You know, part of it could be passion. The iconic movie scenes are strong memories for most of us. Even if Lando still has a sensor dish... These ships don't have that. All things considered, I have no issues with any of the art presented. To me it looks like they are in direct light from a nearby star.

No. Please go back and read what I said. This has nothing to do with it being a low-poly model, the problem is in the scene setup. It looks like it has been rendered with 1990s CGI software: flat lighting, no shadows, etc. Taking a few minutes to stick the exact same e-wing model in a basic HDRI dome in a modern CGI program would give you a much better image.

At first, I thought it was just from viewing the art on the computer, but, now that I have the physical ships...

And yet I see shadows in both bits of art. Rather dynamic lighting on the Z95. Kinda boring harsh lighting on the E-Wing, but it's still there. Keep in mind that these are designed for a very small display area on a 2.5" x 3.5" card, so the art area is only 2.5" wide, on the long side. Overly bright and harsh lighting is probably a good thing considering. They are trying to come up with something that's visually discernible at a very small size.

No. Please go back and read what I said. This has nothing to do with it being a low-poly model, the problem is in the scene setup. It looks like it has been rendered with 1990s CGI software: flat lighting, no shadows, etc. Taking a few minutes to stick the exact same e-wing model in a basic HDRI dome in a modern CGI program would give you a much better image.

At first, I thought it was just from viewing the art on the computer, but, now that I have the physical ships...

And yet I see shadows in both bits of art. Rather dynamic lighting on the Z95. Kinda boring harsh lighting on the E-Wing, but it's still there. Keep in mind that these are designed for a very small display area on a 2.5" x 3.5" card, so the art area is only 2.5" wide, on the long side. Overly bright and harsh lighting is probably a good thing considering. They are trying to come up with something that's visually discernible at a very small size.

And yet I see shadows in both bits of art. Rather dynamic lighting on the Z95. Kinda boring harsh lighting on the E-Wing, but it's still there. Keep in mind that these are designed for a very small display area on a 2.5" x 3.5" card, so the art area is only 2.5" wide, on the long side. Overly bright and harsh lighting is probably a good thing considering. They are trying to come up with something that's visually discernible at a very small size.

I agree that there is shading, but even on that small display area, it just doesn't look very good to me. The level of detail we've seen before just isn't there, and the cockpits especially look flat. And I'm not saying that it doesn't serve its purpose in a miniatures game, but it's a bit disappointing considering the spectacular artwork we've seen so far. I get that it's based on the model they used for the game, but...well, if I want a 3D model, I have the mini itself to look at.

On a related note, I saw this piece of art for the RPG in a preview article the other day:

Look at those SDs (just noticed--one doesn't even have a bridge)! A bit of a letdown when we're used to things like this:

I only bring it up because of how often Star Wars games have been recycling artwork with FFG--same department, I would guess, even if it isn't the same game. Again, I'm not saying that the art can't serve its purpose. It's a hell of a lot better than some of the art I've seen in previous SW games. But FFG has set a high standard thus far, both in terms of quality and in terms of continuity, and it's kinda sad to see that standard being lowered.

And yet I see shadows in both bits of art. Rather dynamic lighting on the Z95. Kinda boring harsh lighting on the E-Wing, but it's still there. Keep in mind that these are designed for a very small display area on a 2.5" x 3.5" card, so the art area is only 2.5" wide, on the long side. Overly bright and harsh lighting is probably a good thing considering. They are trying to come up with something that's visually discernible at a very small size.

I agree that there is shading, but even on that small display area, it just doesn't look very good to me. The level of detail we've seen before just isn't there, and the cockpits especially look flat. And I'm not saying that it doesn't serve its purpose in a miniatures game, but it's a bit disappointing considering the spectacular artwork we've seen so far. I get that it's based on the model they used for the game, but...well, if I want a 3D model, I have the mini itself to look at.

On a related note, I saw this piece of art for the RPG in a preview article the other day:

Look at those SDs (just noticed--one doesn't even have a bridge)! A bit of a letdown when we're used to things like this:

I only bring it up because of how often Star Wars games have been recycling artwork with FFG--same department, I would guess, even if it isn't the same game. Again, I'm not saying that the art can't serve its purpose. It's a hell of a lot better than some of the art I've seen in previous SW games. But FFG has set a high standard thus far, both in terms of quality and in terms of continuity, and it's kinda sad to see that standard being lowered.

The bridgeless Star Destoyer you're referring to looks like the Praetor Mark II Battlecruiser but I agree, for the RPG that illustration as a whole is rather lacking.

There's certainly an inconsistency in the quality of artworks for X-Wing but I wouldn't say that the standard has dropped. If you ask me I think the Rookie pilot art is still the worst of the lot.

The reason they look like that is because they are the actual 3D models used for creating the molds and even have molding concessions built in (look at the wing struts on the E-wing and the thickness of the parts, for instance).

No, the reason they look like that is because they were rendered by 1990s CGI software used by someone who just followed a 1990s "make a ship picture" tutorial. Even with low-poly models there's no excuse for the flat lighting and lack of shading on that e-wing card. I'm honestly surprised that FFG let something that shamefully bad make it into print. I guess there was a last-second deadline issue?

You've obviously never made or even looked at a model for 3D printing at this scale.

And yet I see shadows in both bits of art. Rather dynamic lighting on the Z95. Kinda boring harsh lighting on the E-Wing, but it's still there. Keep in mind that these are designed for a very small display area on a 2.5" x 3.5" card, so the art area is only 2.5" wide, on the long side. Overly bright and harsh lighting is probably a good thing considering. They are trying to come up with something that's visually discernible at a very small size.

I agree that there is shading, but even on that small display area, it just doesn't look very good to me. The level of detail we've seen before just isn't there, and the cockpits especially look flat. And I'm not saying that it doesn't serve its purpose in a miniatures game, but it's a bit disappointing considering the spectacular artwork we've seen so far. I get that it's based on the model they used for the game, but...well, if I want a 3D model, I have the mini itself to look at.

On a related note, I saw this piece of art for the RPG in a preview article the other day:

Look at those SDs (just noticed--one doesn't even have a bridge)! A bit of a letdown when we're used to things like this:

I only bring it up because of how often Star Wars games have been recycling artwork with FFG--same department, I would guess, even if it isn't the same game. Again, I'm not saying that the art can't serve its purpose. It's a hell of a lot better than some of the art I've seen in previous SW games. But FFG has set a high standard thus far, both in terms of quality and in terms of continuity, and it's kinda sad to see that standard being lowered.

The bridgeless Star Destoyer you're referring to looks like the Praetor Mark II Battlecruiser but I agree, for the RPG that illustration as a whole is rather lacking.

There's certainly an inconsistency in the quality of artworks for X-Wing but I wouldn't say that the standard has dropped. If you ask me I think the Rookie pilot art is still the worst of the lot.

Nope. The worst has to be Gold Squadron Pilot. Look at where the engine attaches!

You've obviously never made or even looked at a model for 3D printing at this scale.

And you've obviously never read or even looked at a post you were responding to, because you somehow managed to consider a comment about the model an appropriate reply to a post that clearly says "the model is fine, the problem is the presentation of the model".

And yet I see shadows in both bits of art.

There are shadows, but only the very primitive kind you get from basic settings on 1990s CGI software. It's all hard-edged solid black shadows from direct light, no soft shading, ambient lighting shadows, etc. The result is that it looks very flat and way too bright.

Here is what you should read about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_illumination

Keep in mind that these are designed for a very small display area on a 2.5" x 3.5" card, so the art area is only 2.5" wide, on the long side.

That e-wing still looks like garbage at card resolution.

I wish Whispers art was on Echos card....

Sure the art might suck... But man those actual models are gorgeous

Models > Card Art

And yet I see shadows in both bits of art.

There are shadows, but only the very primitive kind you get from basic settings on 1990s CGI software. It's all hard-edged solid black shadows from direct light, no soft shading, ambient lighting shadows, etc. The result is that it looks very flat and way too bright.Here is what you should read about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_illumination

Keep in mind that these are designed for a very small display area on a 2.5" x 3.5" card, so the art area is only 2.5" wide, on the long side.

That e-wing still looks like garbage at card resolution.

Which is exactly the kind of light you'd get IN Space, in direct sunlight. ALmost like that effect was intentional. Quit assuming incompetence and think bout why something might be the way it is...

Which is exactly the kind of light you'd get IN Space, in direct sunlight. ALmost like that effect was intentional. Quit assuming incompetence and think bout why something might be the way it is...

No it isn't. That's not at all like you get in space, even bright one-directional lighting has more depth and shading. As someone who has done this kind of CGI stuff before I can tell you that this is nothing more than rendering the final image with all of the advanced lighting and shadow options turned off, not a well-executed lighting scheme designed to represent a space scene with no ambient light.

Sure the art might suck... But man those actual models are gorgeous

Models > Card Art

Definitely agree. But, still...I needs must complainz! I just don't look at the E-Wing card and say, "There's a starfighter!" like I do with the others. And speaking of which:

The bridgeless Star Destoyer you're referring to looks like the Praetor Mark II Battlecruiser but I agree, for the RPG that illustration as a whole is rather lacking.

There's certainly an inconsistency in the quality of artworks for X-Wing but I wouldn't say that the standard has dropped. If you ask me I think the Rookie pilot art is still the worst of the lot.

Nope. The worst has to be Gold Squadron Pilot. Look at where the engine attaches!

...huh. Never actually looked at the GSP close enough to notice that. But as a whole, I still can look at it and go, "Look, a starfighter!" Same with the Rook, actually--anything in particular you dislike?

(And thanks for IDing that Battlecruiser. Didn't even consider that!)