I'm looking at this picture again, and I'm thinking that the orientation of the ships looks right, but actually is not correct. I didn't notice this problem when you only had either near ships or far ships. The way you have positioned the ships is as if the planet is an object only a bit bigger than the ships. It's as if the planet was a nearby space station rather than a distant, enormous planet.
To see what I mean, try this little demonstration. I'm sitting at my desk and using a can of Coke placed about an arm's length away to represent the planet. In my left hand I hold a paper clip, again at arm's length, to represent the far ships. In my right hand I hold another paper clip to represent the close ship. If you point both paper clips towards the Coke can, they resemble the orientation of your ships in the picture.
However, the planet is not the same place relative to the ships as is the coke can to the paper clips. The planet is in fact very far away. To see the problem, with your hands in the same position, turn your chair so that a distant object, like the clock on the wall takes the same place in your field of view as the Coke can did. Close one eye so you can focus on both the far object and the paper clips. See what's wrong? Although the paper clips paths are converging at the point in space where the Coke can was, the object that they are supposed to be travelling to (the far object) is actually much further behind their paths and their point of convergence.
Although the ships are pointed towards the image of the planet in the picture, in real space they will pass way in front of the planet. If that's your intention, that's fine, but that near ship is probably going to converge with the far ships and crash into them. If they are actually travelling to the planet, we'd probably only see the ships back sides.
I don't mean to pick on your picture, but this is a problem that I've noticed in other people's work. A similar problem also occurs in lighting.
|
