Art Director

papragupapragu Home Join Date: 2015-03-23 Member: 202455Members Posts: 25 Fully active user
What was the art director thinking picking this Cyclops:
1t5q8n9fdfwg.jpg

over this one:
cadar8zpsscl.jpg

or this one:
5e2vxsy4u4qc.jpg

Would love to see the other two in the game.

Post edited by papragu on
AntoninTenebrousNovaech0gh0st
«13

Comments

  • Kouji_SanKouji_San Sr. Hινε Uρкεερεг - EUPT Deputy The Netherlands, Hoogezand Join Date: 2003-05-13 Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue Posts: 15,780 Advanced user
    edited May 2016
    I think you mean the Cyclops, and it could be that the Manta was a competitor running against the Cyclops for this class of submarine. Even though the Manta seems a bit bigger...

    The Rascal (synonym for Shark, I call it that :tongue: ) and the Draconis are both way larger than the Cyclops, so I'm pretty sure they are not in competition with it. Perhaps there might be some hope for them being needed for the extreme depths, would be awesome in any case! Also where exactly are you going to drive these huge subs in the starting areas, they seem endgame tier from what I can gather :)

    Guardian of the "magic cookiejar" AdminModerator

    Existence Unknown

    Retired forum Admin, I mostly used a flamethrower tank for disputes... Mostly
    Retired EUPT Deputy | Moral Support | Squad 5 Blue
    102 1HP Skulk escapes and counting | Play the Latest Version of Booster Z-Frame
    YouTube NS2 Playlists: Unusual Selection | NS2 Stuff | NS2PT | NS2 Tuts

    Epicnessism
  • sayerulzsayerulz oregon Join Date: 2015-04-15 Member: 203493Members Posts: 744 Advanced user
    I do actually feel, when looking at lineups of potential canidates for various vehicles... I find that I like the one the ended up picking the least out of all of them. Seamoth is a prime example. Still, that may just be me.
    Epicnessism
  • CrypervillaCrypervilla US Join Date: 2016-02-14 Member: 213026Members Posts: 24 Fully active user
    sayerulz wrote: »
    I do actually feel, when looking at lineups of potential canidates for various vehicles... I find that I like the one the ended up picking the least out of all of them. Seamoth is a prime example. Still, that may just be me.

    What he/she/it said.^

    Epicnessism
  • starkaosstarkaos Join Date: 2016-03-31 Member: 215139Members Posts: 501 Advanced user
    I think the main reason the Cyclops won is due to it having the skinniest profile. We are supposed to get our Cyclops down to the Inactive Lava Zone for Exosuit exploration and it is already a tight fit. Trying to get the other subs down there seems like it would be a massive challenge.
    hmciv
  • TennexTennex Join Date: 2016-05-15 Member: 216789Members Posts: 7 Fully active user
    Glad you guys ended up using only 1 sub design. Becomes really redundant otherwise, with no best way with gameplay to distinguish between similar vessels. (unless u were planning on having one of them as attack sub :o)

    Plus i really like the cyclops look and that its belly opens up to swallow the seamoth
    coldsnapRezcaDefectiveDelfin
  • ShuryCZShuryCZ Czech Republic Join Date: 2015-07-07 Member: 206047Members Posts: 176 Advanced user
    Definitely understandable explanation by Squeal_Like_A_Pig . If it were easy, we would have more subs, I am fine with what is in the game.

    Also, I still hope that maybe, just maybe, in the further future after release there could be one extra sub - not big one, rather middle sized. I don't know how real my hope is, but I will stick to it :D
    Up, up and away!
  • papragupapragu Home Join Date: 2015-03-23 Member: 202455Members Posts: 25 Fully active user
    Kouji_San wrote: »
    I think you mean the Cyclops, and it could be that the Manta was a competitor running against the Cyclops for this class of submarine. Even though the Manta seems a bit bigger...

    The Rascal (synonym for Shark, I call it that :tongue: ) and the Draconis are both way larger than the Cyclops, so I'm pretty sure they are not in competition with it. Perhaps there might be some hope for them being needed for the extreme depths, would be awesome in any case! Also where exactly are you going to drive these huge subs in the starting areas, they seem endgame tier from what I can gather :)

    Yes i did meant Cyclops, dunno why i was writing Aurora, fixed it.


    As the Art Director I can tell you "what I was thinking". There were actually many different reasons why we went with the sub we did (and it wasn't just my decision alone) but just to name a few:

    --The shark like design is much much bigger. Originally we were going to have more subs - 2 small subs, 2 medium sized subs, and 1 or 2 large subs. The Shark one was a contender for the bigger sub. But, in game development, things seem simpler at first then they end up being in execution and the Cyclops ended up taking so much time to make, we just didn't have time to make more subs. At this point we just can;t justify the cost of additional subs, when they don't really add a lot of new gameplay, and we aren't even sure there is even a place in the game for a really large sub, since the current one is hard enough to navigate around in the world as it is.

    --We wanted to make it clear the player and all their tech and vehicles are civilian, not military. The shark design, while certainly really cool, also looks very aggressive and better suited to a combat vehicle. So, we decided it wasn't the best sub to use for the default sub.

    --We liked the Cyclops design a lot. It works well to convey "submarine" but still has an interesting silhouette that pushes into it the futuristic sci fi territory. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but it is our game, so our opinions win :wink:

    And as for the Draconis, that design was probably going to be the alternative medium size that a player would have been able to build. But hey, maybe if we start pulling in Star Citizen amounts of money, we can do lots more subs :)

    Well size is kinda relative, you guys could have model it smaller but keep the design. I wouldn't call the shark design aggressive, i would call it efficient and due to it's shape maybe even easier to navigate. The Draconis on the other hand really looks military style. Well there really isn't any need for more or bigger subs, but man just look how sexy the shark design is.
  • lorcogothlorcogoth belgium Join Date: 2015-09-14 Member: 207943Members Posts: 105 Advanced user
    And as for the Draconis, that design was probably going to be the alternative medium size that a player would have been able to build. But hey, maybe if we start pulling in Star Citizen amounts of money, we can do lots more subs :)

    in other words: someone should start a kick starter/fund raiser. :p
    Rezca
  • KlinnKlinn Lost in a cave Join Date: 2016-03-09 Member: 214022Members Posts: 231 Advanced user
    But hey, maybe if we start pulling in Star Citizen amounts of money, we can do lots more subs :)

    Thank goodness you're not charging Star Citizen amounts of money for each sub! Yikes. :D
    CoranthChimpX
  • HaliosHalios Oz Join Date: 2015-11-27 Member: 209514Members Posts: 249 Advanced user
    Personally I think the shark one's design is too literal. I don't hate it but I think the other two are more sophisticated and original.
  • JoeakuakuJoeakuaku USA Join Date: 2016-04-10 Member: 215614Members Posts: 55 Fully active user
    So what's so costly about development? Is it the paying the people who develop? I've done some modelling, and it isn't way too hard to do something fairly decent for free. Actually, just give enough time and you can figure out how to make more complex things.
  • bwc153bwc153 Shawnee, KS, US Join Date: 2016-02-29 Member: 213659Members Posts: 96 Advanced user
    edited May 2016
    Joeakuaku wrote: »
    So what's so costly about development? Is it the paying the people who develop? I've done some modelling, and it isn't way too hard to do something fairly decent for free. Actually, just give enough time and you can figure out how to make more complex things.

    Professional grade modelling and programming is expensive, especially when the work is split work up among multiple people to reduce general production times.

    Say they were to make one of those new submarines - first of all you'd need someone to make the model. This process might be broken down into several parts among several modellers to speed up the production process - someone might model some of the furniture and machinery that is inside the submarine while someone else maybe designs the hull itself, and those tasks might be even split up further (say one person making external hull model, someone else, internal). From what I have seen, high quality 3d Models can easily take several months to be produced. Now, on top of that you need texture artists to actually texture, as well as set up UV maps and lighting/surfaces effects , of the objects as well, and this can also be time consuming. That's just on the art side to have a pretty submarine - but it won't do anything besides look pretty with just this task. Next up you'll need programmers!

    Now if objects require some function, you need a programmer to program the new functions, and depending on the workload of the objects in question, that work may also be split up among several programmers. In this case of a Submarine, what would be needed? Probably some similar mechanics as already are on the Cyclops in the form of a docking station for Exosuit/Seamoth, hull crushing and flooding, open-able doors/bulkheads, entrances into/out of the submarine, Power consumption/generation(?), light controls, movement, physics, upgrades, capability to place objects inside the submarine, etc. etc. Now virtually all of these are from existing code, and could - probably - even be built upon said code, but even basing new code off of existing work can be a plethora of unforeseen issues within itself - what seems easy in programming usually never is. Regardless of whether the code is built ontop of existing code, or not, or to what extent, there will be problems. Development time here will also take awhile, several weeks to several months, though it will likely running in parallel with much of the art design phase above.

    All of these people add up, regardless of how many the division of labor is on the project, if you have a bunch of people working together to churn it out quickly or a small side project while most of the team is busy elsewhere. According to Glassdoor, the average 3D artist salary is about $57,000, $73,000 for a Game Programmer, and about $70,000 for a texture artist. So if you had say, 2 modellers work on the sub for 3 months, 2 texture artists for 2 months, and 2 programmers for 2 months, you'd be spending around 75,000 worth of production time, not including the QA costs, on said Submarine in this example. These numbers of developers and time spent are completely figurative and used as an example purpose, and thus are likely inaccurate.

    One final thing to take note of here is the opportunity cost, a critical thing when it comes to game development as well as many other industries, where if the limited assets a company has are spent implementing Y, the company may not have enough time and/or money to implement Z. We have seen this with a variety of features already in Subnautica, where ideas were deemed too time-consuming to do and scrapped or simplified, or because one feature took precedent over the other. So while this submarine example might seem like it costs a lot of money to do (it does), the money would likely be spent on something else within the Subnautica instead - so instead it comes to the question of what does one have to scrap to implement something else?

    I hope this wall of text helps you better understand this, there's a lot going on in the background that a consumer such as you or I won't see much of. It's extremely fascinating to me to attempt to understand how the process works, and such amazing games come together - granted I'm trying to get into the field someday so I may be biased.

    EDIT: Insane said what I said in significantly less words. :P
    ShuryCZcoldsnap
  • Calarand77Calarand77 lurking in general forums Join Date: 2016-01-22 Member: 211786Members Posts: 324 Advanced user
    Am I the only one to actually really LIKE the Cyclops? It has the classic submarine look with all the futuristic bells and whistles added, and somehow they work together perfectly well. The Shark really is too obvious in its shape, like something an angry teenager would build to boost his self-esteem and go happily pew-pew everything that moves. It doesn't fit absolutely anywhere within the style of the other elements in game. Look at the Aurora, at the shapes of habitat pieces, and all the tools the player character is using - it's all spherical, soft, oblong, unaggresive, because that is the core of the game - we did not come there to conquer and prey on the world. From the crash landing onwards, we are guided to explore, research, learn, not kill. If the Shark ended up as the chosen submarine, it would stick out like a sore thumb.
    coldsnapDefectiveDelfin
  • KlinnKlinn Lost in a cave Join Date: 2016-03-09 Member: 214022Members Posts: 231 Advanced user
    edited May 2016
    bwc153 wrote: »
    From what I have seen, high quality 3d Models can easily take several months to be produced. Now, on top of that you need texture artists to actually texture, as well as set up UV maps and lighting/surfaces effects , of the objects as well, and this can also be time consuming... ...open-able doors/bulkheads, entrances into/out of the submarine...

    Good summary, although I might add that "rigging" a model to create things like doors that can be opened via programmed actions, that is usually done back at model-creation stage. Of course, inevitably a designer then gets a bright idea about how a particular object should now be used in the game and somebody has to go back re-work the model to suit. ;)

    When you're thinking about costs, also remember that a lot of Subnautica's art is being contracted out to Fox3D in Estonia (http://fox3d.com/). The Subnautica team itself will have at least an Art Lead who will help determine the overall look and coordinate work with their external partner, but may not be doing a lot of the actual production work themselves.

    Joeakuaku wrote:
    I've done some modelling, and it isn't way too hard to do something fairly decent for free.
    As has been pointed out, it's not quite as simple as that. Even ignoring all the other disciplines that go into it, making 3D assets is a different situation when you're trying to actually earn a living at it. Especially when you're re-working an asset yet again for a picky client and all the direction you're receiving is "Could you make it, you know, more science-fiction-y?" :D

    But a good way to start heading in that direction is making mods for games. Start small and build up to moderately complex projects. Also, you may find some interesting reading over in the Polycount forums where a number of pros, and folks who want to become pros, hang out. (http://polycount.com/)
    Post edited by Klinn on
  • hmcivhmciv TX Join Date: 2016-04-21 Member: 216033Members Posts: 29 Advanced user
    For this gamer's 2¢, adding another big sub would only be interesting if it did something that the Cyclops did not. (Think Seamoth vs Exosuit)

    From a realism perspective, a Cyclops is probably one of the largest vessels a lone survivor could manage. Piloting, maintaining the engine, operating the controls (lights) and handling the docked submarine all require separate functions in separate places. Managing one of the really big subs would require lots of walking from station to station.
  • starkaosstarkaos Join Date: 2016-03-31 Member: 215139Members Posts: 501 Advanced user
    hmciv wrote: »
    For this gamer's 2¢, adding another big sub would only be interesting if it did something that the Cyclops did not. (Think Seamoth vs Exosuit)

    From a realism perspective, a Cyclops is probably one of the largest vessels a lone survivor could manage. Piloting, maintaining the engine, operating the controls (lights) and handling the docked submarine all require separate functions in separate places. Managing one of the really big subs would require lots of walking from station to station.

    Which is why we should go with a medium-sized sub if it is possible. Squeal Like a Pig originally said that they wanted 2 small subs, 2 medium subs, and 2 large subs. We already have a small and large sub so we just need a medium sub. A medium sub makes more sense for going to areas like the Inactive Lava Zone where we have to navigate through a tunnel and carry our Exosuit.
  • sayerulzsayerulz oregon Join Date: 2015-04-15 Member: 203493Members Posts: 744 Advanced user
    Calarand77 wrote: »
    Am I the only one to actually really LIKE the Cyclops? It has the classic submarine look with all the futuristic bells and whistles added, and somehow they work together perfectly well. The Shark really is too obvious in its shape, like something an angry teenager would build to boost his self-esteem and go happily pew-pew everything that moves. It doesn't fit absolutely anywhere within the style of the other elements in game. Look at the Aurora, at the shapes of habitat pieces, and all the tools the player character is using - it's all spherical, soft, oblong, unaggresive, because that is the core of the game - we did not come there to conquer and prey on the world. From the crash landing onwards, we are guided to explore, research, learn, not kill. If the Shark ended up as the chosen submarine, it would stick out like a sore thumb.

    Got to disagree with you on that one. The shark one is just a straight up superior design. The cyclops's terrible mobility and massive power use is pretty realistic for what you would get with something as hydrodynamic as a brick. And while the cyclops has a large observation window, it's poor design and the total lack of windows anywhere else means that it has very poor visibility. There is a reason that sharks are the top predators in the ocean, and that real life submarines take a lot of inspiration from them. Any real organization, regardless of how peaceful it may or may not be, would choose the shark like shape over the wasteful design of the cyclops in an instant.

    And I honestly don't see how it looks warlike. To me, it just looks sleek and efficient. Peaceful intentions don't change the laws of physics.

    Also, final note, it always bugs me when people say things like "you are a scientist" or "the ship was not here to exploit this planet". The story really doesn't support that. The ship was originally a colony ship: definitely conquest. Now it is a mining ship: still exploiting.
    Rezcapapragu
  • RezcaRezca United States Join Date: 2016-04-28 Member: 216078Members Posts: 1,061 Advanced user
    edited May 2016
    If they ever find themselves with the time and resources... I'd love to have that shark-inspired sub in the game. Maybe as post-1.0 content. I like the Cyclops don't get me wrong, but man that 'shark' one is a beautiful piece of work as well~
    A Great Jaggi under the sea~

  • zetachronzetachron Germany Join Date: 2014-11-14 Member: 199655Members Posts: 1,189 Advanced user
    ...
    --We wanted to make it clear the player and all their tech and vehicles are civilian, not military. The shark design, while certainly really cool, also looks very aggressive and better suited to a combat vehicle. So, we decided it wasn't the best sub to use for the default sub.
    ...

    That! And that's exactly why I feel the Cyclops can't drive like a war sub or maneuver like a heavy weight Seamoth. It's the tourist sub for everyone. A mobile habitat rather than a true submarine. The game doesn't want the Cyclops being used as a weapon and ram leviathans to death. But what happens if you force every player to use a sub without allowing it to drive it elegantly? Won't it reduce the success of the game?

    ... But hey, maybe if we start pulling in Star Citizen amounts of money, we can do lots more subs :)

    I'd wish you'd do, I really wish you could, so one day we see a Subnautica 2 with all those elements we wish.


    Please, stay peaceful and non lethal with your game, but allow us to drive that Cyclops, so that it's actually fun doing it and not wishing to reach its location to release the Seamoth or Exomech or harvest new stuff.
  • ChaosKnight626ChaosKnight626 Minnesota Join Date: 2015-08-05 Member: 206783Members Posts: 434 Advanced user
    People always argue about which sub would be better. So I made this meme
    ilbyg9eilyz5.jpg
    Personally I'm Team Draconis here since it looks like it'd be easier to code and it'd be more maneuverable than the "Shark"
    papragu
  • papragupapragu Home Join Date: 2015-03-23 Member: 202455Members Posts: 25 Fully active user
    zetachron wrote: »
    That! And that's exactly why I feel the Cyclops can't drive like a war sub or maneuver like a heavy weight Seamoth. It's the tourist sub for everyone. A mobile habitat rather than a true submarine. The game doesn't want the Cyclops being used as a weapon and ram leviathans to death. But what happens if you force every player to use a sub without allowing it to drive it elegantly? Won't it reduce the success of the game?

    I don't see how you can't use the cyclops to ram things? My point wasn't the functionality of the subs but the looks. But even in terms of functionality the shark design would be the first pick. As Sayerulz and i already point out further up. The shark design is more efficient and would be what every organisation, that has the funds to start such a project, would go for. It is more streamlined and produces less water displacement which in return offers better maneuverability and requires less power to reach same speed. Simply said it is more efficient and the better choice.
  • zetachronzetachron Germany Join Date: 2014-11-14 Member: 199655Members Posts: 1,189 Advanced user
    edited May 2016
    @papragu I have long tried to drive the Cylops and it won't work. You might aim at a rock or reaper that swims against you and ram it, but that's it. The devs don't want agressive combat maneuvers and for the same reason they've chosen the Cylops design. Just read Squeal_Like_A_Pig's statement. So we neither get a shark sub nor a sub that moves as elegant as a shark (or Seamoth). Because it's not wanted. Otherwise the devs would have made the shark model their first choice, maybe a bit smaller to fit the map.

    EDIT:
    Or just look at the Trello design "making the Cyclops more relevant". This was only necessary because no one likes driving the cyclops. But everyone likes driving the Seamoth.
  • ech0gh0stech0gh0st CA Join Date: 2016-05-11 Member: 216637Members Posts: 208 Advanced user
    papragu wrote: »
    What was the art director thinking picking this Cyclops:
    1t5q8n9fdfwg.jpg

    over this one:
    cadar8zpsscl.jpg

    or this one:
    5e2vxsy4u4qc.jpg

    Would love to see the other two in the game.

    The Second one is my FAVORITE :)
    "Wait What?" -Me
  • ech0gh0stech0gh0st CA Join Date: 2016-05-11 Member: 216637Members Posts: 208 Advanced user
    As the Art Director I can tell you "what I was thinking". There were actually many different reasons why we went with the sub we did (and it wasn't just my decision alone) but just to name a few:

    --The shark like design is much much bigger. Originally we were going to have more subs - 2 small subs, 2 medium sized subs, and 1 or 2 large subs. The Shark one was a contender for the bigger sub. But, in game development, things seem simpler at first then they end up being in execution and the Cyclops ended up taking so much time to make, we just didn't have time to make more subs. At this point we just can;t justify the cost of additional subs, when they don't really add a lot of new gameplay, and we aren't even sure there is even a place in the game for a really large sub, since the current one is hard enough to navigate around in the world as it is.

    --We wanted to make it clear the player and all their tech and vehicles are civilian, not military. The shark design, while certainly really cool, also looks very aggressive and better suited to a combat vehicle. So, we decided it wasn't the best sub to use for the default sub.

    --We liked the Cyclops design a lot. It works well to convey "submarine" but still has an interesting silhouette that pushes into it the futuristic sci fi territory. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but it is our game, so our opinions win :wink:

    And as for the Draconis, that design was probably going to be the alternative medium size that a player would have been able to build. But hey, maybe if we start pulling in Star Citizen amounts of money, we can do lots more subs :)

    I do with they had more subs that were faster or could do special things
    "Wait What?" -Me
  • Calarand77Calarand77 lurking in general forums Join Date: 2016-01-22 Member: 211786Members Posts: 324 Advanced user
    sayerulz wrote: »
    Got to disagree with you on that one.
    By all means, do! :) It's obviously a matter of personal preference and we can't all like the same things or the world would be boring.
    RezcapapraguDefectiveDelfin
  • AstromancerAstromancer Texas Join Date: 2016-05-13 Member: 216713Members Posts: 124 Advanced user
    @Squeal_Like_A_Pig I like the second concept the most, but I can agree with you on how aggressive it seems. I will admit the Cyclops has grown on me, but I would like a better mobile base. My worry is what are we going to do about the large creatures throwing us around like rag dolls? We need something that can ward them off or something immune to their massive size.
  • AncoliusAncolius Nederland Join Date: 2015-02-01 Member: 201148Members Posts: 23 Fully active user
    For the function the medium sub is used for the Cyclops is at the moment the best choice.
    After all we use it mostly as a cargo ship and as most transports go it is storage over a slimdesign.

    Maybe we can get the other subs in an expansion pack after the release of the main game, there are many more important things that need the dev's attention to make this game a succes so they can turn Subnautica in to a franchise what will give more room for expansions like Subs, land masses ect,
    papragu
  • Enderguy059Enderguy059 Australia Join Date: 2015-10-15 Member: 208486Members Posts: 626 Advanced user
    IDEA: Use the draconis as a large sub: Use the elongated front as a docking bay that can fit 2 small vehicles (Seamoth/exosuit) or 1 cyclops.
    Politics are... pretty terrible.
    I mean, they always seem to get people into fights and encourage irrational behaviour.
    I'm fine with making a compromise and sticking to the middle road, thanks.
Sign In or Register to comment.