Judge feedback

Judge feedback is anonymous and shown in a random order.

• RND 2.5/5 Reference - If what was in your documentation was your reference board. It was a bit sparse. It is a good idea to gather references in specific focused areas and would have been good to identify and have some references of particular parts and details Initial Concept - Think you could have had more drake on your reference which would have helped influence Drake's boxy, rugged, function-based design a little more. As this design appeared to be pulled from a previous design I think it suffered from trying to retrofit it as a drake design rather than going back to the start and analyzing the majority of drake form and building from there. Creative 3/5 Manufacturer Style - I feel like the original design with its bigger scale allows for the spaces to feel like they had more function which is a big part of making any design feel believable and drake is quite a no-frills manufacturer. By making yours smaller you lost that in the front arms. Something that may have helped would have been to reinforce the function of those arms. In your case as fuel storage, maybe adding pipes running along the inside of them or something to that effect. In the case of drake, this could have worked well. Forms and Details - For me, the overall main shape and language are a bit basic and don't feel particularly drake, I would love to see some secondary and tertiary forms on the main body particularly being drake (cutouts with exposed areas, little extrusions to break that 1 solid surface. There was some of this on the thrusters but I think a little bit on the body would have gone a long way. Adding panel lines would have been another way to help break up the continuous surface. Minor detail that was nice was the inclusion of the interior seat which allowed for a sense of scale for the vehicle Technical 3.5/5 Model - From the small wireframe the ship seemed to be modelled well with only minor wasted polys. The flat areas were optimised while the cylinders were given extra edge loops. I think you could have probably halved the edge loops but the thought of where to assign the polys is good. Textures and Shaders - A baked workflow was used which limits the fidelity of the textures and details. For anything of this scale and above I would recommend that you look to use tileables, trimsheets and decals as this allows you to keep the fidelity very high. This combined with mid-poly modelling is the workflow used at CIG. It was also nice to see the landing gear had been rigged to work as well as rotating VTOLs and a ramp for entry. Nice one Documentation 3/3 Concise, contains what I'd expect to see in a breakdown of workflow covering most areas of the process with plenty of images. Final Result 3/5 Rendering - The final results are presented nicely with it being rendered in both a scene and skyline. The skyline shots have some more dynamic camera angles in action shots and some post-work has been done to enhance them. The scene shots are lit nicely enough to show off the details of the vehicle. Overall there are areas of promise shown in the creation of this vehicle. I think a lot of the shortcomings of this vehicle were maybe down to the time constraints and time not put into the R&D stage. I believe that in a situation where can spend the time to focus and iterate on the project you have the potential to create something strong.
• cool idea, maybe a different name would of been more suitable as we already have a redeemer in the game and its a massive gun ship. i like the thruster glows and use of mega scans to present.