle 3d max's materials. But yes, the model's fully textured (4K hull, 2k wings and the rest are 1k textures) and unwrapped.. Hell, I am even thinking about uploading my newer mesh with both the alliance and cerberus paintjobs, but this new mesh still needs work. It's a lot higher resolution, but waaay more optimized.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kaff33nd In reply to nico89-fx [2012-03-18 22:22:43 +0000 UTC]

Don't worry about the normal map. The model obviously has enough detail in the mesh itself to render the details. I mean, normals are only there to fake detail anyway, and you normally (no pun intended) generate a normal map from a high poly model anyway. As I only wanted the normal map for the purpose of raytracing and thus rendering the specularity (on exposed metal and glass) I can easily make a specularity map from the unwrapped UVs.

I personally think the offer of the OLD mesh is more than generous. No need to up yourself to the newer model. At least imo.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

nico89-fx In reply to kain1979 [2011-12-22 00:38:17 +0000 UTC]

I think the in-game model would be better suited for that. This is waaaaay to heavy a mesh for a papercraft!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kain1979 In reply to nico89-fx [2011-12-22 13:59:13 +0000 UTC]

True... but then again there are mental guys from the far east who build scale models of gundams and transformers.

Love your mesh btw, its an awesome render!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Colostomizer In reply to Colostomizer [2011-08-30 17:04:02 +0000 UTC]

Oops, just saw someone else already asked you that... Duh, I feel sty00pid...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

nico89-fx In reply to Colostomizer [2011-08-31 03:04:39 +0000 UTC]

NVM, no biggie man..

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

nico89-fx In reply to Enigz [2011-06-30 14:24:56 +0000 UTC]

Please do, I have no problems with that.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Enigz In reply to nico89-fx [2011-06-30 20:00:07 +0000 UTC]

Thanks

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

nico89-fx In reply to Thomas150 [2011-02-01 00:47:18 +0000 UTC]

Thanks very much, glad you liked it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Thomas150 In reply to nico89-fx [2011-05-16 21:49:34 +0000 UTC]

No problem

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

nico89-fx In reply to Hawak [2010-10-21 02:33:33 +0000 UTC]

I'll try and make one of those.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Hawak In reply to nico89-fx [2010-10-21 15:23:10 +0000 UTC]

would be awsome, thanks

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

nico89-fx In reply to Phht [2010-08-28 14:47:47 +0000 UTC]

Proportonally? Yes, It's made to scale..

Yes, I could do that. But getting here on the SR2 has taken me.. well I can't remember.. but a couple of months. (This is version 4 actually, second I show proudly) So an SR1 would take pretty much as long. It would be cool, I reckon.

The size is something I came up with on which I could be totally wrong. But here's how I "made it up"
On ME2 there's this mission where you go to the normandy's wreckage. There, you get to stand side by side with the escape pod area of the hull, where it says "Normandy". Well, my assumption was simple enough: Shepard is almost as tall as a letter, give or take a few centimetres. I figure shepard would be around 1.85/1.90 metres tall. So if a letter is two meters tall, I scale the normandy until a letter is two meters tall. Grab another measuring tool and it gave me 384 point something meters from the tip of the front "bumpers" to the tip of the nacelles tail. In a straight line.
As I said I may be wrong, but I feel like this is an appropiate size for the massiveness we see in game.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Phht In reply to nico89-fx [2010-08-28 17:07:57 +0000 UTC]

That is awesome. And I had a feeling that was the kind of time frame involved, but it never hurts to check.

I don't think that's the most unusual way to figure out ship size I've seen. And it does make sense. I saw over on social.bioware ([link] ) that someone used the airlock size as determined by Joker's size in it during the cut scenes near the end of ME2, checked to see how many times the airlock would fit along the length of the SR-2 (using an orthographic view of the in-game model), and came up with 216m long.

Regardless of how long it actually is, that is a beautiful looking ship. Good job.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

nico89-fx In reply to Phht [2010-08-28 20:33:03 +0000 UTC]

Really? Wow, that's much smaller.
Yeah, it takes a lot of time, and it may take longer had I modelled many more details which I haven't actually done. I'd love to make my own sr1, as there's no good model out there.
And I don't find the fun in exporting ingame models and pretending they are my making either .. That's just lame. And it wouldn't bring me any satisfaction when someone says "that's nice". They would be complimenting the awesome bioware modellers.

Thanks very much for the compliment, btw.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

nico89-fx In reply to MadcatDrannon [2010-08-25 14:08:05 +0000 UTC]

Oh I know, that gave me major goosebumps, it still does:
[link] I love it!

Thanks by the way.. It's really hard to make a piece of art worth of the Normandy. I'm really happy with this one.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

nico89-fx In reply to woody-294 [2010-08-10 01:48:30 +0000 UTC]

It's 476,328 Polygons. I plan on refining my base mesh a lot in order to get a similar poly count but with loads more detail, especially on the hull, which accounts for more than half that quantity. And some improvements to the wings meshe's (I can't properly show the bottom of the ship because of some screw ups i made there)
It's fully rigged, so re-rigging it will set me back a little when changing the mesh, but still. I think of it as a model worth improving. I really wanna be able to get really up close to it without any issues.
Thanks for commenting and forgive my long and boring answer

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

woody-294 In reply to nico89-fx [2010-08-20 17:20:35 +0000 UTC]

WOW that is enormous! What's the render time on it?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

nico89-fx In reply to woody-294 [2010-08-21 03:44:17 +0000 UTC]

It varies mainly based on resolution and mental ray settings. I have made an HD 360 rendering (360 Full HD frames on 32 Bits Per Channel With Sepparate Render Passes) in 2 or 3 days with some stopping time. (I'm using a CoreI7 920 with 6 gigs of ram now, back then it was a q6600 which I now use mainly to render things while I work)
But for this particular case, I rendered at 32bpc 4k with GI and HDR reflections and lighting (Which makes it look this flat) and very high settings on both anti-aliasing and final gather. It took like 45 minutes if I recall correctly. Which was not that much. I didn't try 4k so far. I may with some photometric lighthing and some new maps I made.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

nico89-fx In reply to overburden [2010-08-06 16:38:13 +0000 UTC]

Thanks, and yes, you are right. My bad. As a matter of fact, most of that data is fictional. I don't know how many times the speed of light can the normandy travel on a mass effect field, nor do I know it's exact size (It's just an estimation, that one)
Thanks for commenting anyway!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

overburden In reply to nico89-fx [2010-08-06 16:51:47 +0000 UTC]

I mean,don't get me wrong.I really like the overall concept,the way it all looks like.And the tech details you added are like a little cherry on the top of a cake.Just sooo great

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

nico89-fx In reply to overburden [2010-08-06 18:08:01 +0000 UTC]

I got you right the first time around, don't worry.. I don't think I'll be doing a version 3, or maybe I will. But If I do, I won't forget the docking place now
Thanks again..

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

nico89-fx In reply to IMAGINeye [2010-08-05 19:17:04 +0000 UTC]

I'm really proud of this model.. Some time ago it didn't even look like this at all..
Thanks for the comment and Fav!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0