Mirage 2000C

[bazze]

Hi all,
here's a plane I've been working on for the last couple of weeks - a French Mirage 2000C

Box modeling using Cinema4D, approx 25'000 polys.

Hope you like it.

/anders

[peter]

This looks great!!!

[krazycolin]

Nicely done.

[cobra6]

The second is a nice one for a wallpaper if you dont mind :)

Cobra 6

[bzhyoyo]

Weathering is a bit heavy but otherwise looks very nice. :)

[kevjon]

Been following your very quick progress over at cg talk. Another nice plane and render Bazze, well done !

[Martocticvs]

To me it looks superb! Nicely done

[decoman]

Looks really nice i think.

Edit: Hehe, at first i thought the flare dispensers at the rear were missing but now i see that some aircraft does not have them.

Btw, i want to recommend the movie "Sky fighters/Les Chevaliers du ciel" from 2005, which is starring the Mirage 2000 fighters and i believe the movie has really nice footage.

IMDB.com (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0421974/)

[Danoku]

Awsome as always Anders,

[digiartist]

very nice looking Mirage!

[bazze]

thanks for your comments.
Here's a wip that I think looks kind of funky... it is the model textured with the blueprints :)

http://www.colacola.se/pix/mirage_wip/mirage_wip_061101.jpg

[kevjon]

Looks like a card model...does look kinda cool though.

[Mirko]

Great stuff bazze!
Very nice the light of the first reder!

[Lukem]

Another great aviation image sir!

[franken_johan]

Very nice aircraft but you should reduce the weathering. I have seen many 2000C models and they always look very clean and shiny.

[Skyraider3D]

The render is very nice, Bazze, but again the model is full of inaccurate shapes. I am not a modern jet expert, but it's very clear to me the nose is off. The fairing behind the canopy is wrong too. It's hollow behind the cockpit while on the real thing it's straight. This also causes the canopy to be off and the windshield unnaturally blends into the nose. The nose cone lacks any curvature and this even shows as a mismatch on your blueprint projection image (and don't rely on drawings alone, they're usually inaccurate). The air intakes are a bit too small as well and the refueling boom is too thin as is the shape above the exhaust. The tip of the tailfin is too curved as well, the rear of the tip being straight on the real thing.

I so wish you would spend a bit more time on getting the shapes more accurate. Every model you produce looks top notch from an artistic perspective, but rather poor from a technical/precision point of view. It's a real pity and it's somewhat frustrating to watch you crank out one model after another that just fails to convince. Perhaps I am being picky, being a plane geek and all, but what's the point of creating a realistic object that doesn't look real? It's a bit the same as creating a character with the nose in the wrong place, just not as obvious as most people aren't too familiar with the shapes of an aircraft as they don't see them all day.

[kiwi123]

I for one love your render, it looks great ! Well done Bazze.

[Skyraider3D]

I for one love your render, it looks great !
Definitely, the render is great. Just the model needs a lot of tweaking to be convincing.

[krazycolin]

me too... i like it as well...

[bazze]

Howdy!


The second is a nice one for a wallpaper if you dont mind :)

Cobra 6

A 1280*1024 render is available here:
http://www.colacola.se/pix/wallpaper_mirage.jpg



The render is very nice, Bazze, but again the model is full of inaccurate shapes. I am not a modern jet expert, but it's very clear to me the nose is off. The fairing behind the canopy is wrong too. It's hollow behind the cockpit while on the real thing it's straight. This also causes the canopy to be off and the windshield unnaturally blends into the nose. The nose cone lacks any curvature and this even shows as a mismatch on your blueprint projection image (and don't rely on drawings alone, they're usually inaccurate). The air intakes are a bit too small as well and the refueling boom is too thin as is the shape above the exhaust. The tip of the tailfin is too curved as well, the rear of the tip being straight on the real thing.

I so wish you would spend a bit more time on getting the shapes more accurate. Every model you produce looks top notch from an artistic perspective, but rather poor from a technical/precision point of view. It's a real pity and it's somewhat frustrating to watch you crank out one model after another that just fails to convince. Perhaps I am being picky, being a plane geek and all, but what's the point of creating a realistic object that doesn't look real? It's a bit the same as creating a character with the nose in the wrong place, just not as obvious as most people aren't too familiar with the shapes of an aircraft as they don't see them all day.

Well… I can’t argue about the accuracy issues but my main goal is to make a clean model, nicely fitting texture(s) and basically “nice pic” in the end. Along the way I think I’m getting better and better and manage to raise the accuracy and detail level by each model I make and at the same time make the meshes constantly cleaner.

I’ve been a C4D hobby user for 2 years now. My first airplane model (the PZL p11 HERE (http://www.colacola.se/pix/640_pzl.jpg)) was a high poly mess that I created by comparing a plastic model to my mesh evolving on the screen - hahaha! :)

Spending about 50-60 hours per model, finishing it and the moving on to something completely new works pretty good for me from a learning point of view. The more acquainted I get with the modelling and mapping tools the more effort I can put into accuracy and details – quite naturally. So hopefully I will be at a more decent level in the future. I’m however not sure that the box modeling technique I use will prove efficient in the long run…

[Skyraider3D]

So hopefully I will be at a more decent level in the future.With some dedication, I am sure you will! You've come a long way in a short time.

Some changes could easily be made to the mesh, without affecting the topoly or textures at al - for instance the nose cone.

I’m however not sure that the box modeling technique I use will prove efficient in the long run…Yes, I've been having similar sentiments, to be honest. Many details are just too fiddly in subD. Too much going back and forth to get a curvature the way you want to.
Having used splines/patches and tried NURBS, I still think I'll stick to poly modelling. Though there's no doubt that especially NURBS are extremely powerful for complex shapes like aircraft.

Keep at it Anders! :)

[kiwi123]

Box modeling is not the same as subD modelling Skyraider. You can also model subD starting from curves or building vertex by vertex (as I do). I've always considered box modelling to be rather simplistic, unless you're modeling a box.

[Skyraider3D]

I know that kiwi123, but I am sure Bazze meant boxmodelling+subD when he referred to boxmodelling. It's tweaking a low-poly mesh and then subdividing it. Doesn't matter really how you do that. From a box, a cylinder, splines, or vertex-by-vertex (which seems like a very tedious way to work, but you seem to do really well with that).

[kiwi123]

You are right, it's not ideal. Actually it can be very frustrating at times. But for me using Nurbs has its frustrating parts as well.

I think it is time for a new technique. Something that can use the strengths of both. Wouldnt that be nice....just as zbrush revolutionised the world with displacement painting there surely must be a way to do our sort of models easier (a good 3d scanner ?)

[bazze]

I've tried building the fuselage by extruding & sweeping splines in C4D but with a very poor result. The shape may be right but the alignment and placement of the resulting polygons is very hard to control.

I think Mrys (http://www.airart3d.ovh.org/html/atwork.htm) is modeling his stuff very nicely using splines - he uses Rhino if I'm not mistaken.

I've only tried point by point modeling (=vertex modeling?) once but for a totally different subject (this figure (http://www.colacola.se/wip_pilot.htm))


Yes Skyraider is right - I meant boxmodelig+subdivision.
I usually start with a 10-sided cylinder that I cut up and put into a hypernurb object (subdivides the mesh) and start adding cuts, moving indivudual points and extruding wings etc.
http://www.colacola.se/pix/p40_wip/wip_p40_20060203.jpg

Once I'm happy with the shape I "freeze" the hypernurb (convert it into an edtable mesh object) and start working on a more detailed level. Sometimes I repeat this in 2 steps.
http://www.colacola.se/pix/p40_wip/wip_p40_20060205.jpg

Builing everything in one piece makes it easy for me create smooth and fluent surfaces and transitions between wing & fuselage but I often run into trouble when working on tricky areas (for example when extrunding wings and air intakes from areas that overlap each other).

This pic here (by Mrys) shows how he has modeled the fuselage from several pieces. This approach seems much smarter but when I try it I get very bumpy results and the borders between the individual objets are too obvious. Any tips?
http://www.airart3d.ovh.org/at_work/spitfire_i_2.jpg

[kevjon]

I wish there was an easy way Bazze but I am yet to find it myself. Working with nurbs can be quick and precise but when it comes time to converting those surfaces to a good clean mesh for uv mapping is where the problems begin. As far as I know nobody has invented a mesher that will seamlessly span across the joints or seams in nurbs surfaces which results in many ugly joints.

[bazze]

Here's a 2nd render using the same model but with slightly different textures.

[Galgot]

Looks good ! There's mix of french and UAE marking, but looks good anyway... Mirage 2000-9 are nice in light grey camo also.
Have you seen this beauty ?
http://www1.airliners.net/open.file?id=0809335&size=L&width=1280&height=865&sok=JURER%20%20%28ZNGPU%20%28nvepensg%2Cnveyvar%2C cynpr%2Ccubgb_qngr%2Cpbhagel%2Cerznex%2Ccubgbtencu re%2Crznvy%2Clrne%2Cert%2Cnvepensg_trarevp%2Cpa%2C pbqr%29%20NTNVAFG%20%28%27%2B%22Zventr%22%20%2B%22 2000-9%22%27%20VA%20OBBYRNA%20ZBQR%29%29%20%20BEQRE%20O L%20cubgb_vq%20QRFP&photo_nr=1&prev_id=&next_id=0589909

[cobra6]

lol google earth?

Cobra 6

[bazze]

Looks good ! There's mix of french and UAE marking, but looks good anyway... Mirage 2000-9 are nice in light grey camo also.
Have you seen this beauty ?
http://www1.airliners.net/open.file?id=0809335&size=L&width=1280&height=865&sok=JURER%20%20%28ZNGPU%20%28nvepensg%2Cnveyvar%2C cynpr%2Ccubgb_qngr%2Cpbhagel%2Cerznex%2Ccubgbtencu re%2Crznvy%2Clrne%2Cert%2Cnvepensg_trarevp%2Cpa%2C pbqr%29%20NTNVAFG%20%28%27%2B%22Zventr%22%20%2B%22 2000-9%22%27%20VA%20OBBYRNA%20ZBQR%29%29%20%20BEQRE%20O L%20cubgb_vq%20QRFP&photo_nr=1&prev_id=&next_id=0589909

yes the UAE texture looks rather plane so I left some of the french details (cross on the tail and the number below the cockpit).

Oh that was a nice pic.. I haven't been able find out what the motive below the cockpit is.

I was also informed that the wasp on the tail (french version) can't be combined with the number 12 as I had done it before.


lol google earth?


Well it's a satellite photo... here's where I found it:
http://dwc.hct.ac.ae/expatinfo/jbhburjfromsatellite.bmp

[Galgot]

Found this closer look of this insignia last week, don't even remember where:\
Looks like a mirage in the sky over desert...with some writings...