Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
AyanoMidori

Old, outdated and ugly models.

48 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

247
[ARP2]
Supertester
469 posts
4,293 battles

The Japanese line has several ships that look like they haven't been updated since beta, and with the introduction of the second destroyer line awhile ago, some of the other ships look even worse now by comparison, dare I say ugly.

Allow me to specifically name these suspect ships, Fubuki, Kagero and Hatsuharu of the destroyer lines. Aoba, Mogami, Myoko and Ibuki of the cruiser line don't look as bad as the destroyers, but compared to Zao, Takao(Atago) and the upcoming Yahagi, they pale in comparison. For the battleships, Fuso, Kongo, Nagato and Amagi look really dated. Just compare Mutsu and Nagato, which are sisterships. The newer Mutsu looks amazingly well detailed, while Nagato looks like she's out of 2004. Yamato doesn't look as new as Musashi, but it's more or less fine. The carriers could use a touch up, which i'm hoping they get with the CV rework.

But I want to reiterate this, the older destroyers are by far the worst. Wargaming updated the early tiers and the tier 10s of the IJN branches, but left out the middle tiers. You may note how the tier 5 Furutaka looks better than the tier 6 Aoba. I waited every update, hoping they would update the rest of the ships, but they just stopped. If Wargaming could take the time to update these models I'm sure many would quite appreciate it.

6I9sNs2.jpg

Kagero compared to the newer Yugumo. I could've probably used Harekaze since its the same class as Kagero, but I'm sure this carries the point across no less.

jmakh8K.jpg

  • Cool 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,896
[HYDRO]
Members
3,472 posts
4,940 battles

Furutaka had the benefit of getting a new hull added that changed her layout from 6x1 203mm to 3x2 203mm, that's why she had an updated model.

As for changing the models I agree, it wouldn't be a bad idea. They could do 3-4 ships/update to slowly renew  the models. 

Added a comparison pic from an older  similar thread on EU: https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/87640-ship-model-quality-is-that-an-issue-worth-noting/

model_quality.thumb.png.8205f747c6723e86

Edited by warheart1992
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,377
[ARGSY]
Members
12,485 posts
7,926 battles

I play the ships; I don't gaze longingly at their artistic perfection like some people do. While I agree that better models are nicer, IMO there are better things to be putting priority resources into right now.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder, Beta Testers
1,576 posts
2,652 battles

I figure that Kagero/Harekaze will be like the Easy 8/Fury, even though a replacement HD model is 90% available due to a Prem it will be years before they bother fixing up the tree version. :Smile_hiding:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
79
[KRAK]
Members
1,055 posts
12,366 battles

My T7 BB KGV looks like an approximate 1st brush proposal of a model compared to myT9  CA St Louis.

Does the T8-9 British BBs look unfinished as well ?

Edited by Ericson38

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,527
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,953 posts
4,318 battles
3 hours ago, AyanoMidori said:

 

Gearing as well, shes actually to high and to wide due to modelling errors

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
202 posts
364 battles

agree with OP.  A lot of the original tech trees  (Japanese and USN) look pretty rough relative to the current state of WG ship modeling.  Wyoming , Omaha, Pensacola, Clemson and Farragut all come to mind. They looked great at the time the game was first released -- but now they are starting to look dated.  

I assume WG will eventually get around to this given that they did or are doing this with WoT.  They started reworking older tank models in WoT a couple years back.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
388
[LEGIT]
Members
1,821 posts
25,918 battles

     I don't think my eye for detail is as polished as the OP.  I'm not saying the differences aren't there, it's just that I really don't see much of a distinction.  Part of the problem on my part is that I think the ships are so well modeled that I really don't look at them that closely. 

     It may be my expectations are lower; though.  When you look at models used in the movies through the 1980's, these WG creations are just awesome.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,231
[WAIFU]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
13,557 posts
5,666 battles

Once upon a time, other than the models being rougher, WG also had an obsession with rust. The original USN/IJN line ships had rust plastered all over the place, and one can see that they are far rustier than newer ships. 

At the time it was defended as being realistic, which is a fair point. But man was it aesthetically displeasing.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
6,264 battles
5 hours ago, AyanoMidori said:

The Japanese line has several ships that look like they haven't been updated since beta, and with the introduction of the second destroyer line awhile ago, some of the other ships look even worse now by comparison, dare I say ugly.

Allow me to specifically name these suspect ships, Fubuki, Kagero and Hatsuharu of the destroyer lines. Aoba, Mogami, Myoko and Ibuki of the cruiser line don't look as bad as the destroyers, but compared to Zao, Takao(Atago) and the upcoming Yahagi, they pale in comparison. For the battleships, Fuso, Kongo, Nagato and Amagi look really dated. Just compare Mutsu and Nagato, which are sisterships. The newer Mutsu looks amazingly well detailed, while Nagato looks like she's out of 2004. Yamato doesn't look as new as Musashi, but it's more or less fine. The carriers could use a touch up, which i'm hoping they get with the CV rework.

But I want to reiterate this, the older destroyers are by far the worst. Wargaming updated the early tiers and the tier 10s of the IJN branches, but left out the middle tiers. You may note how the tier 5 Furutaka looks better than the tier 6 Aoba. I waited every update, hoping they would update the rest of the ships, but they just stopped. If Wargaming could take the time to update these models I'm sure many would quite appreciate it.

6I9sNs2.jpg

Kagero compared to the newer Yugumo. I could've probably used Harekaze since its the same class as Kagero, but I'm sure this carries the point across no less.

jmakh8K.jpg

Other than the cammo there is no difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,082
[WOLF7]
Members
12,122 posts
4 hours ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

I play the ships; I don't gaze longingly at their artistic perfection like some people do. While I agree that better models are nicer, IMO there are better things to be putting priority resources into right now.

Pretty much this. WG has invested far too much in aesthetics and the game has suffered as a result. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,933 posts
8,442 battles
1 hour ago, Super_Dreadnought said:

Once upon a time, other than the models being rougher, WG also had an obsession with rust. The original USN/IJN line ships had rust plastered all over the place, and one can see that they are far rustier than newer ships. 

At the time it was defended as being realistic, which is a fair point. But man was it aesthetically displeasing.

A rusty ship means a crew not doing its job. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
6,264 battles

LOL there is some triggered troll going around the forums and down voting every post I have made in the last few weeks.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
6,264 battles
6 minutes ago, Gen_Saris said:

A rusty ship means a crew not doing its job. 

I know it makes me twitch and want to start looking for the Chief Boatswains mate and start yelling at them to start rust busting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
234
[ICOP]
Members
1,068 posts
3,917 battles

Technology, software and modeling skill improve over time.  There will be differences between the older and newer rendering of models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,231
[WAIFU]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
13,557 posts
5,666 battles
6 minutes ago, Gen_Saris said:

A rusty ship means a crew not doing its job. 

Or a hard fought campaign, thousands of miles away from home and a can of paint.:Smile_teethhappy:

2042434487_59dc8f29d1_z.jpg?zz=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,933 posts
8,442 battles
1 minute ago, Super_Dreadnought said:

Or a hard fought campaign, thousands of miles away from home and a can of paint.:Smile_teethhappy:

Yeah, but my ships come back to the shipyard after every battle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
247
[ARP2]
Supertester
469 posts
4,293 battles
4 hours ago, Belthorian said:

Other than the cammo there is no difference.

My bad for using Yugumo with camo, without it the differences are extremely clear. 

Here's Harekaze, Kagero's sistership, a much newer model.

zT0mtDi.png6I9sNs2.jpg

Edited by AyanoMidori

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,228
[OO7]
Members
5,073 posts
11,848 battles
4 hours ago, Belthorian said:

Other than the cammo there is no difference.

Well the one without camo has much better fine details and such. The one with camo would be quite clunky looking if it had the camo removed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
347 posts
2,131 battles

I can definitely agree with this. A lot of the older ships have significantly worse model detail, textures, etc compared to newer ships. Especially the IJN and USN lines that have been around since alpha / beta. Its rather common for people to get better at doing something the more the do it, and it shows when looking at the old ships compared to newer ones. So I think it would be amazing to see the WG team use their years of experience and create new models and textures for older ships.

 

Of course I wouldn't expect something any time soon, but it would be nice to see a slow roll out of updated older ships like WoT did with their HD tank models (before Core engine).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
241
[RLGN]
Members
741 posts
5,923 battles
21 hours ago, warheart1992 said:

Furutaka had the benefit of getting a new hull added that changed her layout from 6x1 203mm to 3x2 203mm, that's why she had an updated model.

As for changing the models I agree, it wouldn't be a bad idea. They could do 3-4 ships/update to slowly renew  the models. 

Yeah, they obviously aren't gonna want to slow new content, but they could do like WoT did when it was getting an HD overhaul, that also helped prep it for the whole new client and everything it has now.  They would take a handful of tanks and update the models each patch (with slider images like this game uses for map changes to show them off in the patch notes) until the job was done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,506
[SYN]
Members
15,333 posts
12,427 battles

They really need to fix the ride height of Fubuki, Kagero and Gearing too.

They sit out of water way too high.

I don't think the rudder is supposed to be contacting air at all, yet they all do that when in port.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
6,264 battles
On 11/30/2018 at 5:19 PM, AyanoMidori said:

My bad for using Yugumo with camo, without it the differences are extremely clear. 

Here's Harekaze, Kagero's sistership, a much newer model.

zT0mtDi.png6I9sNs2.jpg

Which one is which, they look the same to me. 

Edited by Belthorian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×