Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

My guess is its artistic license so they can show the crew without having to create this huge diorama inside the titan itself.

For what they are likely charging for this I want a large diorama setting throughout the interior.

 fiorehellheart wrote:


Like I said, blurry, but I think you can just about make them out at the bottom. I think it's such a wasted opportunity though, could have had a much better interior.

Well jeez that's pitiful ; it's like they (the designers) didn't even try. Not to applaud myself but I worked quite a bit trying to make a plausible cockpit design...

 The_Blackadder wrote:
More of the Same:

Jeez Blackadder enough already.

I'm sorry to post so many updates on virtually the same thing but I put a lot of effort into the cockpit and it would be a shame to not show the finished product.

Wait Blackadder you mean to say the interior will be Black?

Well no but as it stand right now perhaps so grey highlights scuffs on the walkways and probably painting the buttons.

Besides, 'Red October' had a black interior and that looked kinda cool. The beige US sub interior Meh, not so much.

So in true Burlesque fashion we'll take it down; cue the music......

http://www.soundboard.com/sb/Burlesque_Can_Can_Music

http://i.imgur.com/XGtTNCQ.jpg


http://i.imgur.com/MQwsQHm.jpg


http://i.imgur.com/ihG8bMi.jpg


http://i.imgur.com/52SQfsK.jpg


http://i.imgur.com/BoGrZrc.jpg


http://i.imgur.com/xk13cZG.jpg

Considering FWs resources they could have tried to do at least this good!

Yes, good to see that they actually have 3 people in there since 1 would just have been silly. But as stated before by others, I am not impressed. :(

These threads are making me VERY tempted to start my own scratchbuild. Perhaps something smaller

Btw, am I the only one annoyed by people using the word scratch build when they mean kit bash of heavily modified standard kit? For me a proper scratch build is the pinnacle of modelling where gluing ready made parts together are not. On the other hand, Weeble1000 use a lot of ready made parts in his builds but the major part is always of his own making, so he is definitely doing scratch builds... sorry for the ramble.

I'm not above using an interesting bit of plastic in my models and to be sure FW liberally incorporates bitz from any and all GW kits in their constructs. A good way to break into scratch building is to modify an existing kit or model and gradually start replacing worn or broken parts with hand made facsimiles; that is how I began.

My pet peeve is the use of bottle caps where that is exactly what they appear to be, bottle caps. Nothing detracts from a well executed 'scratch build' than blatantly obvious ketchup bottle caps as Dave Smith used in his otherwise fabulous Warlord.

My Warlord is about as scratch as you can get and still be able to complete in a reasonable amount of time. My Thunderhawk which I am completing up this week is almost totally 'scratch built' but even there I used mouthwash bottle caps for the exhausts and ping pong balls for the ball turrets albeit heavily modified.

Models made for SiFi movies rely heavily on plastic model kits for the onscreen models whether those qualify for "Scratch built" is a debatable issue.

The original Battlestar Galactica Model was constructed entirely out of parts from over 200 different WWII Era vehicle and aircraft models purchased solely for that purpose.

 mxwllmdr wrote:
The original Battlestar Galactica Model was constructed entirely out of parts from over 200 different WWII Era vehicle and aircraft models purchased solely for that purpose.

Hehe, still a question if it's a kitbash or a scratchbuild... can still be awesome though

So It's definitely 3 guys inside. Vegeta365 on warsee bought one of them yesterday, and is building it now. I've asked him for pics, but he hasn't posted much apart from one picture of the gun compared to a reaver gun, and one of the cockpit from above. The moderati are really set into a tiny pit at the front, really weird use of space given how much room is in the back where the moderati is.

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?407953-Warlord-Titan-coming-from-FW/page18/

Images:

 fiorehellheart wrote:
So It's definitely 3 guys inside. Vegeta365 on warsee bought one of them yesterday, and is building it now. I've asked him for pics, but he hasn't posted much apart from one picture of the gun compared to a reaver gun, and one of the cockpit from above. The moderati are really set into a tiny pit at the front, really weird use of space given how much room is in the back where the moderati is.

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?407953-Warlord-Titan-coming-from-FW/page18/

I' gotta know the sizes, the suspense is wearing on me. ask him to PLEASE take some measurements especially how tall it is?

I'm sure everyone would like to know that FW didn't screw up and make it undersized and by tall I mean sole of the foot to the top of the generator shield housings not the carapace weapons.

Thanks for the Warseer link.

So the height finally got measured by 'looky likey' here http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/1110/639757.page

He says 23 to topmost parts, and 20 to carapace top and width/depth 17. I put those measurements into a scale comparison based on what I think are the accurate measurements of the other titans. I used a picture of the warlord from a poster they had, so it's in the same orthographic rather than perspective view, many of the photo's of the model were too skewed. That helps massively with scaling, and assuming this is reasonable, I actually think that this isn't too bad. The model is clearly way way bulkier which is nice. Also on my mock up the heads of the warlord and reaver are similar sizes so that agrees with the three person head. Still too much of a knight in style, but it's growing on me...



EDIT:

So after doing this I was intrigued how it scales up against the titan that you built, and the one that I designed. I scaled your's to 26", which I think is right, but could be wrong. It's also tricky as it's perspective skewed a little. Until this I hadn't realised how similar a scale your titan is to the one I wanted to make. Both are significantly larger than the forgeworld one, however, the scale that ours is at is quite a jump from the reaver they have, which I think is smaller than it should be.

My Warlord soles to top of generator housing = 27 inches, damn no way I can justify 5 inch discrepancy unless I stretch the torso on the FW stunted Hercules. You've done outstanding and I appreciate the effort. Thank your friend for me.

I've just saved myself $2000 bucks!

Why am I not happy?

BTW would it be amiss for me to offer a suggestion on your Warlord?

Ahh, bit off then. I think if you wanted to upscale theirs, the way to go would be in lengthening the legs by a inch or so each segment, adding more height to the waist, and in the middle of the torse. Adding 3 inches would bring it to a place where it's smaller.

I had a go at this actually, only stretching the armour plates on the legs. The body is the same size as it was. I also upped your's by the inch I missed.



I still want a real model comparison though. All good trying to guess, but could still be off.

Suggestion wise, go ahead, given how dead in the water my physical model progress is, I'm open to suggestions on reworking things. I was actually intending to re-do my 3d files once again, except in a program that's made for precision design, as opposed to the rough stuff I previously used. What were you thinking of?

There you go, with just a little effort your middle figure demonstrated a much more appealing Titan; a stretch version if you will.

I'm in complete agreement and loathe this new tangent FW has initiated. When the first knights appeared I thought them an interesting group style and they did have a certain appeal but they certainly shouldn't dominate the overall design of all the classes of vehicles. From a distance without a reference for scale it is difficult to recognize Reavers and now Warlords from any of the knight variants. I strongly suspect that the Titans as a group came into being because of the 'Epic' scale figures and the desire to have humanoid shaped larger figures to play the game. The Titans filled that need but the classes were all distinct and original in shape not just different sizes of the same design.

I think FW is just either getting lazy in their design department or has just run out of ideas.

First they need an infusion of new blood and second they need to re-embrace the sorely neglected Lucius Pattern equipment.

Plus the Damned thing is just too small.

Now for the suggestion and it's just my personal opinion not a criticism. I think your armour needs to be more trapezoidal instead of square. If you look at the FW Warlord and mine (Dave Smith's) design they incorporate virtually no 90° angles which tend to lend too boxy an appearance to the vehicle. Of course this make replication more difficult as all the curves are now of necessity compound but I feel it would make your design more aesthetically pleasing. Just IMO.

fiorehellheart

Where'd you get this image? Will you post it? Sans lines..........

Maybe you should apply.

No. Black. I can make their new warlord. Compound curves be damned. I choose not to because it's a site design.

 mxwllmdr wrote:
No. Black. I can make their new warlord. Compound curves be damned. I choose not to because it's a site design.

"Site design;" what's a site design?????????

It auto corrected. gak.

mxwllmdr wrote:No. Black. I can make their new warlord. Compound curves be damned. I choose not to because it's a site design.

mxwllmdr wrote:It auto corrected. gak.

Well I may be as thick as a whale omelet but I'm totally at sea with these responses? It's dogtrack time apparently for the Blackadder.............

The pictures from here. http://battlebunnies.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/warlord-titan-poster.html I'm hoping there's a version of it in the book that somebody might upload, for a much nicer image.

I think you are right on the angularness of the armour. Doing my design digitally I find it really tricky to make compund curves. The new software should help with that. I also think that it's not helped with the leg pose in that image, and a frontward view negating the curves on the shoulders. I should splay the legs a little like yours for a more stable looking stance and less square.

Also, on that site with the poster are more photo's showing the interior of the head and the princeps. Images in the spoiler.

 The_Blackadder wrote:
Of course this make replication more difficult as all the curves are now of necessity compound....

Apologies. This to what I was referring.

 mxwllmdr wrote:

 The_Blackadder wrote:
Of course this make replication more difficult as all the curves are now of necessity compound....

Apologies. This to what I was referring.

Okay I think I understand what you are alluding to;

As the Fiore Flashheart model is presented, the pose and the overall projection (It may not be the case in the actual model) appears too square and wooden (i have felt this from the beginning but who am I to pass judgment on someone else's work especially one whose credentials are as impressive as Monsieur Flashheart's. The Mars armour and stance is more organic having compound curves and a more rounded appearance. Now compound curves are extremely hard to replicate and I have hesitated in attempting them myself. (someday but not yet.)

A general observation of mine is that I have yet to see a convincing compound curved carapace even the legendary Marco de Silva's marvelous scratchbuilt Warhound.

Yes. I agree. I just keep trying.

 mxwllmdr wrote:
Yes. I agree. I just keep trying.

Just so you know I'm not blowing smoke here's Senor's De Silva's almost perfect handmade Mars Warhound:

I know his work well. I've tried mimicking and failed in many aspects.

 fiorehellheart wrote:


I think you are right on the angularness of the armour. Doing my design digitally I find it really tricky to make compund curves. The new software should help with that. I also think that it's not helped with the leg pose in that image, and a frontward view negating the curves on the shoulders. I should splay the legs a little like yours for a more stable looking stance and less square.

Which program are you using again? A lot of digital design stuff has 2 ways of creating things- plonking down 'objects' which tend to be geometric shapes, or using 'curves' and 'surfaces' (usually with the words 'NURBS' or 'Bezier' with them), which allow for much more organic shape creation.

Anvildude wrote:

Which program are you using again? A lot of digital design stuff has 2 ways of creating things- plonking down 'objects' which tend to be geometric shapes, or using 'curves' and 'surfaces' (usually with the words 'NURBS' or 'Bezier' with them), which allow for much more organic shape creation.

I had previously been using blender. It's built a lot more for a full render, rig, texture and animate workflow, and can do nurbs surfaces. I never actually learnt how to use thme though as they always seemed quite unwieldy. What I am now using is Rhino, which handles curves so much better. I've only been using it a few days and in the past half hour decided to have a go at making the reaver titan carapace, to see how well It managed those kinds of curves. It's way way easier and does what I want it to do. The model itself isnt amazingly accurate, but it does have the same curvature to it.

Images in spoiler tag again, Don't want to fill up Blackadder's thread with my pics.


Using this I think I should be able to get away from the blockyness that blackadder talks about. I think that I don't mind it being quite square, but I do think that it's better with smoother curves and more advanced shapes giving it less of that rigidity.

I'm a bit at a loss trying to figure out why the necessity of drawing out the figure; do you print and cutout patterns, templates, &etc? It seems like a lot of extra work when the visuals are already available on the internet some of which are already in 3D.

The reaver was just me seeing if I could replicate the more complicated shapes that I couldn't do in my old program.

I think my compulsive building of the 3d models is because I don't have the space to make them practically. I also enjoy the 3d modelling itself, but as a tool it lets me visualise the model that I have half pictured in my head, and work on its design, without needing to spend the much larger amount of time it would take me to build it from plasticard. When I get around to building them though it does let me create accurate templates.

Not to mention, when 3d printers become ubiquitous, the forms are already there ready to be printed.

I'm a Blender guy myself. I'll admit that Blender doesn't handle curves and surfaces quite as intuitively as other programs, though- heck, even Lightwave does curves better.