StarCraft Siege Tank WIP

coldwolf

This is intended to be SubD, but being my first go at that stuff I wimped out in most places on it. It was done for fun in preperation for the upcoming CGI fan-film based on StarCraft (if you like SC and are a decent modeler, join us!)...


Clearly a WIP (missing a LOT of geometry), but I don't think I can finish it because I made so many mistakes starting out. I'm still having a real problem with the cannon cap thingies--I can't get the boolean-subtracted hole to mesh well. How do you guys use cut geometry in non-SubD polys? Do you just cut edges until every vert created by the cut is connected? (Is there a faster way?)

Wires:


Done in about 8 hours over the past few days. I feel like I rushed it, but isn't that rather slow for the result I got?

Thanks in advance for any c&c!

hawken

no reverse or turning corners on that thing then I take it?

SHEPEIRO

why no reverse or turning corners?

rooster

I think because the treads only grip one way

SHEPEIRO

i suppose but its part of the original design aint it

KeyserSoze

[ QUOTE ]
I think because the treads only grip one way

[/ QUOTE ]

That wouldn't effect turning then, only reverse. Well, you wouldn't have as tight of a turning radius when you're at a complete stop, but it wouldn't make a difference when turning while moving forward (since the only time you'd put a track in reverse to turn would be when you're stopped).

ChaosEidolon

Who needs reverse when you have a Mjolnir Artillery Cannon!? ( yeah i had to look that up...im not THAT big a geek)

SHEPEIRO

[ QUOTE ]
Who needs reverse when you have a Mjolnir Artillery Cannon!? ( yeah i had to look that up...im not THAT big a geek)

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah right ;D

coldwolf

i'll just uh, put some vertical treads in the center part of the track then so you guys can have your reverse :P (and yes that's what the treads looked like in the concept art i referenced from)...

so you guys don't use booleans or something? is that something polycounters generally avoid?

Joao Sapiro

if you want crappy mesh sure go ahead looking nice eheh , make it justice !!! starcraft rules !

rooster

hey by the way I don't care about the track orientation I was just guessing at hawkens statement

coldwolf

Dang I totally didn't know about this! Everyone I ask hates booleans--I'm just now finding this out

rooster: yeah i know man, it's cool It's just funny that you guys had this little debate about tank movement after I asked about booleans

KDR_11k

Normal chains don't grip at all AFAIK. They just lie on the ground and the wheels grab into them. The surface area covered by the tracks should be sufficient to allow reverse on all but the worst terrain conditions.

Is it really supposed to be that large? A tank that size would be a nightmare to transport, supply or prevent from being a prime target on the battlefield. Its size would make it harder to maneuver in difficult terrain (i.e. with vertical obstacles you'd have to drive around) and it wouldn't be able to take cover behind a hill or wreckage easily.

And um, what's holding the wheels inside the tracks? I can see at least four wheels that aren't connected to the body of the tank on each side.

PfhorRunner

Play starcraft much KDR? The tank is supposed to be overly gianormous.

But I do agree that the wheels need to be connected to the main body, or else the thing just wouldn't go...

EDIT: Though on a quick search I just did I found this concept:

From Blizzard's Starcraft Ghost screenshots section. It seems that the wheels aren't very connected on the concept either.

And what I got from Hawken's post waas that it looks as if the engine that drove the treads only looks like it would be suited to be just under the cannon, and therefore only driving the back treads, thus making turning nigh impossible. Then again, I'm usually wrong when it comes to things like that..

Now, if I were to have been this particular concept artist, I probably would have put those spikey looking treads facing backwards on the inside half of the treads. that way you have just as much grip going forwards, as backwards without too much slowdown from having backwards treads (beacuse it seems that they're angled in such a way that they collapse when on the ground)...

coldwolf

Runner: That's a fantastic idea! (to have the middle spikes facing backwards.) And that image is the exact same one I used as main reference--that and a couple screenshots from StarCraft: Ghost.

KDR: As I said in the parent post, I'm missing a lot of geometry including anything connceting the wheels to the body as well as anything to hold up the turret shield pieces.

Proportions are still off a little so I'll be fixing that as well. I'll resurrect this thread once I get enough patience to bring this thing back to life (taking a break from it for now).

As for turning, imagine this: A drive chain being looped around the wheel of the front treads back to the engine, so if they back treads move, so does the front, like this:


At the moment the treads are hanging in mid-air, but I haven't thought of any realistic solution. And ideas?

PfhorRunner

No ideas. I thought about it for a good 20 minutes too (hey, for a teenager thats a long time). But ya know, the Warthog from Halo technically couldn't work either with that suspension system, so who gives a crud? I'm sure you'll think of something and it'll all work out.

michalczyk

Looks like a good concept to start with.