Grand Space Opera 3D Entry: Michael Crawford

#121

Gunilla, I’ll be using geometry for the contents of the generator dome – I just went with a texture on one of the tests to get an overall sense of whether a slightly opaque look wouldn’t improve the dome. (With a dense lattice, a lot of internal detail starts to become just a bunch of visual noise, so I really would prefer to “hint” at a lot going on inside without have one detail piled on another.) Anyway, a slightly opaque dome, solid geometry, and a couple of low-illumination point lights within the dome should give the right effect. Hope to have a “final” draft of the dome posted by tonight.

#122

Hello there Michael! Really curious on how you imagine the dome’s internal. :slight_smile:
Trying to follow all those hints you keep mentioning in every post but it’s kind of hard for me to manage all this info.

[size=2]
Keep us updated :wavey:
[/size]

#123

Thanks a lot, Michael. Coming from you, it’s a great boost and encouragement! :slight_smile:

I keep on memorizing everything you post in this thread, the workouts and the explanations. Still waiting for my Foundation to arrive (hope it will be in tomorrow). Apart for the useful bits you’re putting in this thread, I like a whole lot the way it’s coming out. The details and the attention you’re putting in it will make it a great entry.

I didn’t know about the 2,000,000 triangle limit in MR, can you tell me more about it? (if you have time, of course).

Stefano

#124

Man I’ll keep an eye on this thread.
Great models and full rating

#125

Hi Michael, you’ve got a wonderful entry here:thumbsup: U use XSI? It’s becoming more popular, isn’t it? I see u make awesome things with it…
…especially the details are amazing…and i love your presentation to show the stuff:applause:

Keep on doing this way…Bravo!

#126

hi Michael…
updates !!! folk is waiting for updates !!! :slight_smile:
and btw why did you remove the link to your thread from signature???
cheers mate…

#127

Hi, Paul,

Updates are coming. :slight_smile: Got slowed down on things because of some slow test renders, a couple of texture problems that had to be ironed out, a bit of experimentation with the generator itself, and a separate layout project that I was doing for a friend. Also, I spent most of yesterday downloading planet textures from the best site in the solar system for that sort of thing:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/pictures

Really, really great stuff for building convincing planets with, since the textures are often of extremely high resolution.

Anyway, like I said, I’ll get some updates posted soon – probably either late tonight or midday tomorrow.

Oh, and concerning the link to my thread: I’m afraid I never had one attached to my signature in the first place. :slight_smile: I’m sure there are instructions for how to do this somewhere on the site, since so many people have managed to do this, but I haven’t gone searching for it and will probably wait until I get more updates posted before searching for this. Anyway, thanks for your concern – I assure you this isn’t an indication that I’m bowing out. Far from it. :slight_smile:

#128

Sascha: Thanks! Yes, this is all done in XSI, though I make liberal use of some modeling tools that are “addons” for the package. It’s becoming more popular thanks largely to the price reductions over the past few years. Back in 1999, Softimage 3D/Extreme was retailing for around $18,000 US, and XSI 1.0 was introduced in the summer of 2000 with a price tag of about $12,000. Suffice to say, when XSI Foundation came on the market at $495 US – roughly what Softimage was selling standalone mental ray licenses up till then – the number of XSI users has skyrocketed.

Michal: Thanks! Your thread is looking pretty sharp, too!

Stefano: Now that your package has arrived, I’m sure you’re going to have a great time unlocking the potential of the program. Like I’ve said before, the manuals just scratch the surface of what can be done. And if you ever feel like you’ve exhausted the capabilities of the program … well, there’s always Houdini if you want to really blow your mind. :slight_smile:

Mike: How do I imagine the interior of the dome? Mmmm … I think the safest answer is: differently than I did when you wrote that question! :slight_smile: Seriously, Mike, I’ve tried out a number of different generators and lighting schemes and still haven’t found any approach I really like. The big problem is the “visual noise” factor – what happens when you view something through the latticework. So I may have to opt for an opaque dome and some internal lights to imply there’s something interesting inside, because every “solid” attempt thus far has just looked way too busy.

Anyway … I’m working on it! :slight_smile:

#129

• Hello Michael, I had many troubles trying to find your thread, Until I realized you are Michael Crawford, (i remember naming you Rav4) lol, sorry about that, you can add your thread’s addresse in your signature the same way you did with that awsome site from NASA, so it would be easier to see your work and share comments!

• I used softimage 3.2 a lot of time ago, and it was cool, haven’t tryed XSI but it seems is always an excellent choice

• Well Michael, i appreciate your visits to my thread, I’ve got very usefull comments from you, and promise u to keep a closer eye on yours, i really like your idea of the travel portal and your models and texturing are also superb!

Waiting to see your updates pal! and keep going

#130

hehe… i’m also far from such thoughts…
simply when you were posting your updates often there was no probs to find your thread :slight_smile: but now when i tried to check whats new here and didn’t find link in your signature i was forced to open my subscriptions and search your nick through a lot of others… no probs for me but i’m sure many ppl won’t do that…

#131

Finally some activity in this thread!
Just want to agree with greenteks request - the people want some updates here!
:slight_smile: … just kidding, don’t rush it - I’m sure it will be worth waiting for, good luck!

#132

LOL, no way I’m going to blow my mind more than it already is… :slight_smile:

Jokes aside, I’m really, really impressed by the sheer quantity of learning materials. I’m halfway thru the Fundamentals, and I’ve already discovered at least 1,000 better ways to approach the Grand Space project. I guess I’ll stay behind for another week or so, watching DVDs and reading Docs and trying Tuts, then maybe I’ll have some clearer idea.

Following your thread from the beginning, I was really impressed by the vastness of the RenderTree, and (as you already know), your explanations were (and are) really useful to say the least. I already started to explore the possible connections, I’m only trying to not get overwhelmed by the range of possibilities…

Then, I join the chorus for updates… :beer:

Stefano

#133

hey man, u got some amazing ideas goin on… keep it up… i’ll b droppin by later for updates

#134

Man you work in the contest is really amazing sorry about not be here in your progress , but im back and i see your last updates . the material aproach is excelent and is great that you are putting a lot of information about the subject .

You are doing a great job Nuclear.:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

#135

Hi, folks! Sorry for the delay in getting new work posted. Unfortunately, this feels more like a step backward than forward progress: having never done a Fuller Dome before, I was unprepared for the complex interplay of the latticework, diffraction, reflection, and other things which complicate the issue of what does – and doesn’t – work when placed inside the dome. Early drafts of the generator didn’t look particularly interesting, so I finally opted to try a magnetically-contained plasma fireball as the centerpiece and “sketch” in the surrounding details with simple geometry and complex textures, as I’ve done with other parts of the scene. Sigh. Doesn’t work in this particular case, so it’s back to the drawing board.

#136

Hi Michael, Just a thought and please excuse me if you’ve already thought of it. Or if it’s a dumb idea as from the skilled level of your modeling I’m just still crawling!!! I was wondering if you reduced the small geometry of your dome lattice as in the smaller trianglular sections within th emain lattice work. Maybe that would help in reducing the visual noise. As I said just a thought and to be honest I’m overwhelmed by your skill and level of detail that your putting into your models.
Keep up the fantastic work and I look forward to future updates.

Alex!!

#137

Alex, thanks a bundle for the input! I sometimes bang my head against the wall of a problem when what I should really do is go back a step and test out modifications at an earlier point. Although I wanted to go with the additional layer of latticework for engineering reasons (if we assume the dome to be several hundred feet across, you’re not likely to get such wide spacings as the outer portion), it’s certainly not helping the look – and, ultimately, visual elegance has to win out in the end. I’ve already had to abandoned any attempt to use physically-accurate glass shaders because I was getting almost prismatic diffraction, so it’s probably no big thing to fudge the lattice spacing.

Anyway, many thanks for the suggestion; I’ll import an earlier version of the dome into the scene and see if that doesn’t prove to be the solution. :slight_smile:

#138

Michael - Perhaps you already tried this, but how would it look if you had only parts of the dome as see through? You could use the latice for some defined areas where the details would come through and the other parts could be either blurred or covered with another geometry.
I understand your concearns - right now it seems to have to much details to make the individual parts visible.
I really like the edge of the dome- the circuitboard geometry turning up here and there will be a great way to keep the final image together. Keep up that amazing work you do!
:thumbsup:

#139

I see what you mean, but nonetheless the sheer quantity of details one can imagine when viewing the picture is fantastic. I can’t be of no technical help here, but, as a simple onlooker, I’d say that the fireball solution is quite good and dramatic enough. Much depends on where the Dome will be in the final composition. If it will be a center piece, I agree that you have to find another way to depict the complexity, but if it’s middle-ground you already have something worth in your hands.

Stefano

#140

hi Michael…
somehow i missed your last post with generator dome :shrug:
well i think it’s pity to do not show all this beautiful small parts of dome on the foreground…
if you somehow can find a way to place it so it’s partially visible on very close up and rest part goes further and deeper in the scene would be great… though i have no idea how to make it and can’t suggest anything…