|
Battlestar Galactica Colonial Viper MKI
Updated Note: My initial reference material was incorrect as to the model of this viper. This is actaully closer to the design of the MK I not the MK II. The title of this thread should read:
Battlestar Gallactica Colonial VIPER Mk I ====================================== Was having modeling withdrawals and dug up some orthogonal images of a Battlestar Galactica MkII Viper. Here is some renders of where I am so far... http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...per_mk2_03.jpghttp://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...per_mk2_02.jpghttp://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...per_mk2_01.jpg http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...per_mk2_07.jpghttp://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...per_mk2_06.jpghttp://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...per_mk2_05.jpg http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...per_mk2_04.jpg Some notes: 1. Still have to complete the center engine sections and the front intakes, and lots of greebling. 2. The gun is currently just a proxy. The refence images I have don't really have much details on the gun so I plan to look for some on the web. 3. Still have to detail the back section and the bottom |
Update: Initial engine details done. I'll go back and add more after I get the rest done.
Left to do: 1. front intakes 2. detailed guns 3. details on the back nozzle area 4. bottom details 5. greeble, greeble, greeble... Three engine center sections in place... http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...per_mk2_08.jpg |
looking good, you work so fast..............dave
|
Modo or maya ? Gj so far :)
|
This is Maya. I am still on the fence with modo. I have found that one of the secrets to high poly modeling is NOT to attempt to smooth everything or insist on no n-gons.
One of my banes has always been trying to cut holes in things for panels and wells. I have found it is easier to just boolean and bevel. For rounded areas just use cylinders and spheres with lots of faces. Enough so that from whatever distance you plan your shots will be from the surface edges look smooth. For the insets on the side of the fuselage I could have used more sides on the cylinder I used as the cutter. I may go back later and re-drill that opening. Just boolean and throw a nice tight single segment edge bevel is fine for 90% of the shots. For tighter shots I would just add more segments to the bevel. another advantage to not always trying to smooth is you can literally cut things into parts that will always fit together-minimal worries about edge shrink and have to carry unnecessary edges into areas all over your model. I am using this model as a simple proof of concept for me and to flesh out the proper techniques and decide where to smooth and not to smooth. The front fuse, rear engine casing, engine center section are all unsmoothed. The wing is smoothed, but if I decide to cut into it beyond where I have I will probably unsmooth it and edge bevel. The panel detail would be a bloody nightmare to have put in and attempt to smooth. Once I figure out how to cut sections, then inset and extrude, and DELETE the laminar inner faces that get created I will have a very solid method and you can expect to see some models with very detailed openings and cutouts in the future from me. http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...per_mk2_09.jpghttp://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...10-38-17AM.pnghttp://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...10-40-15AM.png There is some anti-aliasing artifacts near the edges of one of the upper panels but that is only because I am using the default settings to keep render time down. Trying to build those panels and smooth this model would be very hard. I am happy with the render and if I needed to get in very close I would just add edge bevels the the panels. |
I've played with modo for 2 days and i find out that navigation is awesome dumb :D i hate it ... the tools are cool ... but i think with maya i can make the same things ... in the same time ! :beer:
|
Thanks Dave,
This is a pretty simple model to build. Mostly just primitives and extrusions. The greebling was the only thing that took some time as I just made them up on the fly. I need to start collecting and organizing these parts into some kind of asset library. I see some kind of asset container doo-hicky-goo-gaw was added to Maya but even after RTFM'ing I have no idea what the workflow is to use it or if it is even for what "I" define as an "asset manager". Which is a database of objects that can be searched VISUALLY and imported into models. I have a PhD in Medical Physics, and Masters Degree in Aeronautical Engineering, and Bachelors degree in Computer Science, believe me when I say I know how to read and glean information from documents, but these maya docs read like they just sat a monkey in front of a keyboard and let it bang on keys! (LOL) |
Coldwave - Navigation is the number one thing I hear from Maya people I have corresponded with about switching from Maya to Modo. There is an option to turn on Maya type navigation that helps a little in the preferences there are presets for several popular packages. That is one of the things I hate about the thought of switching. Even in Maya I sometimes get finger twisted and I know the navigation and GUI blind folded. When I have tried any other packages - ALL GREAT - in their own ways like 3DS, XSI, Modo I feel like rain man
My observation, which sometimes leads to "other package envy" is that every once and a while I will see some uber tools that I have wished were in Maya and go wanting to switch. Then I fiddle around and find although maya has a smaller subset of tools, I can always achieve the same results once I think about it for a bit. Maya's tool set seems smaller then a lot of newer packages, but the tools it has work really well. One last thing about lots of tools. If you get to many very specialized tools in an application (Bloat), it then becomes hard to remember they exist or even how and when to use them. |
I finished the engine intakes. I have a lot of greebling to add, still need to detail the guns, bottom, back nozzle area.
There is a weird void area between the engines and the back of the nose section I need to figure out. I don't have references for those areas. http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...per_mk2_13.jpghttp://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...per_mk2_11.jpghttp://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...per_mk2_14.jpg http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...per_mk2_12.jpg |
Fixed the wing attach points at the root and tossed a shader on some polygons...
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...per_mk2_19.jpghttp://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...per_mk2_18.jpg |
Damnit CTbram,
I was planning on doing one of these soon, aong ewith the bsg 75 Galactica... That being said you are doing a great job looks superb.. Still waiting for you to get messenger setup man. G-man |
Thanks Legend. If I can find some good reference material I think I will try to knock out a MkVII Viper when this one is done.
Sorry I am dragging my feet, I have a messenger account I just have not logged into it for ages. I tend to use skype. I'll get logged in to message this week and we can hook up. Here is a minor update: 1. refined the body (nose section connection to back engine section and cleaned up the nose panels. They can actually open. The canopy is now hinged but there is no cockpit (hence the dark glass). 2. added some details around the front intakes http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...per_mk2_21.jpghttp://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...per_mk2_22.jpghttp://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...per_mk2_20.jpg http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...per_mk2_23.jpghttp://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...per_mk2_24.jpg To do: 1. lots of greebling 2. back thruster area detailing 3. bottom detailing 4. more engine detailing 5. gun - I am looking for reference material for that now |
Oops! I just realized this is closer to the MK I not the MK II version of the VIPER. But I cannot change the title at this point.
So for new comers to the thread the title should be: Battlestar Galactica Colonial Viper MK I |
Okay, did a little poking on the web and found some references of the laser cannon.
All the references I found had a pretty simple looking gun. I tried to give it some more interest and beefed it up a little in size. I will try to add more surface detail once I finish the rest of the modeling. I am just slapping simple surface shaders on for now. I will be able to add more interest with textures. http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...per_mk2_31.jpghttp://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...per_mk2_32.jpghttp://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...per_mk2_33.jpg http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...per_mk2_34.jpghttp://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...per_mk2_35.jpghttp://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...per_mk2_36.jpg http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...per_mk2_37.jpg |
Looking for a better combination of shaders on the cannons. I think this looks better then all gun metal.
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...per_mk2_38.jpghttp://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...per_mk2_39.jpghttp://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...per_mk2_40.jpg http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...per_mk2_41.jpghttp://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...per_mk2_42.jpg |
Some details hidden literally under the covers.
Booleaned areas to make perfect form fitting back section of the nose back area and the nacelles and the openings for the missile bays. That is what the panels on the front section are for. In this screen grab you can see the opening without the doors. I know some will cringe, but I love booleans. I am going to make some models with doors and hatches and crap that would be frigging impossible to model and smooth. http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...11-19-57PM.pnghttp://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...11-21-14PM.png http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...11-21-43PM.pnghttp://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...11-22-24PM.png http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...11-45-41PM.pnghttp://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...11-46-07PM.png |
aah the clear markings on a mesh that has had booleans applied to it! its nice to see someone proving everyone else wrong
looks really sweet so far (i've never seen battle star galactica) i thought i was the only one who posts with soft edges showing and border edges thickened! |
As you can see the hatches fit perfectly and there is no wonky surface distortion or rendering artifacts.
There is currently no interior faces on the hatch panels or interior of the nose. I would also have to add thickness and a hinge assembly. But that is all easy. I just drilled the doors to show that booleans can make very complex openings if you are willing to forgo the "I must smooth 100% of my model" mantra. These a very cooperative surfaces without compound curves but even with more complex surfaces, all you do is build the basic base geometry throw a 2 or 3 division smooth on the easy husk geometry, then boolean out your holes. http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...per_mk2_43.jpghttp://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...per_mk2_44.jpg |
You may enjoy booleans, but theres really no chance in hell of an excuse for an 8 sided plus polygon.
dude a studio would have you for dinner, I would have you as starter LOL, that type of geo no matter how clean it is really isnt good. Jay |
Still keeping my eye on this one Ctbram.
I'm interested to see your Mk VII I reckon I'll start on BSG sometime in the coming days so i can beat you to it, though I'll probably just work on it on and off for a while. have you though of modeling a raptor? colonial one? any other ships in the fleet? G-man |
Quote:
I am not a pro but I know as long as a surface is planar, then having polygons with more then n-side will make no difference what-so-ever! Quote:
The restriction on n-gons came in the days when rendering engines could not handle them. Go to the modo site and look at the Brad Peebler interview with master modelers Rich Hurrey and Jason Bickerstaff where this very question was asked. Their reply, and I am paraphrasing, was "It depends on what the pipeline allows, in the end if the shot looks right, the model can be textured and rendered, and if it can help reduce time to production there is no limit to n-gons in a model" As far as I know both of these guys are not marked as a "Starter" and in fact they are industry giants! Last I checked Pixar, and ILM were both "major" studios and these guys have done incredible work at both. I do this as a hobby. I am not a pro and I am too old to consider trying to become one. My experience and skill is based on the things I have seen and read, some of which has been produced by some highly regarded modelers in the industry. If I was to be working for a client and there was a restriction on n-gons then I would have no problem adjusting. For now this model looks fine, will texture fine, and is rendered by mental ray fine. So I see no reason to get our undies all in a bunch! |
Quote:
I have gathered some raptor references in collecting the mk.I stuff. Not sure if I plan to make one though. The galactica is a bit to big a project for me although it would be a great place to work on writing a auto greebling script (smile). I have been thinking of doing a Avatar Scorpion and/or an AMP suit. |
Very nice model. I did a quick try of Modo too. I actually liked the navigation, but decided to stick with Maya anyway. But there were two things I liked better in Modo that I wonder how you pros in Maya do as fast as in Modo.
The first thing is that radial array clone tool. To be able to copy any object and have the copys arranged in a circle. I just can not make that happen with mayas duplicate and transform. I can only spin on object around in an axis and my clones gets rotated to. And I also thought it was easier to use the cutters in Modo to do Booleans. Not sure why now(my trial 14 days ran out so Modo is no longer on my mahcine), but it was nice. Ohh, actually there was one thing more, the constrain to background was impressive to. |
Thanks Olorin,
Yes Maya has radial copy ability. Allow me to demonstrate. I needed an excuse to create a 202-sided polygon so this is a perfect opportunity. You have two options: 1. "edit mesh>duplicate special" where you can set the rotation, translation, scale, and number of copies. 2. or use shift-d to copy and remember rotation, scale, and translation. To use this set an objects rotation pivot. Press shift-d to create a copy, then rotate the copy (using the r-key to bring up the rotation gizmo), then just press shift-d again and you will make a new copy rotated the amount of the first copy on each key press. So first the more important part we need to drill a hole in a surface to create that 202-sided polygon I needed an excuse to create. Then we add bevels and make the outer surface all wonky to show that the drilled / booleaned surface remains clean and sharp. As long as the drilled surface is planar, the sice of the value of n in the n-gon does not matter. This is not to say you'd ever want to create a surface like this one. But in some cases its just impossible to smooth a surface and cut out this kind of shape so if you need to get in close to the edge on a shot you have to put in a lot of edges or you will see corner artifacts and I would prefer to have a final shot that looks perfect then a crappy shot that has geometry that meets some arbitrary rule that dictates the number of allowable sides in a polygon! This also kinda answered your other question btw. Maya does not have stensil or drill polygon tools. To stensil a hole into a surface you have to boolean, then delete the un-needed faces, then use fill hole. I agree constrain to background is a very impressive tool. there is a Maya script called shrink wrap but it is cumbersome to use. http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x.../th_proof1.pnghttp://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x.../th_proof3.pnghttp://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x.../th_proof2.png http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x.../th_proof4.jpghttp://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x.../th_proof5.jpghttp://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x.../th_proof6.jpg http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...h_proof7-1.jpg |
Not to change the subject back to critiques on my model from the feisty discussion about n-gons but...
Do the guns look okay? I made them a bit larger in scale then the ones from my references. I figure the whole purpose of that fighter is to carry those guns and the dinky looking things in the references just were not doin it for me. LOL |
Thanx a lot for you explanation. In theory I understand you, will have to test it out and see if I can make it work. I am a bit dense in converting text-tutorial to actuall Maya skill. I guess it would be great for Maya compared to Modo if somebody could make a little movie-tut and put up on youtube... nudge, nudge ;)
As for your guns. Since there really is no thing like laser-guns it is impossible to say they don't look ok. But I liked the design with white on the guns and no bottle underneath teh barrel, that bottle made it look like a water gun to me. Personally if I would do a laser gun thingy. I think I would like to make it different from the mould. Maybe something like those LED lights that we have on our heads and hats these days. After all it should shoot light and not metal-pieces so barrel seems unlogical to me. |
1 Attachment(s)
Thried a bit more. Cloning and making each object rotate waas no big deal. But cloning and arranging the objects without rotating them was something I could only do by setting each pivot to center and manually adjusting each object as I did for the right half of the image. I can not near that with duplicate with transform. Any ideas about not rotating the objects and still cloning them around a radius?
|
LOL. Yeah the version of the gun that looked like a bottle with a barrel stuck on was just a proxy until I got around to building a proper one.
I just made some minor updates today. Just added the small center part that connects all the engines with some tubes. Rebuilt the wing to correct some some minor issues that were niggling me. http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...per_mk2_45.jpg |
I have not seen the original so I guess your copy is true to the original. But actually the the wings seem a little small. I looks more like a bottle rocket than a manned craft. But then again in the future, who says we will need wings to fly at all?
|
CTBRAM
I wasnt being rude, just messing so please dont read between the lines...nuff said. But I apologise if thats what you think. I see n-gon of greater then 8-side left on top or cylindrical surfaces all the time. really? all the time?, please show.... I wouldnt spout my concern for the overly used Boolean ops you are doing if I didnt see reason for it. Modo is a different kettle of fish in that area, its a great tool but most in most cases its use in Maya are few and far between. I am seriously intrigued with your comment about ILM and PIXAR. Please post!!! Also I'd like to read what the other two dudes said as well, please post a link. N-gons are fine generally. I didnt say dont use. I use them but you wont find anything above or below a 4sided one. Regardless of 'the day' of limits on render engines. Chances are a you put a model thru any pipeline with that sort of face count on a poly you will have a problem with the model 'generally' as the renderer has to 'guess' the surface before spitting out out the image. My last VFX director was from Weta, he said meshes have to be spot on (4sided). Also said theres no excuse for it not to be. Set ups for films happen over a series of months so the time is there to get stuff right. Nail those problems....dont fudge them and cause more I am actually working with a couple of riggers from ILM at the moment on a film and they are hotter than hot with setups. the edge flows have got to work otherwise its a no go in any direction if the mesh is less than perfect. It causes crap way down the pipeline. My Current Supervisor recently pulled a guy for having just 5 sided polys on an ancient staircase model. the guy tried to hide them out of sight by putting them underneath a lip area, problem was that Renderman kicked off complaining about non planar geo, so my Supervisor and the VFX director had to pull the guy aside to get it sorted. I think the the more people understand the need for clean meshes and the understanding of a pipeline regardless of whose it is the better really. Sculpting packages will also kick off if a model generally isnt quads. It will just end up dividing it into then if its not. So watch out for that. I really hope my message here is coming thru and the need for better geo regardless of Hard surface or organic models. try not to rely on the boolean method too much. cheers Jay |
Jay,
Just google brad peebler and rich hurry and jason bickerstaff for the interview. There is a video interview with Rich Hurray in particular where the topic of n-gons comes up. In the video he actually shows examples of stuff he did for some movies and you clearly see n-gons. Look at the geometry of the bottle cap I posted recently then go search the modo ticks and tricks forum. That topology was posted by a modeler that works in the art department at coca-cola and has a large n-gon at the cap and 5-sided n-gons on the sides. There is one example of the n-gons at the cap of rounded cylindrical topology. Not all art departments and vfx directors require only 4-sided polygons. All I have to do to prove that is give ONE example and since you can see the cap from coca-cola and watch the video with examples from Rich Hurray I have proved my point (quod erat demonstrandum). Now it's your turn show me a proof that ALL vfx directors and ALL studios and ALL art directors require ALL 4-sided polygons. GOOD LUCK. |
LOL a 202 nsided polygon, give me a break man, it isn't even a discussion.
There is a difference on how Zbrush and mudbox handle geometry however; I had made a hat from a cylinder for my indiana jones project with of course the triangle ending endcap on top, when I took it in ZBrush it did some funky stuff when adding subdivisions , mudbox was more forgiving but I don't like how Mudbox works so I altered the geometry so that it ended in quads and that worked like a charm. point is that this was just a small topological error if you will if you are deliberatly putting to much bad topology in your model you will have problems when opening the model in ZBrush it will automattically generate quads and triangles or just triangles and since this will be automatic you will have no conrol over it whatsoever. You can experience renderproblems (artifacts) Just humor me and press 3 when you have selected that 202 nsided model or extrude a face a couple of times or bevel the edge, trust me don't rely on nsided polygons, don't avoid them at all cost sometimes you will not see it ( in a fold or crease) , but once it is plain sight or part of a deforming surface your ****ed :) Model looks nice though:beer: |
I just saw your post regarding all those big names, I personally don't care much about big names like ILM/Pixar/Wayne robson or whoever else might is todays hotshot.
I just look at their work and look if I can learn from that but I do the same if I look at the work of a newbee. Thing is if some unknown person says that using a condom is against god's wishes evereybody thinks that person is a crackpot, if the pope says it everybody listens and people die from it, this is not intended as a pun against religious people but as an example. The same goes for what you said if a big name from the industry says he likes using ngons all of a sudden it is looked upon as a new approach to modeling. I have great respect for the work people at ILM and Pixar are making but even people like that talk sh*t sometimes :beer: |
If you did not realize the 202-sided polygon was being sarcastic, well it was!
The point is Jay is trying to say ALL geometry has to have exactly 4-sides. If his pipeline and vfx director demands it, that's fine, but all art departments and vfx directors and some pretty big name 3d modelers to not concur. Just google Rich Hurry, Jason Bickerstaff, Steven Stahlberg and you will see that you do not have to have ALL 4-sided geometry. Here is a proof: ==== PROPOSITION: Prove that ALL studios only hire modelers that make all quad model, ALL modelers that work for major studios make only ALL 4-sided models, and ALL VFX directors only allow ALL 4-sided models is FALSE. ===================================== PROOF: All anyone has to do to PROVE something is NOT true is give ONE counter example. I have given 3, just google those names I have mentioned above (rich hurry, jason bickerstaff, steven stallegnberg) they are all professionals, and you will find examples of work they have done for major studios, for major movies, for major productions that have geometry with n-gons and triangles and they have all reported to vfx/art directors. The bottle cap topology recently posted is another example of a topology with all three cases - It has quads, tris, and a large 32-sided n-gon. I would argue that coca-cola advertising is a studio, the person posting the topology is a professional, and he reports to a art director / vfx director. That meets all the requirements of my proof. Q.E.D. ====================================== As I can show or point to references that show examples of n-gons of > 8-sides and triangles being modeled by professional modelers working at major studios that most certainly report to vfx/art directors then my proof is INDISPUTABLE. Now all you and Jay have to do is show ME a proof that demonstrates ALL models created by ALL professional modelers working at ALL major studios and reporting to ALL VFX/art directors create only ALL 4-sided models. Unless either of you can do that please stop posting in my thread as though you are all knowing authorities. |
While I am on a roll.
Why don't both you guys go over to 3dbuzz, and 3d-palace, gnomon workshop, and kurv-studios websites and tell them that they are ALL teaching bad modeling practices because they all have tutorials that create models with geometry that has triangles and n-gons! Even tutorials from this website have models with n-gons and tri's. So there are more examples to prove my point. Try going to their forum and berating ALL their tutorials that have quads and n-gons. DT and gnomon and Kurv are certified Maya, Max, Houdini, XSI, and Lightwave instructors. update: Oh yeah and check out the Behind the Scenes tutorials a tutorial series at gnomon to demonstrate the actual modeling, uv layout, rigging, animation, and rendering pipeline of actual studios where they have both hard surface BTS5 and organic character BTS3 tutorials where models with tri's and n-gons are created. I don't have to do anything more to prove my point unless you guys can PROVE yours, I am done with this discussion! |
Hi ctbram
Do you use the soften edge tool on you hull and are you using the bevel edge tool to get the round shape of the hull front, cannot answer the wrights or wrongs of the n gon debate bit like asking how longs a piece of string all I know is the model is looking great. If you do model the update viper could you do a tutorial on the hull.............dave |
Dave,
For the parts that are not smoothed - engine cores and the hull - I use soften harden edge for the most part with a smoothing angle of 20-35. I also make extensive use of edge bevels for chamfered and round edges on the unsmoothed parts. For the smoothed parts - wings and forward nacelles - I use a combination of 1 and 2 segment bevels and adding edge loops to tighten up the edges to the desired degree of roundness / tightness. As for the n-gon debate I have proved my point and I can model to whatever level is required. I am not reporting to an art/vfx director or doing any of this work for a large studio. However, I can assure you that everything I do as a hobbyist / enthusiast, and that is all I have ever claimed to be, is based on tutorials and techniques I have seen and read and were created by professionals that work at major studios and report to vfx/art directors. So I have indisputably proved my point and feel I need to say nothing more about it. |
Mastone,
Why would I need to press the 3 key? Are you proposing now that ALL models must be smoothed and built in anticipation of being deformed? WOW! Please ask Jay to press the 3 key on his sand speeder and watch what happens when that is rendered! I can press the 3 key on my sand speeder and it has tri's. I'd be happy to put it to a vote as to which has fewer rendering artifacts. If you believe n-gons and tri's are bad don't look at my work, you will go blind! Oh and mastone, that is sarcasm too! lol |
I really like how you two are argue. But if you want clean topology 4 side faces or tris ... that's what you should aim for. 5 side + faces are causing a lot of problems .
|
Perhaps it is my drug induced stupor, and if so forgive, but as i look through all of Jays posts on this thread Ctbram, i se no where where he stated that "all, sups and All vfx studios, All ect ect ect, say no n-gons, so forth and so on, that you are asking him to prove.
I do see where he did offer the generally sound advice "Chances are a you put a model thru any pipeline with that sort of face count on a poly you will have a problem with the model 'generally' as the renderer has to 'guess' the surface before spitting out out the image." Now Jay, to my knowledge is one of Few people here who have as much experience as he does in the industry professionally. He would as far as SM goes, be a good source of information on the subject of what studios wish for and require of their modeling pipelines. Ct, you are a good modeler, and you make very nice work, you also have alot of very good ideas around some common problems your putting holes in cylinders for example. but as you stated you ar a hobbyist not a professional in the industry, are you sure that your models woudl pass th inspection of those who woudl have the final say so during production? The answer to that question should dictate weather or not you are so apt to provide your strong opinions against a member of the professional community on a forum that exists solely for the purpose of beginners and hope-fulls learning the ropes of the industry. That being said, i still think the viper is comming along nice, and woudl like to see your take on a Mk VII G-man |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:01 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Simply Maya 2018