I would rather the front end wasn't so pointy. I know the existing Hornet is, but I don't like it there either. It's also a little problematic from a collision standpoint. It can have a long noise, I'd just rather it had a bit softer end and not terminate in a single vertex.

ok I will try playing with it a bit more and see what i can come up with. I did some initial tests with melody from nvidia to get the normal map. All i got to say is with out alot of playing around with the uv map fighting for space on a 512 texture is not enough for a normal map lol, even if it was sized from a 1024. I will have to do some crazy tricks to try and keep any of the detail, at 512 currently it looks nothing more then a simple bump map and loses a lot of the sharper details.
For now at least i will work on the model some more and play with some ideals written here. when we decide on a design i will mess with the uv / normal map again.

We currently use 1024x1024 specular, diffuse and normal maps on a number of the smaller ships, but with texture compression. Illumination maps are lower resolution, as there's little visual difference.

That said, I'm not sure what you mean by "fighting for space". The limited resolution makes fine details less sharp, but it should still work fine. I usually do a couple of passes of subtle unsharpen masking on normal maps, to help the details "pop" at a lower resolution. The material gets renormalized anyway. Also, normal maps without specularity is almost a waste, fine detail isn't nearly as visible without a specular map.

When I said cockpit windows were ugly, I meant the ones in this game. The mirrored cloud texture just looks plain dumb.

I would much prefer a smoother reflective black texture.

Yeah, I agree on the window thing. The Prom has a smooth black texture. Unfortunately, I think to fix it on the other ships I have to re-export them, due to the way our old material system worked before we implemented shaders. I looked at doing it when I reworked the bot/drone textures, but I don't clearly remember the outcome. So many projects, so little time..

Sorry for the lack of updates. I am currently involved in a game maker 2d game contest that ends march 30th - so trying to push out a couple of games for that and being sick this last week i didn't make much progress on the hornet model. I will work on this but it will be a bit slower over the next few weeks.

Reading your other thread you linked, i thought the max res textures were 512 that being said trying to get any kind of real detail to show on a normal map with 512 is not easy, I will post some screens later and i will try your spec map, im not useing the game engine to test these so im sure the results will look different. If you do allow a 1024 x 1024 for the normal map that would make me very happy.

Do you ever plan to implement a relief shader? That would be sick in this game.

fighting for space on a uv map of only 512 512 is what i was talking about. Equalizing the detail level across the model or making the areas with more detail show up better by adjusting the uv spread.

I really dont care what a ship looks like, how it feels is what matters. Nobody flies 3rd person . Why do I live in a T3? Because it spins about the point I want it to spin, it takes damage in a way I understand, it moves as I do. A bit old, rounded and slow , but able to take damage and survive. On target when it matters, and not there when it is really nasty.

Most VO players feel the same about their favourite ships. If folk can make ships look nice without altering the way they feel, than fine, if making them look nice affects their usability , then don't do it ...

Sooo, you wouldn't mind if we made the Centaur the size of a Trident?

You know why the Raptor takes so much damage and is never used? It's about as big as a Centaur should be. You know why the Centaur "takes damage in a way you understand?" Because it's about as flat as a vulture. It is not only the ugliest model in the game, but it is grossly out of proportion.

Yeah, I've always found it amusing how the taur is roughly the same size as a vulture, while evidently having 24 times the interior volume. Math is strange in this game...

Quasispace storage!

But seriously, I think you're not thinking through the consequences of seemingly minor design revisions. If the Centaur were to be made the size of a Trident, the Trident would have to be the size of a Constellation, and the Constellation the size of a large station, and a large station the size of a planet (which does not exist as a physical object in VO).

Let's just suspend our collective disbelief and leave the sizes as they are.

Taur needs a reverse X-1. That is all.

it sure does

A reverse X-1?

Edit: NM, right. They just squished the Valk model for the X-1. Gotcha.

I'm already vomiting uncontrollably at the mental sight of it.

if they reverse x-1 a taur a prom is still skinnier then a valk which is lulz

*Doesn't buff the valk*

I have always thought the ships were a little disproportionate. Put a cent and taur side by side, not that big of a difference. Anyway, check out this neat gizmo Lemming put together, based on the stats listed in game not the actual models. But it gives a good idea of the lack of scale that i feel there should be there.

http://upsidedownturtle.com/voShips/

Any way, my 4 half pennies worth.

EDIT:
I was shown these 2 as well
http://kitchen.nfshost.com/ships/ships1.png
http://kitchen.nfshost.com/ships/ships2.png

Nice screenies.

Well, if you put a Honda Fit and a Ferrari 360 side by side, there isn't much size difference there either. But you can sure put a lot more stuff in the Fit. (The 360 is actually 20 inches longer and 11 inches wider than the Fit). The point simply being that intended use-case has a lot more to do with capacity than absolute length or width.

The screenshots look pretty correct to current reality, but the "voShips" thing appears to be based on the "length" parameter.. which is not accurate at all and has no real bearing on anything. We could certainly correct it to the actual relative size differences, but it wouldn't have any meaning beyond what people derive from reading it.

Our ships have never been quite correct to intended "cu" size, as we've never really defined exactly how big a "cu" is.. believing it more important to tweak their relative merits based on gameplay ramifications, rather than appearance. Aside from the limitations of docking bay size.