UFO:Alien Invasion
Development => Artwork => Topic started by: sitters on November 12, 2007, 03:42:42 pm
-
Start loving making renders.
I make an full 3d rendering with only GPL/CC stuff.
(http://www.sitters-electronics.nl/md2/Models2/rendering1.jpg)
Maybe you like it.
Willem
-
Cool. That's definitely stuff we could use. Maybe you could make variants on that, like a carrier entering/exiting a wormhole, or one in the process of launching other UFOs (that would be a great way to make it clear how big the carrier is). Stuff like that.
-
very nice, it's a pity that you hate doing animations, it would be cool to have some ufos starting from carriers and entering the athmosphere.
-
very nice, it's a pity that you hate doing animations, it would be cool to have some ufos starting from carriers and entering the athmosphere.
That kind of animation is not an big problem, animations for MD2 is not my hobby. :)
making flash,avi or animated gif is not a big problem.
Willem
-
oh, that is great to know. i thought all kind of animations. Maybe our storywriters can come up with the content description of some of the sequences we need.
-
We already have such a description for the intro animation.
-
Just a quick note to clarify on the Carriers, the green patches on top are actually the engines.
Regards,
Winter
-
Just a quick note to clarify on the Carriers, the green patches on top are actually the engines.
Regards,
Winter
Lol. :)
(http://www.sitters-electronics.nl/md2/Models2/render8.jpg)
willem
-
Make an .gif animation of 700 rendered frames.
Here an screenshot :
(http://www.sitters-electronics.nl/md2/Models2/render9.jpg)
Download full animation :
http://www.sitters-electronics.nl/md2/Models2/test.gif
Willem
-
very good job - could you please upload the cinema source file with all the textures that are needed, too?
-
Thanks I have here the link of the source,
It is made in cinema V10.506, I don't know if older versions can read it.
When I read projects from older versions he say that he convert it to the newer one.
http://www.sitters-electronics.nl/md2/Models2/earth_invasion.rar
Try it out otherwise I have also 700 rendered pictures of 480X360 for making an movie from.
Willem
-
i don't have cinema 4d at all - but i've commited the source file to svn now - if you extend it or change something on it, please also share the latest c4d file + textures.
If you have some free time, you can maybe also try to export this into roq format - switchblade or ffmpeg should work well for you in this case http://icculus.org/~riot/
please also see: http://ufoai.ninex.info/wiki/index.php/Artwork#Videos_.28Cutscenes.29
-
The animation is pretty enough, but it was not a good idea to put 12-meg GIF into message. Would you in future make "cheap" animations with 10-15 frames, used as "teaser" for html-anchor to d/l complete animation?
Thank you, anyway!
-
The animation is pretty enough, but it was not a good idea to put 12-meg GIF into message. Would you in future make "cheap" animations with 10-15 frames, used as "teaser" for html-anchor to d/l complete animation?
Thank you, anyway!
Yea I also make animations of 10-15 frames, in flash and gif.
But most of the time they are eye candle stuff for websites.
10-15 frames are small files ( 300-400 Kb with good Quality ), but when you have 700 frames and want make some picture quality, then you have very fast 10-12 Meg.
Originally it was an quick time movie, 600X400 and that was 45 Meg, I did also converted to Xvid and then it was 7 Meg, and was looking good.
Also make an very smote movie of it in adobe premiere pro, converted to 1400 frames.
But it is just some experimenting with cinema4D.
I did make in the past a lot of movies from 8mm to DVD and dubbing sound in it, making effects, subtitle it etc.
A lot of people like to have the old movies to DVD and watch them on TV.
Willem
-
That animation was very good. I think the comment on size was that it's a large download - better to provide a tiny 10-15 frame example and link to the full animation rather than including it directly as some people are on slower connections.
Still, good quality, some good cinematics for the game hopefully. :)
-
That animation was very good. I think the comment on size was that it's a large download - better to provide a tiny 10-15 frame example and link to the full animation rather than including it directly as some people are on slower connections.
Still, good quality, some good cinematics for the game hopefully. :)
Yea you right I don't realize me that I screw it up, for slow Internet connections.
I replace it with a screenshot and an download link .
The result is not so very nice because the UFO Carrier is not an good model for short range shots ( much to little 3D information ).
Willem
-
Yea I also make animations of 10-15 frames, in flash and gif.
But most of the time they are eye candle stuff for websites.
That is exactly the thing I talkin'bout: instead of inserting the complete GIF-movie into your announce message, it co;d be much better to insert the short "eye-candy" (sorry, but not "eye CANDLE") with the link to complete version or even versions (QT, DivX, GIF...)
At home I have a dial-up modem connection (36-44Kbps), and the loading of complete 12Mib GIF required about a hour. Caching proxies rarely cache such large objects, so, reloading of the forum's page may require reloading of entire 12Mib thing. And it's not good.
Anyway, You did a great job.
One note: the Sun (bright, ray-emitting star) moves to right off Earth too fast and looks like it approaching to viewer. If we compensating Earth's rotation, then other stars also should move, but they are motionless.
-
The result is not so very nice because the UFO Carrier is not an good model for short range shots ( much to little 3D information ).
Willem
Well, we will need more detailed models for making the crashed Carrier storyline mission, because there's going to be big pieces of the Carrier littered all over. So please feel free to improve my poor-quality fiddlings.
Regards,
Winter
-
Whow, what a great animation. Thank you, sitters.
Just one thing: I know I'm being picky here, but I think it would look a lot better if the not-sun-lit-side of earth was darker than the rest...
-
Whow, what a great animation. Thank you, sitters.
Just one thing: I know I'm being picky here, but I think it would look a lot better if the not-sun-lit-side of earth was darker than the rest...
Yea you right, it was just an test, I make an better one.
I first remodel the UFO carrier with a lot of more 3D details and texture details.
Then I remake the animation with better shadows, and also when I move the camera that the stars on the background also moving.
Also the corona of the sun is now not correct ( its popping out ).
Willem
-
OK winter, I have remodeled the UFO carrier.
I keep the look a little bit the same only more details.
If you like it this way, I start texture it.
(http://www.sitters-electronics.nl/md2/Models2/ufoc.jpg)
Willem
-
What does it look like from the other side?
-
What does it look like from the other side?
Relative simple, cant use to much poly's, but can do a lot with the texture.
(http://www.sitters-electronics.nl/md2/Models2/ufoc1.jpg)
Willem
-
Relative simple, cant use to much poly's, but can do a lot with the texture.
(http://www.sitters-electronics.nl/md2/Models2/ufoc1.jpg)
Willem
That side may need a little bit more detail, but the whole thing looks a lot better than anything I ever managed. I approve.
Just a reminder, the side with the orbital cannons on should have a few scars and scorch marks from micrometeor impacts and such, as that's essentially the 'front' of the craft when it's firing its thrusters on the top/back side.
Regards,
Winter
-
An preview of the UFO carrier.
(http://www.sitters-electronics.nl/md2/Models2/render1a.jpg)
Willem
-
really cool - good job
-
The craft is finish, some shots,
(http://www.sitters-electronics.nl/md2/Models2/shot1.jpg)
(http://www.sitters-electronics.nl/md2/Models2/shot2.jpg)
(http://www.sitters-electronics.nl/md2/Models2/shot3.jpg)
Some meteor damage.
(http://www.sitters-electronics.nl/md2/Models2/shot4.jpg)
(http://www.sitters-electronics.nl/md2/Models2/shot5.jpg)
Willm
-
Great job, Sitters. Also:
Just a reminder, the side with the orbital cannons on should have a few scars and scorch marks from micrometeor impacts and such, as that's essentially the 'front' of the craft when it's firing its thrusters on the top/back side.
I don't agree here. Micrometeor scars result from tiny specks of matter impacting the craft at extreme velocities. The Carrier never reaches that kind of velocity. It uses FTL to jump to its destination and then travels around at relatively low speeds (low in the sense that micrometeor impacts have no appreciable effect, certainly not on alien materials). Of course, it's still possible for the micrometeors themselves to travel at extreme velocities relative to the Carrier, but then the scars should be on every side, not just the front side.
-
one word: fantastic
-
It's great ;D
Such renders would be nice for UFOPaedia IMHO
-
The craft is finish, some shots,
Willm
I like the detail and smoothness, nice work, Sitters. Just a couple of comments.
1) It doesn't seem to have any orbital cannons as on the original model, which play an important part in the backstory.
2) The side with the thrusters now looks really bland, containing nothing but engines. Perhaps we can mount the cannons on a dome on this side, as the side with the thrusters would be the one facing Earth from orbit (a big flaw in my original design).
Micrometeor scars result from tiny specks of matter impacting the craft at extreme velocities. The Carrier never reaches that kind of velocity. It uses FTL to jump to its destination and then travels around at relatively low speeds (low in the sense that micrometeor impacts have no appreciable effect, certainly not on alien materials). Of course, it's still possible for the micrometeors themselves to travel at extreme velocities relative to the Carrier, but then the scars should be on every side, not just the front side.
Fair to say, I just figured it would be most apparent on the front.
Regards,
Winter
-
I like the detail and smoothness, nice work, Sitters. Just a couple of comments.
1) It doesn't seem to have any orbital cannons as on the original model, which play an important part in the backstory.
2) The side with the thrusters now looks really bland, containing nothing but engines. Perhaps we can mount the cannons on a dome on this side, as the side with the thrusters would be the one facing Earth from orbit (a big flaw in my original design).
Fair to say, I just figured it would be most apparent on the front.
Regards,
Winter
They are there on the top of the model four of them, small cannons, look carefully above the bridge, on an platform that also can rotate.
But I can mount more weapons, and there are of cause also hidden weapons in the four corners.
Willem
-
They are there on the top of the model four of them, small cannons, look carefully above the bridge, on an platform that also can rotate.
But I can mount more weapons, and there are of cause also hidden weapons in the four corners.
Willem
I'm afraid I still can't make them out.
Some nice big cannons on a central dome on the engine side would be very nice, though.
Regards,
Winter
-
I agree with everybody in that the new ships look great. If I had to nitpick the animation, it would be that the combined volume of the ships leaving the carrier are much greater than the carrier itself. :P Otherwise, excellent work! ;)
Personally, I think the carrier needs plenty more greebles/nurnies or something to break it up visually and give it the kind of massive feel it needs - which is of course bad to do for gameplay reasons, but possibly essential for pre-rendered movies. Adding to that are the lack of any recognizable reference points to give it scale, too.
-
I agree with everybody in that the new ships look great. If I had to nitpick the animation, it would be that the combined volume of the ships leaving the carrier are much greater than the carrier itself. :P Otherwise, excellent work! ;)
Personally, I think the carrier needs plenty more greebles/nurnies or something to break it up visually and give it the kind of massive feel it needs - which is of course bad to do for gameplay reasons, but possibly essential for pre-rendered movies. Adding to that are the lack of any recognizable reference points to give it scale, too.
The problem is the Md2 format, poly count and only one material, I can put some winter cannons in.
I don't think it is smart to make an beautiful giant eye candy Carrier for an movie with a lot of constructions, and in the game you have an other one.
when people looks at an movie they expect the same in the game.
Willem
-
this model will never be visibile in any maps - because it's way too big, it should also never be visible on the globe - only as a model in the ufopedia (or maybe a render screen - but in this case we would need more render screens for the other ufos, too ;) )
this model is only needed to tell the story (correct me when i'm wrong Winter or BTAxis)
-
this model will never be visibile in any maps - because it's way too big, it should also never be visible on the globe - only as a model in the ufopedia (or maybe a render screen - but in this case we would need more render screens for the other ufos, too ;) )
this model is only needed to tell the story (correct me when i'm wrong Winter or BTAxis)
Well, I was thinking it would make for some nice cutscenes as well (such as a nice little animation of the storyline Carrier being shot down by the PHALANX-adapted space launch gun). But yeah, it should never be seen too up-close -- the Carrier chunks seen in the Carrier tac mission will have to be modelled individually.
Regards,
Winter
-
Then it is what you people like, do you want an movie with an high tech carrier or with this one.
Let me know.
Willem
-
We definitely like this one. Though Winter wants more conspicuous guns, of course. But definitely go with this.
-
We definitely like this one. Though Winter wants more conspicuous guns, of course. But definitely go with this.
Agreed. I really like this one, and I'd very much like to see it with my suggested modifications.
Regards,
Winter
-
I make an movie, it is 12MB and the coder is XVID ( mpeg4 ).
I used on the end, the clip of Destructavator.
Maybe you like it ( its an bloody render time ).
(http://www.sitters-electronics.nl/md2/Models2/clip.jpg)
The link :
http://www.md2.sitters-electronics.nl/Models2/ufoai1.avi
Willem
-
I make an movie, it is 12MB and the coder is XVID ( mpeg4 ).
I used on the end, the clip of Destructavator.
Maybe you like it ( its an bloody render time ).
(http://www.sitters-electronics.nl/md2/Models2/clip.jpg)
The link :
http://www.md2.sitters-electronics.nl/Models2/ufoai1.avi
Willem
It looks great, but I think you're still misinterpreting how the Carrier moves around. It's propelled by the green thruster exhausts on the bottom -- not from any of the UFO launch bays on its four sides, like you're showing in the video. So the bottom of the UFO (when stationary) is the back of the UFO (when moving).
(Just so you know, this isn't a sudden change, I've been saying this since I first made the Carrier and several times since you started doing animations with/remodelling it.)
Regards,
Winter
-
I agree that it looks great, but obviously it has its quirks that can be fixed. ;) You seemed to forget to give your particles at the end a direction, which you did in the earlier animation. I'd actually go so far to say that the number of ships coming out should be so low that you don't need particles - just animate the smaller ships by hand.
Are your changes to the carrier mostly finished? I'd also like a shot at doing a few animations, too.
-
wow - it looks cool - but as an intro it could be a little bit longer imo
and the only thing that i've noticed is that the fighter don't leave the carrier in the correct angle - rotating them 10 degree left side should do it (a guess)
other than that - very nice and high quality work
-
Thanks guys, I can make an new animation, following the formula of Winter.
but then I must know if you use it, because it cost a lot of time making this stuff.
I you don't going to use this kind of animations then i don't put more energy in it.
Willem
-
if winter has nothing against it we will use this as intro
but it has to fit the ufo descriptions. and of course we need the cinema 4d source files
-
Thanks guys, I can make an new animation, following the formula of Winter.
but then I must know if you use it, because it cost a lot of time making this stuff.
I you don't going to use this kind of animations then i don't put more energy in it.
Willem
As far as I'm concerned, with the modifications mattn and I suggested, I think we should use it -- it would really raise the game's production values.
Regards,
Winter
-
Popping out an wormhole.
Try to make an 3D wormhole, i think it looks good.
(http://www.sitters-electronics.nl/md2/Models2/comeout.jpg)
BTW: here an link to the carrier psawhn, if you also like to play with rendering.
http://www.sitters-electronics.nl/md2/Models2/carrier.rar
Willem
-
very very cool sitters - i have another suggestion for you - only a suggestion ;-)
you might want to let the carrier fly over the moon - and let the carrier throw shadows on it - this way it's a lot more impressive to see the size of the carrier.
-
Very nice work, sitters. I like the wormhole. mattn's suggestion there is a brilliant idea, it would be awesome if you could make that happen.
Regards,
Winter
-
yea I think animated it looks nice.
(http://www.sitters-electronics.nl/md2/Models2/shadowm.jpg)
There are a lot of parameters for shadows, must find out what is the best.
(http://www.sitters-electronics.nl/md2/Models2/shawdowm1.jpg)
Willem
-
yes, i had exactly something like this in mind
-
yes, i had exactly something like this in mind
I have make an small video clip, you can see the effect better.
http://www.md2.sitters-electronics.nl/Models2/moon1.avi
The coder is Xvid ( Mpeg4 ).
Willem
-
looks great - but the shadow can be a little bit taller - imo - because winter said the carrier is 1/4 of the earth (or am i wrong here winter?)
-
sitters it really looks great... amazing work.
-
looks great - but the shadow can be a little bit taller - imo - because winter said the carrier is 1/4 of the earth (or am i wrong here winter?)
Thanks guys,
The Moon has approximately 1/4 Earth's diameter, is the carrier same size as the moon ?
Willem
-
If the carrier were the size of the moon, there'd only ever need to be ONE. The only ship the size of a celestial body is the alien mothership (which is much bigger than the moon).
In an earlier conversation with Winter, we agreed that a carrier should carry about 8 smaller UFOs. You don't have to stick to that figure, I could see it carry any number up to 20 or so. But it even then it would be MUCH smaller than the moon.
-
ok, then i might have mixed that up with the mothership - thanks for clarification
-
(http://www.sitters-electronics.nl/md2/Models2/shawdowm1.jpg)
It looks really great, but I think there's a small problem with the light. The sun is supposed to be very far from the moon (the distance between moon and sun is about 40 000 times the diameter of the moon), so a big part (the lower part) of the moon should be dark, or at least darker. We shouldn't see the lower part of the moon on the above picture, that would be more realistic.
Except that (small) point, I really like it :D !
-
I have make an small video clip, you can see the effect better.
http://www.md2.sitters-electronics.nl/Models2/moon1.avi
The coder is Xvid ( Mpeg4 ).
Willem
Very cool. Another suggestion to make the Carriers look bigger is to make them move slower, with their shadows slowly tracking across the moon and enlarging as they move closer to the sun. At their current speeds they lack that kind-of majestic quality. Maybe reduce the number of them as well -- 3 or 4 would be perfect, but never so many as 7. It's a subtle power statement to send so few ships, as it means the aliens believe these 3 or 4 ships to be fully capable of dealing with anything Earth has to offer.
Shading part of the moon as kracken suggested would be a good improvement as well, make it feel more real.
Regards,
Winter
-
Make an small movie clip, with some sound.
But I don't have an good sound for an space ship, i make one myself.
If you don't like it you can rip the sound of it.
http://www.md2.sitters-electronics.nl/Models2/moon4.avi
Willem
-
Make an small movie clip, with some sound.
But I don't have an good sound for an space ship, i make one myself.
If you don't like it you can rip the sound of it.
http://www.md2.sitters-electronics.nl/Models2/moon4.avi
You do know the ships clip the moon and, well, look rather sillily large when doing so.
-
looks cool - but yes, they are flying through the moon ;)
-
In general, I'd like to say that these motion video clips look rather nice - Sitters, would it be OK with you if I were to borrow segments of these at a later date, when 2.2 comes out, to combine with recorded gameplay and one of the soundtracks for a 2.2 promo trailer? I enjoyed making the old 2.1 trailer, but back when I created it I didn't have any animations to work with other than recorded clips of gameplay I made.
I was thinking that for a 2.2 promo there could be a video that jumps between animations such as these and clips of gameplay. You would get a better idea of what I'm envisioning when 2.2 comes out and when I could start working on a new trailer video. I have a number of different non-linear digital video editing packages that could do the job, complete with various special FX and transitions.
Actually, if the project at this point is not adding much more for new features and is simply bug-hunting for 2.2, I could probably start working on a promo sooner and possibly have it out by the time a stable 2.2 is released.
(Sorry if I strayed off-topic.)
-
Make an small movie clip, with some sound.
But I don't have an good sound for an space ship, i make one myself.
If you don't like it you can rip the sound of it.
http://www.md2.sitters-electronics.nl/Models2/moon4.avi
Willem
First off, I agree with mattn and others, they need to be a lot more distant from the moon in order to be believable, as the carriers are only a few hundred metres in diameter.
Second, this would be so awesome as part of an intro cinematic, perhaps tacked on before the start of the script we've already got. So it would run something like this:
1) View of Earth from space, filling up the screen. Camera slowly pans away to focus on the moon, where the carriers come in and do their fly-by. Whole scene is silent, only music playing.
2) Last Carrier disappears off below the camera. Cut to a view of the launch bay sending out a UFO (Scout or Fighter), which the camera follows towards Earth at breakneck speeds. Still totally silent, music only.
3) Cut to a static wing-mounted view of the UFO, looking straight at the cockpit from the wing. Little wisps of atmosphere start to come in, and the UFO heats up slightly. The camera starts to shake more and more violently. A roar of wind slowly fades in as the atmosphere thickens, growing louder and louder, the only sound in the world.
4) The camera stops suddenly at a fixed point above a large city, watching the UFO fly away, tracking it as it flies over the city. Fade out as UFO starts to turn.
5) Cut to original intro script (alien walking towards burning city).
Slightly beyond our capabilities right now, but damn would it be cool. :P
Regards,
Winter
-
Damn winter, I am not an movie producer. ;)
Thats a week rendering time.
I make more short clips, then it can be composed to an movie by Destructavator.
Here I have corrected the clipping of the moon.
http://www.md2.sitters-electronics.nl/Models2/moon5.avi
Willem
-
Damn winter, I am not an movie producer. ;)
Thats a week rendering time.
I make more short clips, then it can be composed to an movie by Destructavator.
Here I have corrected the clipping of the moon.
http://www.md2.sitters-electronics.nl/Models2/moon5.avi
Willem
Only ideas, mate, only ideas. ;)
But give me a professional animation team and I'll rock your damned socks off!
Regards,
Winter
-
Damn winter, I am not an movie producer. ;)
Thats a week rendering time.
I make more short clips, then it can be composed to an movie by Destructavator.
Here I have corrected the clipping of the moon.
http://www.md2.sitters-electronics.nl/Models2/moon5.avi
Willem
This is near-perfect. The only thing I can still comment on is the conflict between the UFO shadows and the lighting of the moon. In order for the shadows to fall on the moon the way they do, the bottom half of the moon would have to be in complete shadow. A bit like so, only better drawn:
(http://cs.streetofeyes.com/downloads/UFOAI/moon.png)
Regards,
Winter
-
The light cant be wrong, because i uses one parallel light, for the moon and the carriers.
It is just where the light is ( or sun ), and when I place it the way you like then the carriers are barely lighted, only from beside.
The moon is an sphere, and catching a lot of light, but the carrier is relative small.
Willem
And with this (But give me a professional animation team and I'll rock your damned socks off!) then the animation team is rocking your socks of.
We all know, how the good SciFi movies, with good specials looks. :P
-
The light cant be wrong, because i uses one parallel light, for the moon and the carriers.
It is just where the light is ( or sun ), and when I place it the way you like then the carriers are barely lighted, only from beside.
The moon is an sphere, and catching a lot of light, but the carrier is relative small.
Willem
It is actually wrong, not because of any fault on your part, but because light works differently when the light source is 147 million kilometres away. The way it is now, the light appears to be coming from both directly ahead of the carriers and from directly above. If it was accurately modelled with the sun in the same direction as suggested by the shading on the moon, then the Carrier shadows wouldn't show up at the very top of the moon, but some way down it several seconds after the Carriers pass the moon.
Regards,
Winter
-
Considering scale, it was mentioned that the carriers are only a few hundred meters in diameter - Considering the size of a typical moon large enough to form into a sphere like that from enough mass and gravity, and have lots of craters, wouldn't the shadows also be only a few hundred meters in diameter and therefore be so small in comparison that a viewer in space would see no shadow at all on the moon?
Think about this - I live close to an airport, and once in a while I see an aircraft pass overhead and for a split second can see a shadow from it zip across the ground. When I see this, the shadow is about the same size as the aircraft. (The sun is very far away by comparison.)
In these video clips the shadow is being amplified to a much larger scale because I'm guessing the virtual light source is much closer. It makes it look like the moon would only be several alien ship lengths across. To be more realistic, I'd think the shadows would be so tiny compared to the size of the moon that they wouldn't be seen at all.
Therefore, to be realistic, the ships shouldn't have any shadow at all on the moon, only on each other (If one ship is in front of another nearby one).
Does this make sense?
At least consider this - If a manmade satellite passes overhead, does it cast a huge shadow the size of France moving across the Earth? (And we have launched zillions of them up there now, from various countries.)
-
Second, this would be so awesome as part of an intro cinematic, perhaps tacked on before the start of the script we've already got. So it would run something like this:
1) View of Earth from space, filling up the screen. Camera slowly pans away to focus on the moon, where the carriers come in and do their fly-by. Whole scene is silent, only music playing.
2) Last Carrier disappears off below the camera. Cut to a view of the launch bay sending out a UFO (Scout or Fighter), which the camera follows towards Earth at breakneck speeds. Still totally silent, music only.
3) Cut to a static wing-mounted view of the UFO, looking straight at the cockpit from the wing. Little wisps of atmosphere start to come in, and the UFO heats up slightly. The camera starts to shake more and more violently. A roar of wind slowly fades in as the atmosphere thickens, growing louder and louder, the only sound in the world.
4) The camera stops suddenly at a fixed point above a large city, watching the UFO fly away, tracking it as it flies over the city. Fade out as UFO starts to turn.
5) Cut to original intro script (alien walking towards burning city).
Thats a week rendering time.
I make more short clips, then it can be composed to an movie by Destructavator.
Actually, much of this really is possible; if sitters can build all the components, I could easily put it all together, complete into a roq (or almost any other format), and on my end it wouldn't take too long to render on my computer, I would probably spend more time setting it up, selecting filters, transitions, panning, etc.
-
OK I have render an new one, with the light source in Cinema called sun.
I only can control this light with time and date.
(http://www.sitters-electronics.nl/md2/render/moon1.jpg)
The movie :
http://www.sitters-electronics.nl/md2/render/moon6.avi
The source :
http://www.sitters-electronics.nl/md2/render/Moon_animation.rar
I going to make now other stuff.
Willem
-
good job sitters - i'm going to commit it now
-
Considering scale, it was mentioned that the carriers are only a few hundred meters in diameter - Considering the size of a typical moon large enough to form into a sphere like that from enough mass and gravity, and have lots of craters, wouldn't the shadows also be only a few hundred meters in diameter and therefore be so small in comparison that a viewer in space would see no shadow at all on the moon?
Think about this - I live close to an airport, and once in a while I see an aircraft pass overhead and for a split second can see a shadow from it zip across the ground. When I see this, the shadow is about the same size as the aircraft. (The sun is very far away by comparison.)
In these video clips the shadow is being amplified to a much larger scale because I'm guessing the virtual light source is much closer. It makes it look like the moon would only be several alien ship lengths across. To be more realistic, I'd think the shadows would be so tiny compared to the size of the moon that they wouldn't be seen at all.
Therefore, to be realistic, the ships shouldn't have any shadow at all on the moon, only on each other (If one ship is in front of another nearby one).
Does this make sense?
At least consider this - If a manmade satellite passes overhead, does it cast a huge shadow the size of France moving across the Earth? (And we have launched zillions of them up there now, from various countries.)
The situation is different because Earth has an atmosphere which refracts light (think of the way light behaves in a fog). The moon doesn't have an atmosphere at all, so sunlight doesn't get refracted and the lighting as a whole is much more direct.
Regards,
Winter
-
OK I have render an new one, with the light source in Cinema called sun.
I only can control this light with time and date.
(http://www.sitters-electronics.nl/md2/render/moon1.jpg)
The movie :
http://www.sitters-electronics.nl/md2/render/moon6.avi
The source :
http://www.sitters-electronics.nl/md2/render/Moon_animation.rar
I going to make now other stuff.
Willem
Once again, your final product is perfect, and I'm very happy with it. Can't wait to see someone like Destructavator make a full intro out of it.
Regards,
Winter
-
Thought I would throw my hat in on the whole animation thing.
This is the same model doing what could be considered an overview rotation. Possibly for the UFOpedia.
File size is 13.5mb and is rendered in 640x480
http://www.scenerysoup.com/soupscenery/files/UFOAI-Carrier-Rotate.avi (http://www.scenerysoup.com/soupscenery/files/UFOAI-Carrier-Rotate.avi)
Regards,
Sean E
-
The situation is different because Earth has an atmosphere which refracts light (think of the way light behaves in a fog). The moon doesn't have an atmosphere at all, so sunlight doesn't get refracted and the lighting as a whole is much more direct.
Yes, the lighting is more direct, and that's why the shadow of a UFO on the moon has a sharper form that is would have on earth.
Still, as the sun light arrives collimated on the moon, the shadow of a UFO on the moon is the same size than the UFO itself (a few hundred meters). That's true as long as the distance between UFO and moon is small compared to the distance sun-moon (which is really true here).
So Destructavator is right, the size of the shadow should be about the size of one crater we can see on the moon (and not the biggest one), so almost invisible. In the current movie, the size of the shadow implies that the Carrier size is about 1/4 of the moon size.
-
(http://www.scenerysoup.com/soupscenery/files/images/moon-carrier.jpg)
I would say that this is more to scale when compared to our moon. And the carrier is still a good distance away from the surface or else it would be effected by the moons gravitational pull.
I guess the best way to solve this issue would be to inquire what are the dimensions of the carrier and the other UFO crafts?
Regards,
Sean E
-
(http://www.scenerysoup.com/soupscenery/files/images/moon-carrier.jpg)
I would say that this is more to scale when compared to our moon. And the carrier is still a good distance away from the surface or else it would be effected by the moons gravitational pull.
I guess the best way to solve this issue would be to inquire what are the dimensions of the carrier and the other UFO crafts?
Regards,
Sean E
. . . You know, that render is pretty cool. Please make a high-res one and consider offering it as a loading screen or such.
Anyway, I've decided to set down some solid specs for the Carrier, so the following stats can be considered as canon pending my discussing them with BTAxis.
The Carrier is between 200 and 300 metres in diameter (i.e. from launch bay to launch bay), so call it an even 250. It will have 16 UFOs on board. In the early game this will be 4 Scouts, 10 Fighters and 2 Harvesters. In the middle game this will be 2 Scouts, 8 Fighters, 1 Harvester, 3 Gunboats and 2 Corrupters. The late game layout will be different again, but that's still up in the air based on further UFO models we can get our hands on.
The stats of other UFOs are listed on their wiki pages.
Regards,
Winter
-
According to a science page at http://www.freemars.org/jeff/planets/Luna/Luna.htm , Earth's moon is about 3,476 km in diameter, or 3,476,000 meters across (notice the "k" which stands for "kilo" or a thousand in "km"). A spacecraft even a thousand meters across would have a shadow 1/3476th of the diameter of the moon, or, in other words, so tiny that looking at the entire moon it would be so relatively small it would not be seen.
If you still don't believe me, try rendering the whole thing in the software with the moon larger to approach the proper scale of the ship relative to the moon (Don't go exactly to scale, I'm guessing the computer wouldn't handle it, I'd suggest even just twice as large) and you will see that the shadows from the ships will shrink more and more as you approach the "real" proportions of a ship several hundred meters across to a moon several million meters across.
This assumes that the moon in the render is the size of Earth's moon, but even a smaller moon would be so large that the shadows would be relatively so tiny they wouldn't be seen.
According to what I've studied in Astronomy class at college, tiny moons (where a shadow from such a spacecraft might be visible) would be more like asteroids and would be irregular in shape, not spherical, because of a lack of enough gravity to compress into a sphere.
Actually, our moon is a little egg-shaped, not a perfect sphere.
The situation is different because Earth has an atmosphere which refracts light (think of the way light behaves in a fog). The moon doesn't have an atmosphere at all, so sunlight doesn't get refracted and the lighting as a whole is much more direct.
Actually, if you really wanted to be accurate (or downright picky), our moon does have an atmosphere, it's just extremely thin because of the much lower gravity (Another thing I learned in the same class at college). Even space between solar systems isn't completely empty, there are occasional particles of various junk that are microscopic.
-
I am an ex-Air Force brat and have studied astronomy as well as aerospace science the 20+ years my father was enlisted.
All your calculations are either close or accurate. I am not going to bother getting exact dimensions, but the following is a scaled representation of what I would feel a carrier task force would look like passing from the dark side of the moon. Its blurry from the jpg compression.
(http://www.scenerysoup.com/soupscenery/files/images/moon-approach.jpg)
I am not saying anything bad about Sitters renders and animations. They are very good. Perhaps some collaboration between us would be a good idea.
Winter: How High-res of an image would you like dimension wise?
Regards,
Sean E
-
Yea with this sizes (The Carrier is between 200 and 300 metres in diameter (i.e. from launch bay to launch bay), so call it an even 250.) you don't see any shadows.
But earlier they say to me that the carrier size is 1/4 of the moon ( or even 1/4 of the earth ).
so we can trow the render in the trashcan. :(
-
I wouldn't throw it away yet, at least not completely - If the shadows on the moon were simply removed I think it would look very nice.
I apologize if I made you feel bad, sitters, other than the shadows I think it's quite impressive.
EDIT: An alternative would be if it were decided that the ships were gigantic, although that's not my decision... (Although something comparable to a "Death Star" might be interesting, but that's up to the devs as well.)
-
You can still use it for passing through a system with much smaller moons or orbital debris.
It is still good no matter what.
-
Yea with this sizes (The Carrier is between 200 and 300 metres in diameter (i.e. from launch bay to launch bay), so call it an even 250.) you don't see any shadows.
But earlier they say to me that the carrier size is 1/4 of the moon ( or even 1/4 of the earth ).
so we can trow the render in the trashcan. :(
I don't know who told you that, mate, but it wasn't BTAxis or me. I do apologise for the confusion, but a ship even 1/4 the size of the moon (much less 1/4 of the Earth) couldn't crash land on Earth, which has been a feature in our story from when we first invented the Carriers.
. . . Well, it could crash land, but that would be kind-of game over for the human race . . .
Actually, if you really wanted to be accurate (or downright picky), our moon does have an atmosphere, it's just extremely thin because of the much lower gravity (Another thing I learned in the same class at college). Even space between solar systems isn't completely empty, there are occasional particles of various junk that are microscopic.
I know that, I just didn't think it was important enough to bring up.
Winter: How High-res of an image would you like dimension wise?
I'm not sure what size our loading screens are usually done at, but I assume it's the usual 1024x768.
This is one of those difficult situations where we have realism conflicting with dramatic visuals. I agree that it would be a real shame to bin the render, because it's beautiful, but we are still trying to aim for accuracy. To that end I think that Sean_E's suggestion of using a large asteroid as the backdrop instead of the moon would make the best compromise, because to throw away all of sitters' hard work at this point would be highly uncool. That latest video easily rivals professionally-made game animations from even a few years back.
Regards,
Winter
-
Read page four winter, there was a small discussion, and you also talk about shadows on the moon from the carriers.
When it make shadows, it is gigantic ( mate ) !!
I have make an other clip, more realistic.
(http://www.md2.sitters-electronics.nl/render/moon0650.jpg)
The clip :
http://www.md2.sitters-electronics.nl/render/moon9xvid.avi
This one is not the final because i use an static background.
But first want to know if this is the one, it cost every time 25 minutes for rendering 800 frames.
Willem
-
i suppose this was my fault - i'm very sorry. i confused this with alien mothership. sorry for the extra work sitters
-
i suppose this was my fault - i'm very sorry. i confused this with alien mothership. sorry for the extra work sitters
That's no problem, but winter cant turn his head the other way.
Its just an misinterpretation from us all.
-
That's no problem, but winter cant turn his head the other way.
Eh? All I said was it wasn't me who gave you the wrong size. My mistake was in making a bad guess about the size of the shadows that would be cast on the moon.
I like your new render, by the way, it still gives the impression of size on the Carriers. Do you think it would be possible to pan the camera at the end and show the Carriers heading towards Earth?
Regards,
Winter
-
Eh? All I said was it wasn't me who gave you the wrong size. My mistake was in making a bad guess about the size of the shadows that would be cast on the moon.
I like your new render, by the way, it still gives the impression of size on the Carriers. Do you think it would be possible to pan the camera at the end and show the Carriers heading towards Earth?
Regards,
Winter
No problem, like i say just an misinterpretation.
Yea that is exactly what i have in mind, I want to make the sun, earth and moon.
Start with, they are coming like the clip above, and then panning with the camera till they are in orbit of the earth.
Willem.
-
(https://www.scenerysoup.com/soupscenery/files/images/moon-earth-pass.jpg)
Okay, here is my rendering of the moon-earth pass.
I am finding out that the model is not completely compatible with the rendering engine as I need to shine a light on the underside to get the engines to light up. I'll have to take a look at it. Anyways, enjoy.
I can also do animations (as previously posted ).
Regards,
Sean E
-
animations in which way? character animation? or render sequences?
it would e.g. be cool if someone could update the bip (3dsmax) files with crouching animation for aliens, civilians and soldiers (they all differ a little bit) - and transfer these bip files onto the models we have. also some new civilians and animated animals would be cool.
-
I have make an other clip, more realistic.
The clip :
http://www.md2.sitters-electronics.nl/render/moon9xvid.avi
This one is not the final because i use an static background.
But first want to know if this is the one, it cost every time 25 minutes for rendering 800 frames.
Waou, this one is really great ! I can't wait to see the full animation :D
-
sequence looks very cool sitters - good job.
-
Okay, here is my rendering of the moon-earth pass.
That's awesome, that would make a great loading screen as well.
Regards,
Winter
-
Okay, here is my rendering of the moon-earth pass.
I am finding out that the model is not completely compatible with the rendering engine as I need to shine a light on the underside to get the engines to light up. I'll have to take a look at it. Anyways, enjoy.
I can also do animations (as previously posted ).
Regards,
Sean E
Looks nice to me, but can you increase the resolution of the moon and earth model ( its not nice round ).
Also use an higher resolution textures.
I do some research and the distance of the earth to the moon is 384403 Km, approximate 30 X diameter of the earth, and the moon is approximate 1/4 of the earth.
I think the earth is here to close.
Willem
-
Thanks Sitters for the advice.
I know the earth is WAY to close to the moon. My moon texture is 2500x1250. The largest texture I could find on the internet while I was making this rendering.
I through the whole thing together in less than 30 minutes. It wasn't meant to be perfect just my take on the scene.
I do plan on create a scene that is correctly proportioned and can be used in animation.
If you can point me towards a place that has a higher resolution moon and earth image, I'm all for it.
Thanks again.
Regards,
Sean E
-
keep in mind to only use textures that are open-sourced ;)
-
keep in mind to only use textures that are open-sourced ;)
How do you "open-source" a texture anyway? If you take a picture of a wall, do you have to provide the camera? Or the wall?
-
If the texture is freely available on the internet, there is no need to "open-source" declare it.
It is freely available to anyone of the public. If you were to to anything, somewhere (such as a credit listing) show where the textures were acquired from. This will at least give credit to the person or place that is distributing it.
I have found high resolution images of both earth and the moon from NASA. This are freely available and can be used for anything. I would of course give credit to NASA for the images somewhere.
Regards,
Sean E
-
nasa images are ok - but other texture must have a proper license (preferable GPL)
-
I guess I am not understanding your point of view on textures...
If I take an image of a leaf and use it as a texture for a model, am I licensing the image (which anyone can take) or the artistic view of taking the picture?
OR....
The use of the taken picture in the context of using it as a model texture for a GPL source program?
The declaration of a GPL is indicative that the product (model, texture, et al) is to be used in open source products only without express permission to be used commercially from the original designer and that the code ( for programs ) is freely distributable as long as additions or changes to the code are included with the new incarnation.
Or am I just fishing in the dark? :P
Regards,
Sean E
-
Here i have an new movie clip.
2500 renders and 5000 frames.
Link next page.
Willem
BTW Sean_E here an link to textures http://planetpixelemporium.com/earth.html
-
will watch it in a minute - can you please upload the c4d sources, too
-
you are my personal hero of the day - looks very very cool. some parts could use a faster camera movement, but that can be done with video cut programms.
now the only part left is the start of the fighters and scouts and the UFO:Alien Invasion string at the end. then we can produce a stunning intro for 2.2
thank you very much again sitters.
-
you are my personal hero of the day - looks very very cool. some parts could use a faster camera movement, but that can be done with video cut programms.
now the only part left is the start of the fighters and scouts and the UFO:Alien Invasion string at the end. then we can produce a stunning intro for 2.2
thank you very much again sitters.
Sorry mattn, but this was not an good one,
I did make the terrible mistake to use an inverse bump-map for the moon.
So I re render the hole thing with an correct bump-map.
The link :
http://www.md2.sitters-electronics.nl/render/moon11.xvid.avi
Yea I make more movie clips, the next one is the invasion of the earth from orbit.
And maybe some on earth myself.
Then with all the clips, we can make an complete movie.
Willem
-
Nicely done Sitters.
My only suggestion would be to have the Carriers already moving from behind the moon before the camera gets there and to have them move more quickly to get to Earth. That way there isn't as much of a pause as the camera waits for them to pass.
You might also want to move the sun source more to the right in the movie. This way you can see a piece of the waning moon crest instead of just a sliver. It's hard to tell where you are going till you get there. :D
Just out of curiosity, what type of hardware are you rendering on? To kick out a 3 minute movie like that, it must be some big stuff.
And thanks for the link to the images. I found a huge earth and moon image (8192x4096). Will use these.
Regards,
Sean E.
-
will check the new version. but please also upload the sources ;)
-
Nicely done Sitters.
My only suggestion would be to have the Carriers already moving from behind the moon before the camera gets there and to have them move more quickly to get to Earth. That way there isn't as much of a pause as the camera waits for them to pass.
You might also want to move the sun source more to the right in the movie. This way you can see a piece of the waning moon crest instead of just a sliver. It's hard to tell where you are going till you get there. :D
Just out of curiosity, what type of hardware are you rendering on? To kick out a 3 minute movie like that, it must be some big stuff.
And thanks for the link to the images. I found a huge earth and moon image (8192x4096). Will use these.
Regards,
Sean E.
Thanks,
The hardware i use is 3.6 GHz Pentium 4, dual processors with 2GB intern memory, 2x400 GB harddrive.
For rendering, I use both processors same time on the software Cinema 4D 10.5
but for 2500 renders hires still 35-38 minutes render-time.
Mattn : best for all the clips I pack all sources in one file ( textures are the same ), so when I have the invasion clip, i make an link.
Willem
-
Nice setup.
Myself, I am using three workstations working together:
1 AMD Turion 64x2 @ 1.6ghz
1 AMD Athlon 64 @ 1.8ghz
1 AMD Athlon 64 @ 2.0 ghz
The laptop is connected on the network by wifi and is the primary workstation.
Software used is 3D Studio Max 2008 32-bit.
My 12-second rotation animation took almost 2 hours to do.
I am thinking I am using a higher resolution output with my mental ray settings as to why mine is taking a lot longer. I'll have to hook the laptop up via hardline and see if its the same.
Regards,
Sean E
-
http://www.md2.sitters-electronics.nl/render/moon11.xvid.avi
Willem
That is bloody brilliant. The sweeping pans are amazing. There are only a few suggestions I could make here:
1) The parts where travelling from the Earth to the moon and back are a bit long and end up dragging, could you make the camera speed up more during these bits? This would also help the feeling of travelling across a vast distance.
2) The Carriers end up looking strangely flat as the camera passes them, almost two-dimensional. Is anything odd about them? I may be wrong here, so if I am just ignore this comment.
3) I think it would look better if the Carriers were spread out a bit more, and less synchronous/equidistant with each other. Ships this big are not meant for perfect formation flying. Try and break it up a little.
4) Possibility: Add a shot of the Carriers jumping in on the dark side of the moon, flashes of light from the wormhole briefly falling over them, after which they are only deeper shadows moving in the black -- until they crest the moon and sunlight hits them for the first time, revealing them to the player. That would look very intimidating.
Regards,
Winter
-
Okay, reset my scene to proper scale and distance. Here are two of the better renders:
(http://www.scenerysoup.com/soupscenery/files/images/carrier_taskforce.jpg)
(http://www.scenerysoup.com/soupscenery/files/images/moon-pass_1024.jpg)
Critiques are welcome.
I did figure out that the textures on the carrier are light sensitive. They will not show unless there is light shined upon them.
Looks like I am going to have to redo the model and textures so that my renderer can handle it better and I don't have lights all over the place.
Regards,
Sean E
-
BTW: here an link to the carrier psawhn, if you also like to play with rendering.
Willem
Thanks a lot! :) Do you have a version of the texture with the glowing parts isolated? Setting those to be light-emitting (not CPU-sucking radiosity, but just independent of any light sources) would look really cool with realistic dark (or pitch-black) shadows found in space.
Oh, Winter, how partial are you to a sequence that looks more documentary-ish, from a space satellite picking up a flight of carriers jumping into LEO? I was also thinking more along the lines of a BSG-like flash (but different and brighter!) representing a volumetric/spherical wormhole needed to transport larger ships. (I was thinking a capacitor-like buildup would allow the energies needed to open a rift large enough to send the massive carriers through, without needing the immense power requirements that could only be satisfied by the mothership.)
Or maybe I should render one out anyways? :P
-
Sean_E: the carrier is not moving like this - it's moving like in sitters sequences
-
Actually, here's a couple tests just separating the 'loudest' pure red, blue, and green colours from the image using Blender's compositing tools. (Typically used for taking out green screens, but seems to work just as well for this)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v388/Psawhn/UFO-AI/emit_example2.png)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v388/Psawhn/UFO-AI/emit_example1.png)
This is an extreme example - most space scenes have a bit of ambient light, (which might be explained by a nearby planet or moon), plus stars and that :P. Also, the emitting surfaces were very crudely separated. I could try to spend more time, allowing more accurate areas and softer edges (plus things like the red reflections at the top.)
Still, notice the difference in the dark areas of the ship. I can't think of the proper words for whatever it bring to an image, but it does do something positive.
-
Oh, Winter, how partial are you to a sequence that looks more documentary-ish, from a space satellite picking up a flight of carriers jumping into LEO? I was also thinking more along the lines of a BSG-like flash (but different and brighter!) representing a volumetric/spherical wormhole needed to transport larger ships. (I was thinking a capacitor-like buildup would allow the energies needed to open a rift large enough to send the massive carriers through, without needing the immense power requirements that could only be satisfied by the mothership.)
Have a look on the wiki at the research article 'Alien Origins'. If we get to be able to play videos in the UFOpaedia, it would fit perfectly. ;)
We may have to adjust the distances cited in the article to fit, but that's no problem at all.
And having such a video would, I'm sure, convince our coders to implement it . . .
Okay, reset my scene to proper scale and distance. Here are two of the better renders:
Critiques are welcome.
Regards,
Sean E
I think #1 looks far more dramatic than #2, with Earth hovering unsuspecting in the background. Very very nice indeed. I think their position relative to the camera is actually forgiveable in this instance, it probably looks better than simply looking at the engines (although that would be pretty dramatic in its own right . . .). I'm just thinking that we'll be looking mostly at the engines anyway.
Here's an idea that might make a nice render: Camera set close between a pair of Fighters, just behind the engines. The fuselages take up most of the right and left halves of the screen, but in the centre we see a big view of Earth, close by and getting closer . . .
Regards,
Winter
-
Here's an idea that might make a nice render: Camera set close between a pair of Fighters, just behind the engines. The fuselages take up most of the right and left halves of the screen, but in the centre we see a big view of Earth, close by and getting closer . . .
fading out after a few seconds and the UFO: Alien Invasion string appears
-
fading out after a few seconds and the UFO: Alien Invasion string appears
I was thinking of it as a still, but yeah, that could work -- with shakycam if possible. :P
Regards,
Winter
-
I was thinking of it as a still, but yeah, that could work -- with shakycam if possible. :P
I really hate it when people use that. Just have a look at the new BSG series. It's impossible to watch it comfortably because the camera bounces all over the damn place.
-
The approach sequence should start with them exiting the transport portal as Sitters has it (top forward, primary engines pushing). But as they come around the moon they transition to a "guns down" position. I say this because the momentum they will be carrying as they approach will be enough to get them to earth. Plus I think it would be more dramatic to see them go through the transition as they round the moon and earth comes into sight.
Regards,
Sean E
-
Shakeycam works well if it's done well. As much as I love nBSG, and other series that use shakeycam, sometimes it's just too much. It's like they deliberately put the cameraman on a vibrating platform.
What shakeycam tries to emulate is a documentary-style camera, where you only have handheld cameras and no such thing as steadycam, dollys, cranes, etc...
Have a look on the wiki at the research article 'Alien Origins'. If we get to be able to play videos in the UFOpaedia, it would fit perfectly. Wink
We may have to adjust the distances cited in the article to fit, but that's no problem at all.
And having such a video would, I'm sure, convince our coders to implement it . . .
That's where my inspiration came from. :)
-
I really hate it when people use that. Just have a look at the new BSG series. It's impossible to watch it comfortably because the camera bounces all over the damn place.
I love shakycam when it's done well, as seen in Firefly and to a lesser extent nBSG. The wing-mounted shots in Firefly, for example, felt a hundred times more real than the static, clinical and lifeless CG of any Star Trek series (and by extention most sci-fi series in general).
And in this project we wouldn't be happy with it unless it was damned finely done. ;)
The approach sequence should start with them exiting the transport portal as Sitters has it (top forward, primary engines pushing). But as they come around the moon they transition to a "guns down" position. I say this because the momentum they will be carrying as they approach will be enough to get them to earth. Plus I think it would be more dramatic to see them go through the transition as they round the moon and earth comes into sight.
Exactly, that's why the guns are on the 'bottom' of the craft. Now that we're extending the UFO FTL point to the dark side of the moon, then yes, it would be very good to show the Carriers' turnover at some point between the moon and Earth. Would it be possible to show (semi-)realistic acceleration and deceleration during the entire scene, though? *grins*
That's where my inspiration came from. :)
You never mentioned. :P
If you do create an animation for that scene, mind you, it should only be a single Carrier. My suggestions: First a second of flashing in and starting up the engines, then it starts heading off to Earth, and then the video would cut to the Carrier making turnover with Earth approaching in the background.
Regards,
Winter
-
You right winter, there was something wrong with the thickness of the carriers.
Here an improved version, also change some lightning and timing.
http://www.md2.sitters-electronics.nl/render/moon12.xvid.avi
Willem
-
Okay, this is me goofing with some new lens effect settings.....opinions:
(http://www.scenerysoup.com/soupscenery/files/images/Carrier-sunlight.jpg)
Regards,
Sean E
-
You right winter, there was something wrong with the thickness of the carriers.
Here an improved version, also change some lightning and timing.
http://www.md2.sitters-electronics.nl/render/moon12.xvid.avi
Willem
Looks better. Further suggestions of mine would either be too small to bother with, or large additions to the animation (i.e. showing the Carriers 'flashing' in instead of simply appearing from the dark side of the moon).
When making the finished movie, though, is there a way you can make playback less jaggy? To me it views like there just aren't quite enough frames in the movie.
Okay, this is me goofing with some new lens effect settings.....opinions:
I don't think it really works, to be honest with you. The lighting doesn't look like it's in space and although it falls across the Carriers nicely it ends up giving the whole image a slightly washed-out effect.
Regards,
Winter
-
Okay, got home and got on a color balanced system. Here is a new render with a dulled down sun without all the flares and rays.
I think this one works better:
(http://www.scenerysoup.com/soupscenery/files/images/sunlit-approach.jpg)
Critiques and opinions? If this is looking decent I planned on using these settings for animation purposes.
Regards,
Sean E
-
For a shot like that, it would really help if some of the self-lit/emitting parts were actually self-lit. If you had an emit map, would your program allow you to do that? Otherwise, it's definitely improved on the previous image.
Sitters, do you have the emitting parts separated in your source texture files? I've made an emitting matte based on pure colours, but it's inaccurate (see the posted carrier a page or two back).
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v388/Psawhn/UFO-AI/emit_matte.png
-
Looks better. Further suggestions of mine would either be too small to bother with, or large additions to the animation (i.e. showing the Carriers 'flashing' in instead of simply appearing from the dark side of the moon).
When making the finished movie, though, is there a way you can make playback less jaggy? To me it views like there just aren't quite enough frames in the movie.
Regards,
Winter
You right, for an movie there arent enough frames in the movie.
But I do that for reducing the render time.
Its just for looking, if the scene is OK.
I want to make three movie clips, this is the middle on.
I make one the carriers are coming from an worm hole.
And I make one the carriers are going in orbit of the earth, and start the invasion.
Then when all the clips are OK, i make them with normal frame count.
now I have approx 30-40 minutes render time for an clip, then you can multiply it by 5.
But I must also know, what Sean_E and Psawhn are planning for animation, so we dont work on the same thing, and we don't waste time with making the same.
we can better work together for making one movie.
BTW:
Sean_E : looks nice but the carriers are not flying that way, i did make the same mistake in the past.
Psawhn : i have baked an luminance map for the lights, i don't know if you can use that.
Willem
-
I want to make three movie clips, this is the middle on.
I make one the carriers are coming from an worm hole.
And I make one the carriers are going in orbit of the earth, and start the invasion.
I don't think you should tack on another clip in front of this one containing just the Carriers flashing in. It would look a lot more awesome if you modified the current clip so that we see the Carriers flashing in abruptly when the camera turns around to see the dark side of the moon.
Would that be okay or are you dead set against it?
Regards,
Winter
-
i'm currently reencoding with ffmpeg with the current flags:
./ffmpeg -threads 2 -i moon12.xvid.avi -s 1024x512 -minrate 3000000 -maxrate 6000000 -g 1000 -ar 22050 out.roq
-
I don't think you should tack on another clip in front of this one containing just the Carriers flashing in. It would look a lot more awesome if you modified the current clip so that we see the Carriers flashing in abruptly when the camera turns around to see the dark side of the moon.
Would that be okay or are you dead set against it?
Regards,
Winter
No problem , i look if i can make a nice entry for the carriers, i only render then that part.
for look the effect.
Willem
-
Sitters: I did make a render with the engines facing camera, but it felt so.... blah
As for animation pieces. Since you and I (and anyone else) are using different design and rendering engines, it would make sense to only have one person do the animation for consistency purposes. So, I leave it up to the powers that be to make that decision. Of course we can work on separate sequences, but I don't think working on the same would be a good idea.
What rendering engine does C4D use by the way?
Regards,
Sean E
-
Mattn has just confirmed to me that we've now got support for animations in the UFOpaedia, with or without sound. So, gentlemen, we have free rein. ;)
Along with the sequence for Alien Origins (which Psawhn has volunteered for, I think) and the sequence sitters is working on, we also need a sequence that features the Carrier being shot down by a PHALANX-modified space launch gun built into a mountainside. The script goes like this:
The space gun is essentially a massive railgun for launching satellites and stuff, modified by PHALANX to shoot huge rocket-propelled shells into orbit. The Carrier may avoid one or two shots, but should eventually be hit by the gun (resulting in a nuclear explosion of 3 kilotons, the payload of the shell), at which point the Carrier returns fire with its orbital cannons and obliterates the mountain, space gun and all. After this we see the Carrier slowly tumbling down into the atmosphere, gaining loads of heat and speed as gravity takes hold. It will probably break up into pieces at some point during or after entering the atmosphere. The pieces will land spectacularly -- but at least some of these pieces should be intact enough for a tactical mission to be launched at them.
Would anyone be interest in taking on this admittedly complex scene? If so, we can work out a more detailed script together.
Regards,
Winter
-
<raising hand>.....ummmm
What happens to the 3 kiloton shells that miss the UFO? That's a lot of explosive power coming back down to earth? ;D
Regards,
Sean E
-
Wait... did I volunteer? Actually, why not? :D Going at it from the POV of a UFOPedia animation, I can worry less about the more 'realistic' lighting style I plan to use. (Of course, I'll post samples for approval :) ). Essentially, you can't see stars unless the image is overexposed (http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/images/raw/casJPGFullS35/N00098077.jpg - some stars are barely visible, but the planet and moon are overexposed - and that's with what little sunlight gets out to Saturn!)
Sitters: I need a mask that basically determines which parts of the texture are self-illuminating or not, so if the carrier goes into shadow then these parts will still be lit up. I can try to extract it myself, but it's always best to use the source files if you have it.
As for the Carrier mission: I had always thought that the mission was using an antimatter-powered human/alien hybrid transport that tries to sneak onto the ship. Either that, or shoot it down with a squadron of antimatter-powered interception craft.
But antimatter-powered missiles are a good idea, too. Much cheaper, much higher payload, less chance of killing valuable pilots, etc...
In other news, I can't wait until Blender 2.46/2.50 comes out. I've been thinking of doing some dogfighting scenes, and the new particles patch would make that so much better.
-
<raising hand>.....ummmm
What happens to the 3 kiloton shells that miss the UFO? That's a lot of explosive power coming back down to earth? ;D
Regards,
Sean E
They've got enough velocity to go into orbit without even firing their onboard rockets. They're not coming back down to Earth, and if they were threatening to, they'd be remotely detonated.
They might blow another wee crater in the moon or Mars, but nothing serious is likely to happen with them.
As for the Carrier mission: I had always thought that the mission was using an antimatter-powered human/alien hybrid transport that tries to sneak onto the ship. Either that, or shoot it down with a squadron of antimatter-powered interception craft.
No, that's the final mothership mission -- you sneak a team onto the mothership and fight your way through.
But antimatter-powered missiles are a good idea, too. Much cheaper, much higher payload, less chance of killing valuable pilots, etc...
Not antimatter-powered, just ordinary mini-nukes. But yes, essentially a very fast nuclear missile fired from a big railgun.
Regards,
Winter
-
It will probably break up into pieces at some point during or after entering the atmosphere. The pieces will land spectacularly -- but at least some of these pieces should be intact enough for a tactical mission to be launched at them.
I'd like to narrow this down slightly. The part that is going to be the stage for the tactical mission must include the Carrier's FTL drive, as the FTL drive is what this whole shooting down the Carrier thing is about. The FTL drive is located in the center of the ship, inside the round part. Please keep this in mind.
-
Psawhn : The emission map works decently. Here is a small test animation
http://www.scenerysoup.com/soupscenery/files/fast-rotate.avi (http://www.scenerysoup.com/soupscenery/files/fast-rotate.avi)
Would doing rotations like this be good for the UFOpedia?
Regards,
Sean E.
-
I've made a better emission map, after understanding more of Sitter's texture files. (There's one with illuminance baked directly in, and a larger one with only base colours.)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v388/Psawhn/UFO-AI/skin_carier_emit_4096.png
This is about the best I can do to 'recover' the emission source. (Being able to isolate things like these is one reason I have dozens of layers in my source .xcf files.)
But I think these images look much better with self-illuminating bits. ;)
-
Psawhn : The emission map works decently. Here is a small test animation
http://www.scenerysoup.com/soupscenery/files/fast-rotate.avi (http://www.scenerysoup.com/soupscenery/files/fast-rotate.avi)
Would doing rotations like this be good for the UFOpedia?
Regards,
Sean E.
I suppose they would work, but it wouldn't really be any better than the standard controllable 3d display, although more eye-catching and with better shading. I think UFOpaedia clips would have to be something a little more advanced than a simple rotation, perhaps with a display of the Carrier's weapons firing and/or UFOs launching from the Carrier's decks, being highlighted as they come into view of the camera.
In the case of atmosphere-capable UFOs, the animation could contain a rotation followed by a short (probably poor, shaky and grainy) clip of the UFO in question in a dogfight, filmed from the ground or from cameras on board the intercepting plane(s). Sometimes the UFO might get shot down, sometimes the cameraman. ;)
Regards,
Winter
-
For the lights, i have an luminance map.
Here the link maybe you can use it.
http://www.md2.sitters-electronics.nl/render/luminance.jpg
Willem
-
@all: can you please upload the hole source files (again)? or update the existing ones?
-
Yea here an link to the source, but an very big download (50 MB ).
I use very big textures for the animation ( 4096 X 4096 ).
The luminance map I use :
(http://www.md2.sitters-electronics.nl/render/ilum.jpg)
The source :
http://www.md2.sitters-electronics.nl/render/carrier_ani.rar
Willem
-
Hi winter, here an example how they can come in our space.
(http://www.md2.sitters-electronics.nl/render/warp.jpg)
The movie clip :
http://www.md2.sitters-electronics.nl/render/warp1_xvid.avi
Willem
-
Hi winter, here an example how they can come in our space.
(http://www.md2.sitters-electronics.nl/render/warp.jpg)
The movie clip :
http://www.md2.sitters-electronics.nl/render/warp1_xvid.avi
Willem
Would it be possible to speed that up by a lot? We're looking for a sudden flash, not a slow buildup, the effect shouldn't last more than one second. The reason for this is that a quick, high-energy event takes less power than a long, drawn-out one, and the sudden appearance is more dramatic.
Regards,
Winter
-
This is what i can do winter.
http://www.md2.sitters-electronics.nl/render/warp2_xvid.avi
Willem
-
This is what i can do winter.
http://www.md2.sitters-electronics.nl/render/warp2_xvid.avi
Willem
I like that a lot better. Could you incorporate that sort of effect into the big intro?
Regards,
Winter
-
I like that a lot better. Could you incorporate that sort of effect into the big intro?
Regards,
Winter
Yea I am working on the new big intro now. :-).
Willem
-
OK make the final movie ( 3.5 minute ), its containing enough material for
making an intro.
(http://www.md2.sitters-electronics.nl/render/warp3.jpg)
The movie clip :
http://www.md2.sitters-electronics.nl/render/warp3_xvid.avi
Willem
-
very good job - but please also upload the source files ;-)
at least for a short time that i can upload them to svn
-
very good job - but please also upload the source files ;-)
at least for a short time that i can upload them to svn
OK Mattn
Here the complete source :
http://www.md2.sitters-electronics.nl/render/luminance.jpg
http://www.md2.sitters-electronics.nl/render/solarani1.rar
a big download 40MB.
The luminance map, I think you already have.
Willem
-
the solar.jpg - self created, too?
-
the solar.jpg - self created, too?
You main the Sun ?
That's an visible light in cinema4D.
Willem
-
ah sorry, not solar.jpg but space.jpg - http://ufoai.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/ufoai/ufoai/data_source/videos/solar/space.jpg?view=markup
-
ah sorry, not solar.jpg but space.jpg - http://ufoai.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/ufoai/ufoai/data_source/videos/solar/space.jpg?view=markup
Yea use an photo shop tutorial for making, and red-field seamless workshop plug-in.
Its an simple image, not real for our space, but then i must make all star groups ( to much work).
BTW: if you want screenshots, ask me.
I have 6000 renders of this movie, much higher quality then the movie clip.
Willem
-
OK make the final movie ( 3.5 minute ), its containing enough material for
making an intro.
If it's the final movie, I guess my remarks come too late ;) , but here's 2 suggestions to make the movie look more realistic:
1. the day light on earth doesn't seem to come from the sun: the half illuminated part of earth is not pointing toward sun.
The same for the moon: at first it looks like it's OK, but when the moon comes closer you can clearly see that the light source is not the sun (it's too close).
2. I think the night part of the earth shouldn't be really black. I'm not sure how intense the light coming from human cities should be, but I guess we should see it, no ? Like this:
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=1438 (http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=1438)
Sorry for adding new remarks, if they are bothering you, just pretend that you've never read them ;). Your work is already great anyway.
-
If it's the final movie, I guess my remarks come too late ;) , but here's 2 suggestions to make the movie look more realistic:
1. the day light on earth doesn't seem to come from the sun: the half illuminated part of earth is not pointing toward sun.
The same for the moon: at first it looks like it's OK, but when the moon comes closer you can clearly see that the light source is not the sun (it's too close).
2. I think the night part of the earth shouldn't be really black. I'm not sure how intense the light coming from human cities should be, but I guess we should see it, no ? Like this:
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=1438 (http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=1438)
Sorry for adding new remarks, if they are bothering you, just pretend that you've never read them ;). Your work is already great anyway.
Its not necessary the final one, but i cant every time render a new movie by an remark.
because its cost a lot of time to render 6000 frames.
but I like your remark about the lightning of the night part of the earth, i see what i can do.
Willem
-
OK I make an new one, with city lights and better lightning.
Also change the speed of the camera an little bit.
The link :
http://www.md2.sitters-electronics.nl/render/warp4_xvid.avi
Willem
-
I think it's turning out quite nice, Sitters. I also have a suggestion for the next pass. Can you make the Carriers stop over India, rather than Indonesia? That'd fit better with the storyline. Perhaps it's as easy as rotating the Earth a bit so India ends up underneath the place where the carriers stop moving.
-
lightning is very nice now - i really like the city lights - good job
BTAxis are you sure this is really needed? when they enter atmosphere that can't happen straight....
-
Maybe, but as it is they move past India, so they'd have to turn around. Besides, it's about the implication of the UFOs stopping over India. It's something the player can SEE.
-
maybe Destructavator can cut us a nice little intro already? very soft music and just a little soundeffects when the carrier is flying by.
might be cool to get this as roq directly - we can encode this via ffmpeg.
-
Really beautiful lighting on that latest, sitters, the moon in particular feels much more 3d than before.
One thing I noticed -- the carriers are supposed to be appearing on the dark side, in the shadow of the moon, but they appear brightly lit from the start. It doesn't look quite right. Are they appearing in the wrong place?
The way I was imagining it, the Carriers would appear in the darkness, barely visible, and then come around the moon, slowly coming into the light.
Regards,
Winter
PS. The Carriers seem to stop magically without ever slowing down. They should really be making turnover and burning in the direction opposite the one they're moving in, in order to bring their momentum down and come to a stop relative to Earth. The way it is right now we're sure to get lots of complaints from people who know physics. ;)
-
I render an new one they stops now by india.
They are popping out on the dark side of the moon, but you must look where the sun is standing, and the camera.
From the earth its the dark side of the moon.
everything what i use now is real, its the sun of 19 April.
the link :
http://www.md2.sitters-electronics.nl/render/warp5_xvid.avi
for the time being i stop with rendering, I am already all day busy with it.
Willem
-
Actually, Winter, if you want to be "really" accurate with the turnover, it would take several hours to complete the transition from the Moon to the Earth even at 1g acceleration. In an overly simplified calculation, ignoring gravity and orbital velocities, starting and stopping from zero speed, we get these figures for an Earth-Moon transition.
0.3g: 12 hours
0.5g: 9.3 hours
1g: 6.5 hours
2g: 4.6 hours
4g: 3.3 hours
16g: 1.6 hours
200g: 27 minutes
800g: 14 minutes
10000g: 4 minutes
Sitters' animation falls under the 4-minutes category, but I doubt even the incredible antimatter drives can pump out the bone-liquefying acceleration of 98100m/s^2 ;).
Of course, the best way to present these would be to cut between different shots of the carriers at different points of their travel. :)
And in other news: I'm somewhat an idiot. For the simple shot of a space telescope observing a Carrier's in-jump, I had it all set up with planetary atmospheres and overexposure and stuff, wasting time without actually getting any important bits of the animation done. /Thwack Self
-
Actually, Winter, if you want to be "really" accurate with the turnover, it would take several hours to complete the transition from the Moon to the Earth even at 1g acceleration. In an overly simplified calculation, ignoring gravity and orbital velocities, starting and stopping from zero speed, we get these figures for an Earth-Moon transition.
Oh, I know. I think of the animation as using time-compression (at least in places), as I wouldn't want the intro to go on for hours. :P
Of course, the best way to present these would be to cut between different shots of the carriers at different points of their travel. :)
Agreed, that's what I'd prefer, but sitters is making the vid, not I. No vid-making skills here.
And in other news: I'm somewhat an idiot. For the simple shot of a space telescope observing a Carrier's in-jump, I had it all set up with planetary atmospheres and overexposure and stuff, wasting time without actually getting any important bits of the animation done. /Thwack Self
Well, you're not on a time limit. Just try not to let yourself get too carried away. ;)
Regards,
Winter
-
Actually, cutting the video up into several shots would also cut down on rendering times. You'd only have to re-render parts of animation, and the overall length could also be cut down. I also render to multiple image files - sometimes you'd only have to re-render a matter of frames.
Oh, I'll also plug Blender's sequence editor here for vid-making from existing video/image files. It's capable, plus the only thing it costs is a bit of time to learn. ;)
And the thing's rendering right now. It'll be done in the morning and if it (hopefully! :-\) looks okay I'll post an xvid of it. A lot of the effects I've wasted time on worked on won't be in the video, namely Earth (plus its atmosphere) and post-processed overexposure.
But it does include shakeycam as applied to a gyroscopically-controlled orbiting telescope. :)
Edit: Done
Here's the initial draft. https://webdisk.ucalgary.ca/~djetowns/public_html/misc_files/UFO_AI/final_anim10001_0325.avi
There are a few things I'd want to fix. One of the biggest is that the shot passes in front of the moon, but I forgot to turn the moon on. (Oops). I could probably extend the shot of the engines burning for several seconds. I also think the pace is much too fast. And I also meant to have an initial movement of the camera (search mode.)
-
Actually, cutting the video up into several shots would also cut down on rendering times. You'd only have to re-render parts of animation, and the overall length could also be cut down. I also render to multiple image files - sometimes you'd only have to re-render a matter of frames.
Oh, I'll also plug Blender's sequence editor here for vid-making from existing video/image files. It's capable, plus the only thing it costs is a bit of time to learn. ;)
And the thing's rendering right now. It'll be done in the morning and if it (hopefully! :-\) looks okay I'll post an xvid of it. A lot of the effects I've wasted time on worked on won't be in the video, namely Earth (plus its atmosphere) and post-processed overexposure.
But it does include shakeycam as applied to a gyroscopically-controlled orbiting telescope. :)
Edit: Done
Here's the initial draft. https://webdisk.ucalgary.ca/~djetowns/public_html/misc_files/UFO_AI/final_anim10001_0325.avi
There are a few things I'd want to fix. One of the biggest is that the shot passes in front of the moon, but I forgot to turn the moon on. (Oops). I could probably extend the shot of the engines burning for several seconds. I also think the pace is much too fast. And I also meant to have an initial movement of the camera (search mode.)
To be honest with you, it looks a bit weird currently -- images captured by a space telescope being in that resolution, especially at that range, and the telescope moving to track the UFO?
What I'd prefer to see rather than a 'search mode' opening is the same clip, first played at a very large distance at a stupidly wide-angled resolution (featuring both Earth in the corner and the moon, and maybe Mars in the background somewhere) so the Carrier is only a small coloured blob in the distance. Then the clip restarts with a blinky zooming-in box over the place where the Carrier arrives, and then it plays out as it does now. This would be (in my humble opinion) more visually impressive, more representative of the power of a 2084-era space telescope, and makes the slow camera a part of the zooming-in effect and therefore more plausible.
One last comment: blue propellant exhaust doesn't really fit the Carrier, as we've used green exhaust everywhere else, and the really long exhaust trail doesn't match up with the other images of the Carrier so far. A trail that long implies ridiculously high acceleration when this thing should ideally come across as a slow, lumbering beast among UFOs.
Regards,
Winter
-
I agree with you that it seems off. I figured it had an onboard computer set to focus on and track anything not predicted in the database. I figured it was that or have the carrier be only several dozen pixels large - though that might work neat with artificial zooming showing a grainy picture.
I never would have thought of splitting up the shot into two passes - that should work really well.
Technically, a long exhaust trail means high efficiency, rather than high thrust, but I see what you mean. I've toned it down, and changed the colour to whitish-green. I don't like the idea of the carrier riding on a soft, fluffy green cushion, though, so I'll try to find a balance.
Edit: Okay, rendered out.
https://webdisk.ucalgary.ca/~djetowns/public_html/misc_files/UFO_AI/MIMIR_Jump_Final30001_0850.avi
It's fun when you set something to render overnight, then when you get back you immediately see several things wrong with it. ::)
-Stars don't move properly for the second 'zoomed in' pass. This is because I used a different method of tracking for the second 'zoomed in' camera. I had to use two cameras because Blender doesn't allow cameras to zoom in far enough.
This is why the carrier's movement seems so erratic - it's actually moving properly, but the stars in the background are what's moving erratically. :-\
-You can barely see anything of the carrier in the first pass. The two ways to fix it are either to zoom in (thus clipping off the Earth to the left) or to move the carrier closer to the Earth.
-The Earth is pure white. For some reason, whenever the camera isn't looking directly at the Earth the atmosphere turns really really bright. I can pan the camera out from the Earth to show that there actually is stuff beneath (and the thing actually orbits the Earth, too), or try to reduce the glare, or just leave it as it is as a stylistic choice showing overexposure. (The Hubble telescope doesn't point anywhere near the Earth, Moon, or Sun to avoid damaging its optics.)
I also haven't added the post-pro zooming effect yet, either. These are just the 'raw' passes (plus compositor post-pro for effects).
-
https://webdisk.ucalgary.ca/~djetowns/public_html/misc_files/UFO_AI/MIMIR_Jump_Final30001_0850.avi
It's fun when you set something to render overnight, then when you get back you immediately see several things wrong with it. ::)
-Stars don't move properly for the second 'zoomed in' pass. This is because I used a different method of tracking for the second 'zoomed in' camera. I had to use two cameras because Blender doesn't allow cameras to zoom in far enough.
This is why the carrier's movement seems so erratic - it's actually moving properly, but the stars in the background are what's moving erratically. :-\
-You can barely see anything of the carrier in the first pass. The two ways to fix it are either to zoom in (thus clipping off the Earth to the left) or to move the carrier closer to the Earth.
-The Earth is pure white. For some reason, whenever the camera isn't looking directly at the Earth the atmosphere turns really really bright. I can pan the camera out from the Earth to show that there actually is stuff beneath (and the thing actually orbits the Earth, too), or try to reduce the glare, or just leave it as it is as a stylistic choice showing overexposure. (The Hubble telescope doesn't point anywhere near the Earth, Moon, or Sun to avoid damaging its optics.)
I also haven't added the post-pro zooming effect yet, either. These are just the 'raw' passes (plus compositor post-pro for effects).
My comments:
The original shot is just too far away, we should be able to see more than one pixel moving at all times. Move it slightly closer to the Earth, I'm thinking. It might also be good if it moves in front of the moon. Then we can see something's going on.
It's very close to perfect, just needs a little more work.
Regards,
Winter
-
Working on an new movie.
Now have an beautifull earth with atmosphere etc. etc.
And very hires textures.
Willem
BTW : psawhn, if we are making the same, i stop with it.
I dont going to waste time for nothing.
-
BTW : psawhn, if we are making the same, i stop with it.
I dont going to waste time for nothing.
Whah? What Psawhn is making isn't anything like what you're doing. It's a completely different vid for an entirely different purpose. You're doing the game intro, he's doing a UFOpaedia article.
Regards,
Winter
-
Whah? What Psawhn is making isn't anything like what you're doing. It's a completely different vid for an entirely different purpose. You're doing the game intro, he's doing a UFOpaedia article.
Regards,
Winter
That's what I am asking, if it is for different purposes then the subject cant be the same.
If so then on of us is waste his time.
you cant mix the two videos because they are make, by different rendering software, and when you mix it
by video montage its going to look like shit.
So i like to know what videos are need for the game, then we can split the tasks.
The video Psawhn is making, can also being extracted from the intro, for a UFOpaedia article.
So there must be come an script, of video clips that can be used for video montage,
and can be Used for different purposes in the game.
Also still rendered pictures.
You say in the past this is not an Democratic, then you must also organize the stuff people.
So the work can be done effectively,
and not collect everything in one big container and look afterwards what you can use or not.
Regards
Willem
-
you cant mix the two videos because they are make, by different rendering software, and when you mix it
by video montage its going to look like shit.
So i like to know what videos are need for the game, then we can split the tasks.
The video Psawhn is making, can also being extracted from the intro, for a UFOpaedia article.
Not quite. Psawhn's video is *supposed* to look very different.
Your video, the intro, is supposed to be something impressive: the aliens coming to Earth. It kickstarts the game into the right atmosphere. What Psawhn is making is a video feed from an Earth satellite, for use in the UFOPaedia. The aim of that video is not to impress (well, it is, but in a completely different way), but to convey the sense of realism. What he's making can't be extracted from what you're making, and vice versa.
I assure you, neither of you is wasting their time.
-
Not quite. Psawhn's video is *supposed* to look very different.
Your video, the intro, is supposed to be something impressive: the aliens coming to Earth. It kickstarts the game into the right atmosphere. What Psawhn is making is a video feed from an Earth satellite, for use in the UFOPaedia. The aim of that video is not to impress (well, it is, but in a completely different way), but to convey the sense of realism. What he's making can't be extracted from what you're making, and vice versa.
I assure you, neither of you is wasting their time.
Then it is OK.
It's a pity when Psawhn or I put a lot of energy in it, and its not used.
Because it cost a amount of time to render video clips.
Models or still renders are easy to adapt, but video clips must most of the time totally being re-rendered.
Willem
-
(From another thread):
Btw. did you have the time to look into the intro sequence?
I apologize - I'm a student in college as well as the other work I do, I just finished up finals yesterday so I was out of the loop for a while; I haven't checked this forum for several days (things got crazy with studying, etc.) so I had to read through the posts and need to catch up. The good news is that I'm now off on break and should have more spare time than usual to work on side projects, including contributing to this game.
Regarding the intro, is the latest rendered file the one titled "warp5_xvid.avi" and was there anything in particular that was agreed needed to be done with it? Sorry, I'm still catching up reading through the posts...
From what I see in the warp5 file, I could add FX, a soundtrack, and if desired, the clip I posted before to the end of it.
(Since this is off-topic, I'll also post this in the other thread so the others don't miss it.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BTW, the warp5_xvid file looks pretty good, I think.
For a soundtrack, is there any particular one from the existing music tracks in the project that everyone would think be good with this?
FYI - I noticed that the AVI is about 3 min and 20 sec long, although I have software that can easily stretch/compress both audio and video to sync, and I can also add to one of the shorter soundtracks by creating some introductory sounds before music comes in. Or, I could try to just come up with a totally new soundtrack to go with this (If it's the final render).
EDIT: Just to make sure I'm on the same page now, this is the intro sequence, right? (Or did I get confused?)
-
yes, this is the intro sequence - about the music - use one of the tracks or mix different tracks. please don't use any other track (or it must be cc'ed, too)
-
From what I see in the warp5 file, I could add FX, a soundtrack, and if desired, the clip I posted before to the end of it.
Just so you know, we don't really want to hear sound effects in space, what with there being no sound in space. We would much prefer a soundtrack for the video that highlights the important events through music.
Regards,
Winter
-
Just so you know, we don't really want to hear sound effects in space, what with there being no sound in space. We would much prefer a soundtrack for the video that highlights the important events through music.
That's a good point, and I'll keep it in mind. I've seen lots of science fiction movies and TV shows that break this rule (and other laws of science), but I agree, I think it is best to stay away from "bad science" as it is sometimes called.
I'll get to work on it...
-
OK, I now have the first proposed version put together, I used two different existing tracks from the project and added a quick FX at the very beginning to create the feel of looking at a video feed or something in space, and the game title clip at the end with a couple of transition FX.
If people decide they don't like the FX at the very start, just let me know and I will edit it back out.
Don't be afraid to tell me what other parts you do or don't like.
Now it is just going to take some time to upload (a little over an hour from this post) as the rendered video is about 110 MB. The format is Xvid, 720x480, with the audio in WAV PCM at 16-bits, stereo, 44Kz.
(When converted into the format used by the game, I'd expect it to end up being smaller.)
www.destructavator.com/public/UFOAI_IntroAnim_1a.avi
Please be patient while it uploads...
(Wait an hour from this post!)
-
Almost there, about 5 min...
...done!
Okay, you may now feel free to grab it from the link and blast me with criticism...
-
a small note: the video dimensions must be power of two - so 512x512 or 1024x512 - otherwise it would be scaled when converting into roq
-
Not a problem - I should be able to re-render it in such a way easily.
How does it look otherwise? Before uploading a second version, should I make any other changes?
-
i think the time until we reached the moon is too long, we need a 'plopp' sound when the carriers arrive - and the music is not scary enough imo - i like the music when the carriers are moving towards earth. except that i like it
-
Actually, we aren't going to have sound effect in this movie at all.
-
Not a problem - I should be able to re-render it in such a way easily.
How does it look otherwise? Before uploading a second version, should I make any other changes?
Comments on the music:
1. Like mattn said, we need a brief musical sting to highlight the Carriers jumping in. Cymbals would be my suggestion, going something like "rat-tat-tat-tat-TAH", with the ending beat just as the Carriers resolve. Of course, if you think of something better than that, I'll be happy to listen to it.
2. The middle section, after the carriers jump in, feels out of place. We've got this lovely atmospheric opening, very electronic, taking us to the mid-clip climax of the Carriers, but then it drops away and actually intersects badly with the middle section opening. There's a second or two when both are running at once, and it doesn't sound good.
The middle section music starts out far too soft and never really gets the volume it needs to be impressive, the fade-in is far too long, and the style is too different to mesh well coming straight from the opening. We need either an interlude to lead us into the middle section or a less clashing middle section track, whichever suits you better. I also think the middle section fade-in should start the moment we see the wormholes opening and come to full volume quite rapidly, as it needs to highlight the drama and action of what's happening on-screen for those few seconds, before fading back down to being menacing as the video takes its time again.
Essentially, right now the middle section is a bit of an anticlimax to the great build-up of the opening track.
3. Not music-related, but there's a single corrupt video frame at the beginning of your logo clip.
4. A musical highlight of the logo's appearance would not go amiss. At least some change in the music would be warranted, as things are now happening on the screen. We shouldn't just let the slow menacing stuff meant for the slow menacing sections continue.
Regards,
Winter
-
OK, these are all good points, thanks for the feedback.
1. Like mattn said, we need a brief musical sting to highlight the Carriers jumping in. Cymbals would be my suggestion, going something like "rat-tat-tat-tat-TAH", with the ending beat just as the Carriers resolve. Of course, if you think of something better than that, I'll be happy to listen to it.
That's a nice idea, I'll try that with my DAW w/ EZ-Drummer and see what I can come up with.
2. The middle section, after the carriers jump in, feels out of place. We've got this lovely atmospheric opening, very electronic, taking us to the mid-clip climax of the Carriers, but then it drops away and actually intersects badly with the middle section opening. There's a second or two when both are running at once, and it doesn't sound good.
This shouldn't be too hard to fix, I'll take care of it...
3. Not music-related, but there's a single corrupt video frame at the beginning of your logo clip.
Now that I look back at it myself, I see this too - I'll take care of that as well.
4. A musical highlight of the logo's appearance would not go amiss. At least some change in the music would be warranted, as things are now happening on the screen. We shouldn't just let the slow menacing stuff meant for the slow menacing sections continue.
Noted, and on my personal TODO list now.
OK, I'll get to work on this today and this weekend, in the meantime, since I'll be adding some original music content, which CC license would fit the best?
-
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 or Creative Commons Sampling Plus 1.0
-
Okay, here is a "rough draft:"
www.destructavator.com/public/UFOAI_IntroAnim_1b.avi
If desired, I can develop it a little further:
- I can add some additional sounds to the track so it isn't quite so monotonous or repetitive
- Some of the fade in/outs of certain parts I'm a little unsure of
- I could add some reverb effects to the toms, it might sound a little better that way, or a delay effect
- I could do something a little different for when the alien ships appear (now that I look back at it, I see I forgot to add a little intro right *before* they appear like Winter suggested, but I've already uploaded the thing)
On the other hand, if people here think that something completely different for a second audio track would work better, I can scrap this one and try something else.
I also tried to render it in 512x512 as Mattn mentioned, although it didn't come out right, it may have to be scaled anyways (The clip I got from what sitters posted was I think in 720x480). This rough draft is in the same format (audio and video) as the previous version.
So should I develop this further or try something else?
EDIT: I did a little research on ROQ files and found that 512 by 384 is a common format for ROQ, I should be able to render the next version in this format without too many problems.
-
Okay, here is a "rough draft:"
If desired, I can develop it a little further:
- I can add some additional sounds to the track so it isn't quite so monotonous or repetitive
- Some of the fade in/outs of certain parts I'm a little unsure of
- I could add some reverb effects to the toms, it might sound a little better that way, or a delay effect
- I could do something a little different for when the alien ships appear (now that I look back at it, I see I forgot to add a little intro right *before* they appear like Winter suggested, but I've already uploaded the thing)
I like where this is going. As you said, it still needs a bit of attention, but I'm already quite impressed with it.
The part between the moon and Earth drags a bit, and seems too fast for what's happening on the screen. A slow-down would be nice, and then slowly speed it back up when the Carriers actually reach Earth. It would also be nice if the Carriers actually did something when they reach Earth. Lights firing/blinking on top, launching little green lights (UFOs) at the surface, that sort of thing. I don't know if you can do it or if it's up to sitters, but visually that section is a bit empty.
The aforementioned little lead-up to the Carriers' appearance would be a good addition as well.
The transition to and music on the title clip are great, thumbs up.
Regards,
Winter
-
I might be able to make it look like the carriers are doing something when they reach the Earth, as you said, I'll see what my video software can do. If not, there is an alternative so that sitters won't have to re-render the whole video that was created: If I had additional video clips, just short ones that show close-ups of the carriers, or aliens inside the craft cockpit, I can add layers to the video in my non-linear editor and the final result would look like a movie where the camera jumps from different views.
I can also grab and zoom on sections of the existing video to simulate closeups, but it might not look quite as neat.
My video editing software also includes chroma key FX, so I can add small things into the video in layers (like small ships leaving the carriers, and sitters would not have to re-render the entire thing again).
The fine-tuning of the soundtrack as you suggested should be no problem.
I'll work on the soundtrack first, while people here decide about the video content.
-
Okay, I've done some more work on the soundtrack, I think it plays a little better now, and I've made a few changes.
This one's 512x384, so it's a little smaller in size and therefore should take less time to upload - It actually only takes a few minutes for my computer to render video as it's fairly new, but my upload speed from my DSL connection just isn't too great.
It's about 80MB in size, so please be patient for about 45 min while I get it up there...
Okay, done!
www.destructavator.com/public/UFOAI_IntroAnim_1c.avi
Is this one any better?
-
Okay, I've done some more work on the soundtrack, I think it plays a little better now, and I've made a few changes.
This one's 512x384, so it's a little smaller in size and therefore should take less time to upload - It actually only takes a few minutes for my computer to render video as it's fairly new, but my upload speed from my DSL connection just isn't too great.
It's about 80MB in size, so please be patient for about 45 min while I get it up there...
Okay, done!
www.destructavator.com/public/UFOAI_IntroAnim_1c.avi
Is this one any better?
Very nice, I like it. :-)
Its for me easy to re-render parts of the animation and create more material to work with.
So if you nee some, let me know.
Willem
-
I looked into what my video editing software can do, and unfortunately it is a little limited in creating animations like Blender or other modeling software, so it would be difficult for me to make it look like the carriers are doing more when they reach Earth without additional video content to add in or work with; the software I have is really geared more toward editing movies, cutting and joining video clips, adding transitions and FX, etc. (I actually have Blender and a few other free progs. like it installed on my Kubuntu partition, I just don't know how to use them.)
Before making any new video clips, I'd wait to see what Winter, Mattn, and the others think of this latest intro video, although I have a few ideas for additional, short clips (no longer than a few seconds) that the intro could jump to and then back to the main video:
- A shot of an alien hand pushing buttons/controls on a console with a display screen showing a picture of the approaching Earth (A view from inside one of the alien ships, in other words)
- A close-up shot of a single carrier opening its doors to deploy some ships toward the Earth
- A brief view of an alien face (mostly just the eyes) as an alien inside one of the ships stares at the instruments and controls in front of them and the Earth on their display screen.
There are, of course, many other possible shots that would look good, these are just off the top of my head - I will say that if the final intro had more than just the same camera view continuously, it would make the intro movie look a lot more interesting.
I would only need such additional short clips by themselves, the software I have could easily insert them intro the main video track and there would be no need to re-create the main video clip.
-
Yea I know, I work myself with adobe premiere pro, for montage and creating home videos.
We will waiting for the comment and then i can make more scenes, you can mix.
Willem
-
Before making any new video clips, I'd wait to see what Winter, Mattn, and the others think of this latest intro video
I think it's brilliant, practically done. The music now fits very well. However, we should definitely try to splice in some more short clips during the dragging bits, like what you suggested.
I have a few ideas for additional, short clips (no longer than a few seconds) that the intro could jump to and then back to the main video:
- A shot of an alien hand pushing buttons/controls on a console with a display screen showing a picture of the approaching Earth (A view from inside one of the alien ships, in other words)
- A close-up shot of a single carrier opening its doors to deploy some ships toward the Earth
- A brief view of an alien face (mostly just the eyes) as an alien inside one of the ships stares at the instruments and controls in front of them and the Earth on their display screen.
There are, of course, many other possible shots that would look good, these are just off the top of my head - I will say that if the final intro had more than just the same camera view continuously, it would make the intro movie look a lot more interesting.
All of these are solid ideas, and I'd certainly like to see at least some of them in the vid. Another possibility would be my earlier suggestion, a shakycam shot between two UFOs gradually entering the atmosphere, with sound effects slowly fading in as the atmosphere around the UFOs/camera becomes more dense.
Regards,
Winter
-
I had a thought for a couple of cuts that may or may not work. These cuts are to Earth rather than to the aliens.
- A large dark room on Earth, with a large display in the background. The display shows a wireframe Earth and four red blinking dots. Warnings flashing on and off here and there, people running to and fro.
- A PHALANX base hangar, its roof opening up and a Stiletto interceptor appearing from within as the lift raises it up. The Stiletto lifts off and disappears towards the horizon.
Also, I imagined these cuts to be smaller than the rest of the movie, displayed in a corner or to the side, so you never really lose track of the Carriers as they move in on Earth.
-
Sitters, I forgot to mention this before:
Before you start putting together more short clips, would it be possible for you to render them in a lossless codec instead of lossy Xvid, to make the editing easier?
My personal favorite that my software can work with is one called Lagarith - it's open-source, clean, and it is at:
http://lags.leetcode.net/codec.html
I can also edit Huffyuv files (I think, I might have to double-check).
EDIT: BTW, the final result will still be in Xvid like the last versions, until the final version of the intro is made, which will be in ROQ (unless anyone has any objections).
-
Sitters, I forgot to mention this before:
Before you start putting together more short clips, would it be possible for you to render them in a lossless codec instead of lossy Xvid, to make the editing easier?
My personal favorite that my software can work with is one called Lagarith - it's open-source, clean, and it is at:
http://lags.leetcode.net/codec.html
I can also edit Huffyuv files (I think, I might have to double-check).
EDIT: BTW, the final result will still be in Xvid like the last versions, until the final version of the intro is made, which will be in ROQ (unless anyone has any objections).
No problem for me, I have installed the codec ( works fine ).
Willem
-
Until some of us who post here regularly get back from whatever holiday vacation they're on, I'll see if I can record some game sessions for a new promo trailer - the old one for 2.1 (that ended up on YouTube) seems a bit dated now (as well as the 2.1 version).
As for the intro animation, as soon as some of the short clips mentioned in the last few posts are put together, I will gladly work on integrating them to complete the game introduction.
Speaking of the game intro, can anyone tell me where I can get an up-to-date ROQ converter/maker? I have the free one that is old, from 2003 or something, and I know there are more current ones, but when I look them up I find that every site that has a download for one asks for registration on their site.
...And by the way, happy holidays!
-
Happy holidays everybody. ;D
Mattn, can you export the .bip character animation file to .bvh format ?
I can import the .bvh format in cinema 4D for animating characters.
makes life much easier for making movie clips.
Willem
-
i will try to - but right now i can't
i've exported a fbx file, can you import that one, too? you can find it at http://mattn.ninex.info/download/soldier.fbx
-
i will try to - but right now i can't
i've exported a fbx file, can you import that one, too? you can find it at http://mattn.ninex.info/download/soldier.fbx
Thanks Mattn,
I can import the file without any problem.
Now I can easily bind the skeleton to any character.
Willem
-
Speaking of the game intro, can anyone tell me where I can get an up-to-date ROQ converter/maker? I have the free one that is old, from 2003 or something, and I know there are more current ones, but when I look them up I find that every site that has a download for one asks for registration on their site.
Sorry for repeating myself, but does anyone happen to have any info that could help me with this? I attempted to use the old ROQ Quake video maker to convert test files, but it keeps locking up, crashing, or making a blank video with only blackness. I tried various combinations of codecs, resolution dimensions, and framerates.
Also, in the interest of getting 2.2 out the door quicker (as 2.3 is underway and 2.1 is rather outdated), should we use the latest version in this thread temporarily (for 2.2) until the additional short clips are made and integrated, and save the next video version for 2.3? I say this because I've noticed some newcomers who don't know about 2.2 and grab the old 2.1 version because that is what is still available from sourceforge. Sorry if I sound pushy or impatient, but what does everyone else think?
Also, next week Spring classes where I attend start, so it will become more difficult to set aside spare time for UFO: AI and other things (regarding myself).
-
i've added some links and info to our wiki: http://ufoai.ninex.info/wiki/index.php/Artwork
if you find other encoders, or have other information, please add them
-
I finally got switchblade to work, although it took two hours to convert the latest intro vid I made into an ROQ, and I didn't use the best settings - If the most recent version I posted in this thread would work for the 2.2 release, I can try to re-render it on my other computer overnight and upload the ROQ early Saturday morning. (I hope it wouldn't be too late...)
When sitters has time to make the short clips, I could then work later on building an intro for the 2.3 release.
Does this sound like a good plan?
EDIT: If the most recent intro vid is workable for 2.2, anyone else who can get switchblade (or any other ROQ encoder) to work is welcome to grab it from the last link I posted (It should still be up there) and make the ROQ them self if they can do it sooner.
-
i have to say that it's already too late - sorry. but i will of course offer the roq file for download, too
and it will definitly go into 2.2.1 (which will be a patch release)
-
OK, not a big deal.
On the positive side, it gives me more time to polish it.