Paneling is good. Let me show you why.

Sometimes, you can't fill the space. But paneling is great for adding detail to a ship or any object when there's nothing left to add, and it's a particularly massive object. On top of that, paneling adds a sense of practicality to any starship design. If you have one large plate and it becomes damaged, you have to replace the entire plate. If you have two smaller plates that fill the same space, one of them can become damaged, and that's all you have to replace.

It's at its core, a matter of design.

This is an excellent comparison! Now would you able to do one of these pics with the nonsensical paneling the OP is talking about, so as to compare all three versions? That would be the ultimate deal maker/breaker!

Well... No, I really can't. Because to be honest, even the paneling I used was almost completely random. No... No, it was completely random, just ensured there were no offensive lines in it. But it gives the impression of a working mechanism.

When I started making maps on Halo: Reach, I learned a lot about facade-making. A lot of what you see in video game maps doesn't have anything behind it, or, they're repurposed objects cleverly positioned to give a false sense of depth. This is much, much harder to do with 3D backgrounds than it is 2D backgrounds, but for instance...

To make the impression of a city, in a map, I would stack blocks and decorations in particular manners, past my massive walls of the "District" you would play in. Many of these things lacked any sort of bottom or really did anything. But they looked like a city beyond the walls.

Really, the paneling on the raider does what it needs to. It gives the impression of an easily repairable, simple vessel. Long swooping shapes and fewer panels looks smoother, but in the end just isn't worth it- especially for an industrial and aggressively designed Imperial fleet.

We discussed it already in another thread, but it does feel like either FFG or LFL have been less inspired while creating this model. Compare it with the Tantive or the Transport and there is no match in the level of detail.

I have not been impressed at all lately with the latest ships created by LFL, especially regarding the amount of detail. Everything has been so simple and derivative... The Rogue Shadow, the Imperial Raider... It feels like "Let's take something imperial-looking and attach extraneous interceptor panels around".

The lack of detail is something known in the last decades to be partially caused by the increase of computer modelling as opposed of physical models.

With physical models, it is quite easy to work in and add a great amount of detail. It is common that the best contemporary digital models used in games and movies are based on 3D-scanning real physical models. Just look at the "Making of" documentaries of The Lord of the Rings or even Attack of the clones.

The Raider looks like a low-poly model that never left the 3D modelling program of a designer.

Really, the paneling on the raider does what it needs to. It gives the impression of an easily repairable, simple vessel. Long swooping shapes and fewer panels looks smoother, but in the end just isn't worth it- especially for an industrial and aggressively designed Imperial fleet.

I think it comes down to those 'offensive lines.' I noticed that your sprites, unlike the Raider, doesn't randomly slice its panels kind of in half. Because why would you ever do that?! Not to get into the 'engineering' of fictional vessels, but that would make more attachment points for the hull plate, and lessen its strength. Also, it looks dumb. Dumb, dumb, dumb. Notice how you, who presumably does not professionally design toy spaceships, was able to get the paneling to look reasonable easily. What's going on that FFG can't, eh?

Oh, and another perfect example: compare the Falcon to the Outrider.

...only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Um, isn't that statement an absolute?

Absolutely not.

Explain.

Sarcasm.

Well, then... That explains everything...

Clearly.

Oh, and another perfect example: compare the Falcon to the Outrider.

Ninja'd

Compare the Falcon to anything else. The Falcon, to me, looks amazing. If all of FFG's miniature were that detailed and painted with that much attention, whoa...

The Falcon is awesome; the Tantive IV and Slave are both pretty good; the Outrider is okay but has a manufactured look. The Raider is the Raider. Very clean lines not much really. I like the Decimator for style better actually, it has more character I think though many don't like it.

Now for all of my criticism I cannot paint and gave up trying long ago nor am I a modeler. So I love the detail and painting that I'm getting. Is everything as good as the Falcon, not by a long shot but it still is pretty good.

It's a fictional spacecraft so maybe we can all just come up with a reason it looks that way? I mean that's our only option since we can't travel to the galaxy far far away, much less time travel to it, in order to ask the super intelligent spaceship engineers what they were thinking.

On a serious note, I agree with you on the first picture. Shoulda just finished that, but the third picture looks fine to me.

Wait, why am I even here. I don't even like Epic ships...

One day I will rule the forums, and after I ban all the clickbait thread starters, the next to go will be the meme posters.

...only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Um, isn't that statement an absolute?

*mind blown*

One day I will rule the forums, and after I ban all the clickbait thread starters, the next to go will be the meme posters.

Baited by panel lines.

One of the panel lines on the bridge just stops a few millimeters from the edge...

Maybe that was just a screw-up in the manufacturing process. Like, the line wasn't scribed all the way to the edge like it should have been when the molds were made, and it got missed in QA.

...only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Um, isn't that statement an absolute?

Absolutely not.

Explain.

Sarcasm.

Well, then... That explains everything...

Absolutely.

the Outrider is okay but has a manufactured look.

Given the Outrider is a newer, shinier model than the Falcon*, isn't that exactly what you would expect?

*In universe, I mean. As in the difference the 2001 model of a car and the 2015 model from the same manufacturer.

Greebles should have a semblance of purpose.

Death Star is literally a bunch of random battleship kits stuck together. Most OT ships are similarly built from random bits of WW2 model kits. Most Star Wars designs are literally to look cool and have pretty much no practicality whatsoever.

Looks at the lines

Looks at the Raider

Looks at my previous attempts at modeling

Looks at Raider Design and Paint Job

Looks at my paint job (and as a color blind guy it aint pretty at times)

In conclusion, doesnt even hold a candle to what FFG is providing and wont even dare complain or mention the amount of lines

*Thanks FFG God in the stars for amazing product*

...only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Um, isn't that statement an absolute?

*mind blown*

Draw your face up damage card and tell us what you got

...only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Um, isn't that statement an absolute?

*mind blown*

Draw your face up damage card and tell us what you got

Stunned Pilot

Maybe that was just a screw-up in the manufacturing process. Like, the line wasn't scribed all the way to the edge like it should have been when the molds were made, and it got missed in QA.

That is definitely the case. The panel lines on the raider are symetrical, the right side is a mirror image of the left side. In that position, there is a line on the port side of the ship that was clearly accidentally left off of the starboard side.

Greebles should have a semblance of purpose.

Death Star is literally a bunch of random battleship kits stuck together. Most OT ships are similarly built from random bits of WW2 model kits. Most Star Wars designs are literally to look cool and have pretty much no practicality whatsoever.

Looks at the lines

Looks at the Raider

Looks at my previous attempts at modeling

Looks at Raider Design and Paint Job

Looks at my paint job (and as a color blind guy it aint pretty at times)

In conclusion, doesnt even hold a candle to what FFG is providing and wont even dare complain or mention the amount of lines

*Thanks FFG God in THE stars for amazing product*

Maybe that was just a screw-up in the manufacturing process. Like, the line wasn't scribed all the way to the edge like it should have been when the molds were made, and it got missed in QA.

That is definitely the case. The panel lines on the raider are symetrical, the right side is a mirror image of the left side. In that position, there is a line on the port side of the ship that was clearly accidentally left off of the starboard side.

With that in mind, to the OP's opinion of "phoning in the details" I'd have to disagree strongly. A good amount of the EU I've seen and read seems to be phoning in the... well... everything, though I've heard good stuff is out there.

I'm a little iffy on the Raider's TIE Interceptor wings, particularly on the bottom, but overall I think it's a well-designed ship.

Greebles should have a semblance of purpose.

Death Star is literally a bunch of random battleship kits stuck together. Most OT ships are similarly built from random bits of WW2 model kits. Most Star Wars designs are literally to look cool and have pretty much no practicality whatsoever.

The Neb B, I think you're referring to. And it's a *semblance* of purpose. But, if y'all can't see the difference in quality, I'm wasting my words.

Looks at the lines

Looks at the Raider

Looks at my previous attempts at modeling

Looks at Raider Design and Paint Job

Looks at my paint job (and as a color blind guy it aint pretty at times)

In conclusion, doesnt even hold a candle to what FFG is providing and wont even dare complain or mention the amount of lines

*Thanks FFG God in THE stars for amazing product*

Very few people here could write a film, but it doesn't stop us from knowing how bad Ep. 1 was, eh?

Writing a film is easy as long as you understand the mechanics of a screenplay. Writing a good one, though... that's something else. But then, "good" doesn't seem to be a requirement to get a film produced.

...only a Sith deals in absolutes.

I have only one relevant thing to contribute to this thread, and here it is.

I do want to point something out.

Comparing the Raider to The CR-90 is completely unfair. One was made with scrap bits of plastic and based off of concept art in the 70s, having to add as many details as possible to give it scale and make it look like a starship- providing a basis for any future models and depictions of it in the future, such as FFG's CR-90.

The other was an entirely self-fueled venture.

Gotta' give 'em a little slack there on account'a that.

I do want to point something out.

Comparing the Raider to The CR-90 is completely unfair. One was made with scrap bits of plastic and based off of concept art in the 70s, having to add as many details as possible to give it scale and make it look like a starship- providing a basis for any future models and depictions of it in the future, such as FFG's CR-90.

The other was an entirely self-fueled venture.

Gotta' give 'em a little slack there on account'a that.

Heh. So, the Raider is worse because of the nearly unlimited resources of computer modeling, and the Corvette is better because Tony Stark made it in a cave from a box of scraps.

Looks at the lines

Looks at the Raider

Looks at my previous attempts at modeling

Looks at Raider Design and Paint Job

Looks at my paint job (and as a color blind guy it aint pretty at times)

In conclusion, doesnt even hold a candle to what FFG is providing and wont even dare complain or mention the amount of lines

*Thanks FFG God in the stars for amazing product*

Have you looked into those new chromakey glasses? Apparently they are really effective at compensating for colour blindness.

I do want to point something out.

Comparing the Raider to The CR-90 is completely unfair. One was made with scrap bits of plastic and based off of concept art in the 70s, having to add as many details as possible to give it scale and make it look like a starship- providing a basis for any future models and depictions of it in the future, such as FFG's CR-90.

The other was an entirely self-fueled venture.

Gotta' give 'em a little slack there on account'a that.

Heh. So, the Raider is worse because of the nearly unlimited resources of computer modeling, and the Corvette is better because Tony Stark made it in a cave from a box of scraps.

No, no. That's not what I mean.

The CR-90 of yore was better due to necessity. They had to do everything they could to make it look like a cluddy but functional ship. Funny enough, the opposite is true for Star Trek. Designs become less and less clunky and it's easier to do as film making tech gets better and better.

Star Wars vessels are designed to be functional and nothing more. They're bulky, they're ugly in a flattering way. So, designing it out of scratch, and out of misc. objects, from nasal spray caps to repurposed tampon shafts, is frankly one of the best ways to go about adding all of those "Detail" bits.

So in a way, yeah. Designing a ship for Star Wars and not building a model of it will always have a slightly lesser effect than drawing it out on paper, then trying to build what you drew. Compared the X-Wing to the E-Wing, the difference is clear.