B-1B version 2.0

dinovandoorn · Post by **dinovandoorn** » 13 Aug 2007, 07:43

Hi All,

Thanks for all the good work by the MAIW team !! but also a little critism...
Until now all the models looking real great and natural ONLY the
B-1B package looks not so real as all the other pack's for me.
Is there any change to see an more realistic looking B-1 ?? speacialy the nose section ! or an version 2.0 ?

Greetings,
Dino

nickblack423 · Post by **nickblack423** » 13 Aug 2007, 07:59

Dino,

Thanks for your comments. As the Creator of the B1B model, I am always glad to hear the feedback of users, however I would like to ask how you would think the B1b needs changing. And what about it you think is wrong.
Please bear in mind that these models are designed to be ultra-low poly frame friendly models that are more of a representation of the said aircraft than an ultra realistic copy.

Nick

MIKE JG · Post by **MIKE JG** » 13 Aug 2007, 15:04

It's always a compromise when you create an AI model. Number of polygons vs. how accurate the model looks. Something like the B1B with all of its complex curves and angles is a tough aircraft to model AND keep the polygon count in check. The modeler, Nick in this case, has to make the decision on how much to compromise the looks of the aircraft to keep the polygon count in check.

The idea is to be able to have a base with 30, 40, even 50 of these AI models on the ramp and still have good performance on even a modest computer setup. To do that the number of polygons in the first few LODs absolutely must be kept in check. So sometimes as much as we'd like to make the model look super smooth, as good as a user version, we just don't have that luxury.

dinovandoorn · Post by **dinovandoorn** » 13 Aug 2007, 17:41

Hi,

Offcourse i understand that it can't be as acurate as an normal flying model, but if i look at the other models off nick..they are super !!! so maybe there can be some little modifications

i will enclose the alphasim's and nick's B-1 model to show what i mean...
maybe it is the flatten part at the top of the cockpit area ??

Nick keep up the good work !!

Dino

BadPvtDan · Post by **BadPvtDan** » 13 Aug 2007, 17:43

You cannot compare a flyable model with probably 35,000 polys to one with 10% of that total. Jeebers.

monkie · Post by **monkie** » 13 Aug 2007, 18:30

IMHO Nick's B-1B looks fantastic. Just look at how complex the curves are on that aircraft, I'm sure it was a son of a gun to model it as AI friendly.

JC

MikeyW · Post by **MikeyW** » 14 Aug 2007, 03:52

Nick's is lookin' good to me....

dinovandoorn · Post by **dinovandoorn** » 14 Aug 2007, 07:14

i don't compare a flying model to his AI B-1, and i know that it is a difficult model, but if you look at his F-15 for instance it is more than super !! the model is real accurate. I missed that on the B-1

that is my opinion

GrahamS · Post by **GrahamS** » 14 Aug 2007, 09:32

If we have two models to compare then we should compare like with like. Here we have an attempt to compare the Alpha B1-B with an AI model with less than a tenth of the polygons and then a further attempt to compare two AI aircraft, one of 147 feet length with a very simlar number of polygons to another aircraft of only 64 feet length. Clearly the polygons on the larger aircraft are going to be larger and the curves less smooth as a result.

Nothing wrong with opinion but in this case there is nothing wrong with the aircraft in question and time would be better spent on filling our skies with missing aircraft, not developing an existing aircraft into a near user type.

nickblack423 · Post by **nickblack423** » 14 Aug 2007, 10:04

Don't forget also that the B1b was my first complete project and as such I have learnt alot of new skills between then and the F15 being developed. I understand you may want to see a better B1b, but as is said, it is hard to keep a big aircraft smooth and low poly. If you gave it a go yourself you'd see the problems the modellers come up against every day. In that respect it is maybe as hard as a user aircraft to make. OK they have alot of detail to squeeze in but they are unlimited in their polygons really. We are not, we have to try and keep the same details but with the added maximum polygon limits.

Not an easy task Im afraid. We all try our best, but I guess you can't please everyone.

Nick

CelticWarrior · Post by **CelticWarrior** » 14 Aug 2007, 11:07

nickblack423 wrote:If you gave it a go yourself you'd see the problems the modellers come up against every day ...... but I guess you can't please everyone.

I think this sums it up nicely. Dino, if you'd like to see a better one, why not have a go yourself?

dinovandoorn · Post by **dinovandoorn** » 14 Aug 2007, 13:35

okay you all made your point

i will not complain anymore.
I don't model myself, but i thought i could be done in maybe 30 minutes or so because the model already excist now...
But it is better to spent your time on new models and i am more than happy with you MAIW guys !!!

Thx for your reply,

Dino

MIKE JG · Post by **MIKE JG** » 14 Aug 2007, 21:16

dinovandoorn wrote:but i thought i could be done in maybe 30 minutes

Maybe 30 days..........It really is not easy to create an AI model. I know, I've tried.

BLACKCAT · Post by **BLACKCAT** » 15 Aug 2007, 12:02

I'm going to jump to Dino's defence in that I think the 'experts' have not quite got what (I think) he's driving at. Nick has made great strides in his AI modelling and they are first class, or certainly the latter ones are. All I think Dino is trying to say is the the B1 is just a little 'crude' (as is the Jag IMHO) given that it's one of Nick's early efforts compared to Nick's later models eg the F-15 which is superb. And the question posed is that if, as Nick says, he has learnt a great deal as his modelling skills have improved and expanded, are V2s of the originals possible with a few more 'bells and whistles'?

nickblack423 · Post by **nickblack423** » 15 Aug 2007, 12:10

OK yes I agree that with the skills I have learnt I would be able to do better versions of the older models, however this is not jsut a quick redo of certain parts, it would almost certainly mean a complete overhaul of certain parts, and that would take a while. Its not something Im willing to do, when there are other aircraft that I could spend more time developing, that arent yet available at all. Only when all avenues are exhausted would I consider re-doing my past work. So I wouldnt hold your breath boys.

Nick

CelticWarrior · Post by **CelticWarrior** » 15 Aug 2007, 12:11

BLACKCAT wrote:are V2s of the originals possible with a few more 'bells and whistles'?

Personally I would rather see the modellers spend their valuable time produce new models rather than revamping older issues. As has been stated previously, have a go yourself. This is a hobby and the products are freely given, what the modellers wish to do with their time and skills is entirely up to them. If they feel the need to go back and update from their new experiences, then so be it. As has also been stated, these are AI planes and as such shouldn't be compared to others, although the standards of some is nothing short of superb.

GrahamS · Post by **GrahamS** » 15 Aug 2007, 12:14

I am with you on that Nick, more different aircraft rather than keep on re-doing the old ones. As you say, this isn't a matter of just altering a few bits, it amounts to a complete rebuild, a pity the non modellers cannot grasp that.

reconmercs · Post by **reconmercs** » 15 Aug 2007, 14:53

This thread is pointless guys, Nick has made his decision and MAIW stands by it. closed.