Coming on nicely!
Just a little word of warning before you go too far....be careful of "Intersecting Geometry".
I appreciate you're nowhere near finished yet and that you're still experimenting but just thought I'd mention it as this is a really good example....(I noticed it in your last thread too but thought I'd already said enough.)
When modelling in 3D its very important to model individual 'pieces' as 'individual'....and as they would be in the real world.
Intersecting geometry seems like the easy way out of what could be complex modelling but the end result will suffer....especially if you start to use Ambient Occlusion, (AO), as mentioned in one of your other threads.
People tend to forget that EVERYTHING in 3D is calculated mathematically and all calculations are based from the vertices....the most important sub-object of any 3D model.
Intersecting geometry means that calculations are way off....take this example for instance...
Where would the AO be calculated for this?
From the vertices at the end of the upright geometry....and where are they?
Deep inside the other part......so would the resulting AO be correct?
No.
The AO would be calculated to be at the bottom of the upright part, buried in the other object....and as that doesn't butt up to any other object, it just stops, the AO just wouldn't be calculated.
Even if it was calculated, you still wouldn't see it as it wouldn't be visible being inside other geometry.
This not only affects AO but ALL lighting calculations...shadows, materials, reflections, refraction...etc etc...and each of those has a knock-on effect on everything else....which in turn has a knock-on effect....etc etc.
Try to model objects as they really are and you'll notice a big difference in the results.
Yeah I know....thats a lot of work....but why spoil the ship?
Of course there is nothing wrong with taking the easy way out for now so this is just for reference....and if you try it hopefully you will notice a difference.
Regards.
MrToM.
