|
Post by uptrainfan89 on Sept 4, 2013 5:54:42 GMT -9
Also would be neat to use the hills from the terrain set to put the crashed aircraft sort of into or crashed on, lol.
|
|
|
Post by WaffleM on Sept 11, 2013 17:19:36 GMT -9
I did some tinkering with the rotor blade swoosh on acetate and I like the concept with paper rotors applied. Since then I've darkened the shadow colors to make them more visible (you can just barely see the gradient shadows in the photos below), but below you can see my first attempts: And here is the textured/detailed fighter in gray:
|
|
|
Post by flockofthese on Sept 11, 2013 18:10:09 GMT -9
Hey, those rotors look really nice. Have you tried extending the action lines even further than that? The effect looks so good in those photos that I kind of want to see how it looks if its even more visible.
|
|
|
Post by Parduz on Sept 12, 2013 3:24:09 GMT -9
Nice things!!!
I'm only unsure about the perspective in the texture of the last image (the part with the grid and the "engine"). It feels.... broken. What about just drawing the details from the top?
|
|
|
Post by WaffleM on Sept 12, 2013 4:03:31 GMT -9
Hey, those rotors look really nice. Have you tried extending the action lines even further than that? The effect looks so good in those photos that I kind of want to see how it looks if its even more visible. I totally agree. In the latest version of these, I've darkened the colors, fanned out the rotation more, and added one extra shadow. Hopefully I'll have photos of these soon. Nice things!!! I'm only unsure about the perspective in the texture of the last image (the part with the grid and the "engine"). It feels.... broken. What about just drawing the details from the top? I'm not sure what you mean by broken. Are you referring to the intake and exhaust on the wings? These do have a little forced perspective that I'll take another look at. You can see them in top view from my post on the previous page of this thread (from Sept 3). I'll see if I can tweak these a little to make the perspective a little more natural.
|
|
|
Post by Parduz on Sept 12, 2013 4:24:08 GMT -9
Nice things!!! I'm only unsure about the perspective in the texture of the last image (the part with the grid and the "engine"). It feels.... broken. What about just drawing the details from the top? I'm not sure what you mean by broken. Are you referring to the intake and exhaust on the wings? These do have a little forced perspective that I'll take another look at. You can see them in top view from my post on the previous page of this thread (from Sept 3). I'll see if I can tweak these a little to make the perspective a little more natural. Yes, that parts. What I mean is that IT COULD BE better (i'm unsure) to draw on the wings without any perspective, as if it was a Top view. The wings are sloped, and i think that slopes "ruins" any perspesctive you'll draw. And, if i'm not wrong, there's no perspective in any MechAttack vehicle.... That's all: just an impression
|
|
|
Post by Vermin King on Sept 12, 2013 5:52:13 GMT -9
I agree with Parduz. The far wing looks fine. The near one looks wonky in your photo. A straight-down view of the wing will be fine since the wings don't have that much dihedral. Shadow on the lower portion would work, but probably not be needed.
I really like the rotors. Darkening up the action lines will help. When I print on transparency, I usually have to darken things up
|
|
|
Post by WaffleM on Sept 12, 2013 6:50:11 GMT -9
Could you please clarify "dihedral"? I think that term refers to wing angle, but I'm not sure. I'm also not sure what you mean by the near wing being different from the far one. Both are the same. Maybe it would help clarify if I pointed out that the wings are forward swept as opposed to "normal" fighters and I've bent the wings down slightly to add a small amount of curve and to keep them from being flat? I've also scored and bent down the wing tips which may add to the variation in the far and near wings. Maybe the macro setting on my camera added a bit of fish-eye to photo? Does that make sense? Thanks for the critiques and sorry, I don't mean to sound defensive. I just want to better understand what you're seeing and use those suggestions to make a better miniature. For me friendly criticism is always welcome and really goes a long way to help improve my skills.
|
|
|
Post by Parduz on Sept 12, 2013 10:00:19 GMT -9
I'm also not sure what you mean by the near wing being different from the far one. Both are the same. I think i can try to explain. What Vermin King means is the same that i tried to explain. The perspective may result good or bad depending on the angle you look at it. In the image the far wing looks good 'cause the wing is in the "right" angle (for the observer) for the perspective of the details. The front one instead results the opposite: the perspective works "against" the viewer angle. If you change the camera angle you may have different results. What we say is that, with a "flat", "top-down" texture, it will always look good wherever the observer (or the camera) is. Sorry Vermin to jump on your post, but i think we both see the same thing
|
|
|
Post by uptrainfan89 on Sept 12, 2013 12:29:54 GMT -9
Loving the look of the rotors, they look great, especially the wing tip rotor aircraft! Also the copter aircraft looks really neat too, I like the tail design!
|
|
|
Post by Vermin King on Sept 12, 2013 13:30:40 GMT -9
Parduz hit the nail on the head. Thanks for jumping in because it took me a while to get back. The forced perspective instead of flat actually increases the number of angles where it doesn't look quite right.
And honestly, it only stands out because everything else looks so good
|
|
|
Post by WaffleM on Sept 27, 2013 7:23:11 GMT -9
I've finished the three different styles and will have test builds done this weekend (barring another alpaca escape! Bad Alpacas! Boo!). So I've moved on to updating the weapons for aircraft. I'm basically reducing the height of each and making them appear more suited to being mounted under the wing of an aircraft. These weapons will have the same slot size as the Mech and Vehicle weapons, so they can be used interchangeably. Here is a preview of the machine guns: Based on my design of the Heavy Machine Gun, I'm a little stumped on the best look for the Twin-Linked version...
|
|
|
Post by flockofthese on Sept 29, 2013 8:33:51 GMT -9
Maybe the back of the twin linked version could be slanted the opposite way, so its shorter on top then on the bottom. That way the guns would each be the same length, but it would still have the staggered look. Of course, I'm no expert. If you try it, and it looks worse, I'm going to deny I ever made the suggestion.
|
|
|
Post by WaffleM on Sept 30, 2013 18:50:17 GMT -9
I've "finished" the basic textures of the three aircraft styles. I say "finished" because there are a few minor tweaks to be made (notching the fighter and helicopter cockpits to allow a better fit with the wings, moving a turret mount marker, etc.), but I'm really pleased with they way they're turning out. Next I'm on to finishing the weapons and equipment and then the different colors. Please excuse the quality of the photos. My desk is a pile of clutter and my lights are nowhere to be found. The first photo shows the tilt rotor aircraft and the helicopter designs. And the second shows the fighter with the wings forward and reversed.
|
|
|
Post by Vermin King on Oct 1, 2013 4:59:26 GMT -9
I really like the two in the first shot. These are 15mm, correct?
|
|
|
Post by WaffleM on Oct 1, 2013 7:00:54 GMT -9
Yes, they are 15mm. They are designed to be used as smaller VTOL aircraft in 15mm (maybe crewed by one to three crew), but they could also be used as larger aircraft in 10mm and maybe even 6mm (although the windows will look really large at 6mm).
|
|
|
Post by mahotsukai on Oct 1, 2013 7:44:12 GMT -9
Really like the look of these for my SGII NAC.
How feasible would an up scale for Drop Troops be? Not particularly asking for you to do it, more could it be done?
|
|
|
Post by flockofthese on Oct 1, 2013 9:03:10 GMT -9
Awesome
|
|
|
Post by WaffleM on Oct 1, 2013 16:00:00 GMT -9
Really like the look of these for my SGII NAC. How feasible would an up scale for Drop Troops be? Not particularly asking for you to do it, more could it be done? The final product will be 300dpi so up scaling shouldn't be too difficult. What scale were you looking for?
|
|
|
Post by mahotsukai on Oct 2, 2013 5:31:00 GMT -9
I was looking at 30mm, I was meaning Terra Force not Drop Troops (where did I get the name Drop Troops from ).
|
|
|
Post by WaffleM on Oct 10, 2013 18:05:08 GMT -9
I've been working on the weapons and here's a continued preview:
|
|
|
Post by Dagger on Oct 10, 2013 21:05:05 GMT -9
I've been working on the weapons and here's a continued preview: I'm liking the "stubby" look of the cannons... they'll look great on Mechs too..
|
|
|
Post by WaffleM on Oct 12, 2013 9:02:42 GMT -9
They're not "stubby"- they're "big bombed"! (Sorry, that was pretty terrible...) I've switched to single missiles (to look better mounted under aircraft wings) and modified the different support equipment. I also added chaff canisters to the Anti-Missile Defense System (the one on the lower left). What do you think? The next step is the different colors for each of the models...
|
|
|
Post by Vermin King on Oct 13, 2013 16:53:29 GMT -9
Looking good. If you want to recolor to match, that's great, but I am not sure it is necessary. Weapon systems aren't always color coordinated to the aircraft.
|
|
|
Post by WaffleM on Dec 8, 2013 18:39:24 GMT -9
Done! You can check it out HERE!
|
|
|
Post by Parduz on Dec 9, 2013 2:12:22 GMT -9
They are great!!! Now, let me pose a question: do you think that, after the experience made by building these aircraft, you could apply the same thecnique and (re)make the mechs main bodies in 2.5/3D ??
|
|
|
Post by WaffleM on Dec 9, 2013 8:18:41 GMT -9
They are great!!! Now, let me pose a question: do you think that, after the experience made by building these aircraft, you could apply the same thecnique and (re)make the mechs main bodies in 2.5/3D ?? Thanks! I'm glad you like them! As far as making the mech torsos more 2.5D/3D goes, this would be a bit too fiddly at 15mm scale. I don't want to make minis that require a brain surgeon's or watchmaker's steady hand to construct. They could look awesome, but if no one can build them, we'd just end up with grumpy customers. If I decide to make 28/30mm mechs, then this is definitely something that I would consider. At that scale I could even start to incorporate 2.5D/3D elements in the arms, legs, weapons, etc...
|
|
|
Post by Rhannon on Dec 9, 2013 8:32:45 GMT -9
Great work, Matt! Bought, rated and happy. Thank you very much to both of you. Now I'm waiting for figures and vehicles in 28/30mm scale.
|
|
|
Post by Dagger on Dec 9, 2013 11:22:31 GMT -9
For your playtesting pleasure... Draft Aircraft rules for 2.0
Aircraft units are capable of delivering firepower and Troops anywhere on the battlefield with their high maneuverability.
Each Aircraft unit has three basic stats for game play: Move (Mv), Target Profile (Tp), and Strength Value (Sv). Mv indicates the speed at which the unit can move. Tp is representative of how easily the unit can be targeted, factoring in size and speed. Aircraft do not have an Armor Grid; instead they have a Strength Value (Sv). Each weapon hit generates a roll on the General Damage Table to determine the amount of damage done to the unit. If the Aircraft unit is hit with a Medium weapon add +1 to the damage roll, if hit with a Heavy weapon add +2 to the roll. Once the unit’s Strength Value has been reduced to 0, remove it from the game.
Aircraft have two flight modes, Low-Level(LL) and High-Level(HL). At LL, the aircraft model is placed on the battlefield as normal; at HL, the aircraft is not represented on the battlefield and should be placed to the side. Aircraft must begin the game at LL.
Low-Level Flight: At LL aircraft are considered to have a Height Level of 3. They may maneuver, attack and be targeted as normal. Aircraft may execute a JUMP order and climb to High-Level flight. When climbing to HL temporarily remove the aircraft from the battlefield.
High-Level Flight: At HL aircraft are considered to be operating at an altitude far above the battlefield. They activate as normal but may only be issued a JUMP or FIRE order. They may not target units on the battlefield, but may target other Aircraft at HL. Aircraft may execute a JUMP order to descend to Low-Level flight. When descending to LL place the aircraft model at any location it may legally occupy on the battlefield.
Landing: All aircraft with VTOL (Vertical Take-Off and Landing), may land and/or takeoff at the beginning of a MOVE order. They may move after takeoff as normal, but must remain in place if landing. Aircraft on the ground have a Height Level of 1. Landed Aircraft with cargo areas may mount or dismount Troops as part of their Move order. Troops must be base to base with the Aircraft when mounting or dismounting. Landing is not required to dismount Troops with Jump Packs. Troops may be activated the same turn they dismount if they have not yet been activated this round. Aircraft may begin the game with Troops inside. When an Aircraft is destroyed on the ground, Troops dismount immediately and roll once on the General Damage Table (See Page 10). When an Aircraft is destroyed at LL or HL, Troops are destroyed.
Ground-to-Air Combat: Aircraft at HL may only be targeted with Missile weapons. Ground units and Aircraft at LL may activate and attack Aircraft at HL when issued a FIRE order. Ground-to-Air combat is considered to be at Extended range, so the attacker receives a -1 modifier. Both players roll a D10, if the attacking player rolls equal to or higher than the defending player the attack is successful. Roll once for each Missile used in the attack. AMDS (see Support Equipment) activates as normal.
Air-to-Air Combat: Aircraft at HL may only be targeted with Missile weapons. Aircraft at HL may activate and attack other Aircraft at HL when issued a FIRE order. Air-to-Air combat is considered to be at Normal range, so the attacker receives no range modifier. Both players roll a D10, if the attacking player rolls equal to or higher than the defending player the attack is successful. Roll once for each Missile used in the attack. AMDS (see Support Equipment) activates as normal.
The following examples are provided for basic games.
Viper A-222 Attack Jet Cost - 8 Bp Mv – 6 Tp – 6 Sv – 10 Options: Wing Mounts - Medium Laser x2 Light Missile x2
Viking AA-101 Utility VTOL Cost – 10 Bp Mv – 5 Tp – 5 Sv – 10 Options: VTOL Wing Mounts – Light Machine Gun x2 AMDS x2 Nose Mount - RGMS Cargo Bay x2 – Holds 2 Troop Units (not included)
Yuma AH-2A Assault Helicopter Cost - 12 Bp Mv – 5 Tp – 5 Sv – 15 Options: VTOL Wing Mounts – Light Laser (Twin Linked) x2 Light Missile x2 Nose Turret – Medium Machine Gun (Front, Left, and Right Arcs)
General DAMAGE TABLE *** Weapon Modifiers to Damage Roll: *** *** Light +0 Medium +1 Heavy +2 *** Roll Effect 1 -2 Sv 2 -2 Sv 3 -3 Sv 4 -3 Sv 5 -4 Sv 6 -4 Sv 7 -5 Sv 8 -5 Sv 9 -6 Sv 10+ -6 Sv
|
|
|
Post by uptrainfan89 on Dec 10, 2013 3:15:13 GMT -9
Looking awesome! Definitely going to have to build a few, lol! Also definitely testing the new rules, lol!
|
|