The first thing to test would be making a flat normal map and verifying the pipeline is 100% working and then you can worry about the normal map. I'm not 100% sure that that is a compression issue.
I found this kinda funny. 101 T-Shirts for Apple Fanboys and the Mac Faithful! http://www.cotygonzales.com/2010/01/25/101-t-shirts-for-apple-fanboys-and-mac-faithful/
Dont worry about matching the reference 100% or if your ref is off. Build what you see. Think "around" the object. It doesnt need to be 100% perfect. If it did, you would have cad blueprints.
Working on the texture for an old model I did some time ago. Not 100% done but getting close I think. I went for diffuse only. Max viewport 100% self illuminated.
pretty sure animation is done on a mostly quad mesh, as it'd be easier to paint weight maps, that's how I've always done it anyway. I'm not a professional animator though, so not 100% sure on that.You can also triangulate critical areas by hand, then let automatic triangulation take over less critical areas. Letting auto…
freaking awesome! And 105? Wow! What shall it cost? I'd love to see 'em all in some kind of an overview picture, ha ha ha. How long did it take you to do all 105?
Make the tightest shadows 100% black and the tightest highlights 100% white, it will give it more depth, and feel more like metal, whereas right now it seems the contrast makes it feel like it was made out of brick.
I know you aimed for 500. I did that with the first one too, but Raul said something about "try to get very low in our tri budgets" so I went and made that was very lowpoly. My point was, with both these posts, that the detail levels are inconsistent. You have a very bland cylindrical part, which is fine if you're going…
with the difference in lighting from the planet to the ship i would say its from a space sation or another ship "While shepeiro's paintover might not be 100% accurate either" my paintovers are 100 % FACT ;-)