HI All, I know there are a lot of skilled inorganic modellers on this forum - some of whom have made starship bridges, consoles, and other high tech doohickies which need controls... I was just wondering what peoples preferences are for these.? Creating each and every button or using like bump mapping to create the appearance of a detailed console.? And for button making approches does it make texturing harder.?

I would say it depends on personal taste and PC power, really. Some folks like to toss in all the details they can, while others tend to be more economical with the details and rely more on mapping. Up close, the detailed model will look more realistic and work better as an image but it will require more time to create, prepare, and render. Yes, anytime you add extra geometry to your work, you will end up with more texture work. They go hand in hand. Certain types of details can make texturing a tedious task but I doubt, for a console, that it would be really more difficult. That's two bits from an organic modeler...may not be worth as much. You should check with your bank. :)

If I were you, I'd do a combination of both. Add a couple of details to each console like a screen or box or a "Mouse-ball-looking thing", then texturize them and around them. If you make "Fields" of buttons that are symetric, it would be easier, too. Like in "Panels".

I tend to draw them in, keeps the polycount lower; but it depends on the look you're going for. I've done both, but believe me, replicating a hundred dials and positioning them can be tedious..;)

Have you ever looked at the Star Trek control panels? They're TOTALLY flat.

I've designed and built a few starship interiors just for the heck of it, and I use a combination of both modeling and texturing. I guess it really depends on the style you are going for. Take the case of the Star Trek example above... all flat (which would mean image maps combined with luminosity mapping). Then again there are the consoles and control of the stuff in Final Fantasy... mostly holographic displays (image, luminosity, transparency mapping). The same holds true for the sci-fi displays seen in Minority Report and in Red Planet... even Zion Control's "White Room" from Matrix Reloaded. If that is the kind of look you are going for, then surface work is all you need. :o) If you are looking for harder edged kind of sci-fi controls, similar to the the Nostromo from Alien or the USS Sulaco from Aliens or even the Nebuchadnezzar from The Matrix (or from Sphere, Event Horizon... etcetera), then you will have to do a bit of modeling. My own "Antares" (available from Renderosity FreeStuff), is predominantly modeled, with only minimal texture work. What I am trying to say is that you need to start from a concept. I usually start from a layout of the bridge and think about the primary functions of the starship. Once I have decided what kind of ship it is, I then know who will be sitting around it, then I start modeling from the functions of each seat. Take for example my "Argo" bridge design starting from the Helm Controls I detailed how the controls might work. Then I designed the Navigation and Planetary Survey stations. One of them was busy surfing the Renderosity website at the time. Eventually, I worked my way over to doing Captain's Seat and the Science Officer's Station. Most of this was modeled... the display panels (all original graphics) are only secondary for me, because that was the look I was going for. You really need to decide the kind of look and feel that you are going for in your design. Take it from there. Hope the unsolicited bit of design input was helpful. :o) Cheers! M

when I did the physical bit (a Moog Modular synth), I'd just make up some basic controls or connections (1 jack, 1 switch, 1 knob, etc), and duplicate the #$%^ out of them..;) place them to suit..again, it's personal taste, unless you're modelling something someone else created
Okudagrams (the Star Trek control surfaces) were designed to be like menu screens, there's a long explanation of them on the various sites out there devoted to LCARS.

heh... I was just thinking - You could texture each button.

Thanks for the replys all.. (Very nice models Moe) I suspect when I will take the model the buttons approach on my projects, and worry about texturing them when I get that far, modelling being where I'm currently at texturing, next on my learning list when I have something to texture. Never did like flat panel controls - I keep imagining a star trek episode where an alien crewmember has to take over and hits the wrong button due to fingerprint smudges (or coffee stains ;) )

"...fingerprint smudges (or coffee stains)... I was thinking along the exact same lines when I modeled in the cup holders for each station. LOL! Glad you liked the models. Please do show us some of your models once you do get started us. It would be really cool to see your approach to this subject. :o) Cheers! M

I'll add my two cents here. If you're going to do a shot like the bidge of the Enterprise from back behind Worf's station (looking forward to the screen) I would model the near by panels and go for bit maps for the panels in the background. It would make a nice balance and help rendering time.

I have a console texture on my other computer; I'll have to swap HDD's and see if I can put it up.... It's might not be exactly what you want to use, but it's one of the "Star Trek" consoles that we were talking about. Nothing important. I just thought you might want to see.

I'm always interested in seeing other peoples work Frenchtoast, but it's not something you need to do if it's going to be a lot of work for you... Moe : I do intend to post once I get something done - doing tutorials in max & lightwave (already eliminated most others) to see which works best for me...then a longer project which will involve panelling (probably a mech) Since I'm only looking at hobbyist approach - not job or study - I'm going to try and be as 'detailed' & all modelled as I can (might resort to the 'only what you see (closer to cam)' modelling theory depending on how well my compie holds up with trying to do high detail... :)

Here's the thing. Working in 3D inviolves a lot of illusion and cheating. My rule is, if you're not going to see it, don't model it. I use poser figures, but I delete anything on the figure that isn't going to be seen in the image. to save on polys. Slice your image into the three traditional planes. Foreground gets the most detail and the strongest colors, midground requires less detail and less color saturation, background takes the least detail and the colors are the most muted. If your console is up front, you need the actual modeled detail for depth and shadows, in the midground, you might need only a few modeled details, in the background, you can do it all with texturing. You might also check out the Greeble plugin if it's available for your version of MAX. Combined with texturing, greeble could give an interesting console look.

Let me say a word in for displacement maps here. . .a displacement map that's designed in conjunction with a texture map can give you some real depth when you need it, and yet is much more easily modified than physical geometry. Displacement map animation can be very effectively linked to texture map animation as well. . .

Displacement maps make for VERY high polycount, but they ARE very nice when you want that kind of detail