Modelling claims

Model, texture and sound development of P:C
Post Reply
User avatar
worsas
Project Administrator
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 1:23 am

Modelling claims

Post by worsas » Sun Jan 25, 2015 12:05 pm

Should I turn the work that has been done on chapel windows and imperial cult garment into modelling claims on this new forum? Should I turn the new minotaur being made by Ald Ma Cyrod into a modelling claim?

Are there any particular pieces of concept art by Saint_Jiub or Ald Ma Cyrod you would like to see turned into modelling claims?

I've liked this particular one from the previous forum, but it was not transferred to the new forum. So I don't know if it is desired anymore.
http://postimg.org/image/aowxhh9f9/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Ald-Ma' Cyrod
PT Modder
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2015 2:13 pm

Post by Ald-Ma' Cyrod » Sun Jan 25, 2015 3:56 pm

id prefer to just model the minotaur and pass it over to project leads when its ready to be put into pc data. it needs animating also which will be done after 9th of feb, making it a claim adds a bit of pressure and I like working on this stuff to relax and during downtime. course if others think it should be a claim, can go ahead

I like most of jiubs stuff and think everything he has under clothing/armor and fauna should be a claim if it isn't already. I think my stuff tends to be more flavour oriented; I imply a lot of details and that can be aggravating for modellers. the raga you linked looks okay but I would make a note that they should change the bright purple cape and look to regaurd (the game) for clothing colors
"Weird is relative." - S'Rathra

User avatar
SamirA
Lead Dev
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 10:53 pm

Post by SamirA » Sun Jan 25, 2015 4:52 pm

It being a claim just makes it easier to keep up with, no added pressure. I also agree that most of Jiub's stuff should be claims though we need to work out names of fauna. Those items can really be great additions, we need more unique fauna/enemies.

User avatar
worsas
Project Administrator
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 1:23 am

Post by worsas » Sun Jan 25, 2015 6:00 pm

The claims are mostly just there to have an official place where the implementation of something happens. More of an overview thing. But I agree that the claims tend to radiate the feeling of big commitment and that there is an inhibition threshold involved in taking claims. That is one my of my main critizisms about the claiming system. I have actually been asking the people at SHOTN if we should even retain the claiming system, at all.

I'm fine with you or anyone keeping modelling development at the side in the asset subforum. I'll keep using modelling claims for myself, though.

User avatar
SamirA
Lead Dev
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 10:53 pm

Post by SamirA » Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:35 pm

If you don't have a claim system then how are things to be tracked? Perhaps in the model area it isn't necessary, but for ints and exts it is absolutely needed.

User avatar
Infragris
Project Administrator
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 7:51 pm

Post by Infragris » Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:46 pm

I am fine with turning these things into actual claims. I like the idea of keeping my modelling work informal, but that might turn out to be counterproductive in the long run. On the other hand, i think there should be place for people to have their "modelling workshops" which don't automatically get pulled apart for claims, if you know what I mean.

User avatar
worsas
Project Administrator
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 1:23 am

Post by worsas » Tue Jun 02, 2015 7:36 pm

While testing the welkynd spirit in that ayleid ruin interior, I noticed that our current cave pieces are anything but a pleasure to ones eye. I think it would make sense to break with the SHOTN-tradition of assigning the general rock texture of the region to the cave tiles. Also the cave doorways need some love.

I think it would be better to use something like sandy mold/dirt with little stone pieces instead of solid rock. What do you think?

User avatar
Infragris
Project Administrator
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 7:51 pm

Post by Infragris » Tue Jun 02, 2015 11:37 pm

sounds good go wild

User avatar
roerich
Cruel Warlord
Posts: 1722
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2015 3:10 pm
Location: Denmark

Post by roerich » Wed Jun 03, 2015 5:51 am

I think more cave variations (your suggestion sounds awesome) would be great, but we shouldn't remove the rock one completely. Or we could have a mix of sorts. I've used both int and terrain rock pieces in a lot of my cave ints.

User avatar
worsas
Project Administrator
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 1:23 am

Post by worsas » Wed Jun 03, 2015 7:51 am

I've used both int and terrain rock pieces in a lot of my cave ints.
I would only retex the corridors, not the rocks, so the mixed usage would not result in major inconsistencies. At the moment the cave pieces are very ugly and I would like to see them significantly improved.

User avatar
roerich
Cruel Warlord
Posts: 1722
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2015 3:10 pm
Location: Denmark

Post by roerich » Wed Jun 03, 2015 9:16 am

Oh. :D In that case, I'm 100% behind you!

Post Reply

Return to “P:C Asset Development”