Planetary Scene

I’ve created this scene for a friend/client. Although he considers it to be finished, I think it lacks realism. I’d appreciate any suggestions and comments (positive or negative). Thanks in advance.

I think you could add some colour differences on the ships, and a subsuf modifier on some meshes. They look kinda blocky.

i think the lighting on the ships is too bright and uniform. You could try and create a more dramatic lighting setup.

And i agree with GlaDOS too.

But, i think it looks pretty good as is if your going to leave it like that anyways.

You could use a nice high res space image background if u wanted.

+1 on that, FloorPlay
the lighting could come more from the right side, the lamp seems to be quite near to the camera, at least the lighting looks flat because of the position. I’d suggest a sun lamp. then you could use a hemi with very low power settings (0.2) positioned near to the planet to give some ambient reflections (orange color).
also the colors look quite bright and vivid, that’s nice, but makes the pic look a bit comicky. try desaturating it a little in post, that might give it a more mature look.

just my two cents

btw the composition as such looks alright, you could maybe move the planet more to the right side, to give the pic more direction

Thanks guys. I’ve taken your comments, and done what I can. I think it looks a little better. As for the placement of planets and ships, the client was very specific as to their locations, so I can’t move them around. But I do think the lighting and subsurf helped alot.

Looks good, also maybe a more diverse backround, instead of just using the blender star generator you could find some space picture which would include stars, galaxies, different colours, ect.

It looks great! I’m terrible at making spaceships; but your work has inspired me to give it another go. Keep up the good work!

Thanks. I find myself improving with each try. But I’ve got a long way to go. There are some truly impressive artists on these forums, and I’ve learned alot from them. Hopefully I will learn more! :cool:

Hey, this is sweet. Maybe you should try lighting it from a different angle or with a slightly different color. You know, just experiment. You might hit something really awesome, or dramatic. Just an idea. Looks great. Nice work on the spaceships! :smiley:

The second render posted here looks much better.

About the suggestion that you should use a photo as a background for this render;
If your concerned about possible copy right complications that could crop up from using a space photo as a background, you might want to check the NASA website. I think those images are free to use as you like. A photo of a fairly plain space view would help create the illusion of greater depth and increase the realism of the scene, so its worth at least investigating. Even if you don’t find one you can use, they will be wonderful inspiration. You could also create a background in a paint program like Gimp, and use that.

Image gallery: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/iotd.html

Nasa’s 3d resources, free for use that doesn’t imply Nasa endorsement or affiliation: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/3d_resources/index.html

Nasa’s general image use policy: http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/features/MP_Photo_Guidelines.html

Your ship and space station models look very good.
Do any of the planets have atmosphere?

The outline of the nearest planet looks very smooth and crisp, is that just an effect of the lighting?

I really like this scene , please let us see how it progresses.

Thanks for the comments. The planet textures do come from NASA. The foreground planet is a surface map of Venus (a cloudless Venus). The background bodies are various moons (I think Ganymede and Callisto).

The foreground planet is supposed to have atmosphere but no clouds, kinda martian-like. A nasty, ice-less planet.

I think I’m calling this done. Or done enough for my purposes. But if someone has another idea though, I’ll gladly take it. Thanks again!

The outline of the nearest planet looks very smooth and crisp, is that just an effect of the lighting?
I’m not sure if this is a compliment or concern… Can you clarify?

PS - the final version is a little less saturated.

Thanks for satisfying my curiosity about the planets having atmosphere or not.

To answer your question: " I’m not sure if this is a compliment or concern… Can you clarify? "
It was just a comment/question. Not an actual compliment, but not a criticism either.

I notice that in a lot of space photos the edges of planets look very smooth and crisp…like all those mountains and things have no elevation, I often wonder why that is. You have to figure in a real space photo it’s just that distance tends to smooth away the details of topology so our eyes can’t see them.
After all, the camera is often many many light years away from the thing it’s photographing. The way light works in the vacuum of space must be partly responsible as well. Atmosphere and water seems to make that thin little halo of blurry light about the planet, like we see in photos of the Earth, smoothing edges and further obscuring our view of details on the surface with clouds. Anyway, I noticed the same smooth edged effect in your render, that I see in photos of real planets, and I thought I’d ask about it.

I’m new to blender, and lighting is one of the things I’m struggling with. I wanted to know if that effect in your render was a result of lighting, just because that’s something I’m trying to learn more about. I’ll try and explain my rambling thought process a bit better in the future.

I like your final render, as well as the slightly more saturated version. I must admit though, that I would like to see a closer view of that space station and ships, if you ever decide to create one. I have really enjoyed seeing this render , and hearing a little about your creation process.

That’s correct. The tallest structure on earth is Mt. Everest, which is 5.5 miles above sea level. The diameter of the earth is 7,926 miles. If we convert this to pixels, my planet is 610 pixels in diameter, and Mt Everest would only be 1/2 pixel tall. It would be practically invisible. Additionally, atmospheres tend to smooth and haze the terrain at the horizon.

However, in my case, the planets are simple spheres. I don’t model mountains, because you would not be able to see them.

The ships and station models are pretty simple too. If you zoom in, they loose realism and start looking like toys.

Here is some experimenting I did with animation.

http://planetaryempires.net/images/colony_rotate.gif

And some other renders I did for my friend.

http://www.petrys.net/ce/pe/Colony_C2_L5.png
http://www.petrys.net/ce/pe/Colony_C2_L4.png

http://www.petrys.net/ce/pe/Orbital_C5_L5.png

I suppose it wouldn’t make much sense modeling details that will essentially be invisible anyway…so using a textured sphere seems like a more efficient use of time and processing power. Thank you so much for posting the pictures of the ship and space station, and taking the time to answer my questions.
I liked the little animation. :slight_smile: