[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Settings Home

File: 1444308997843-143975709.jpg (1.56 MB, 3264x1836)
1.56 MB
1.56 MB JPG
Are most characters for video games created in zbrush or Maya?
Both... They're sculpted in ZBrush and rigged in Maya, as well as sometimes retopo'd in Maya, but there are a lot of different retopo tools people like to use.

If it's a low poly game, then it's usually just Maya or Max though.
>sculpted in ZBrush and rigged in Maya
not entirely accurate.
usually they're boxed in maya first, then zbrushed, then re-topo'd in maya, then rigged in maya, then ported to the enigne.

but your answer is far from wrong.
>usually they're boxed in maya first,
Nope, not these days because of Dynamesh. Before Dynamesh, yeah often. It's just so much quicker to just get right to sculpting and then create your base topo on top of the sculpt. Being as efficient as you can is important to studio work, as is keeping your workflow easily open to modification throughout the process, which sculpt first allows for, instead of locking yourself into a certain basemesh.
i stand corrected, anon.
you are right.

but aren't most characters still based before dyna'd?

i haven't touched zbrush so i'm not sure if that's the current flow or if the base can by bypassed and dyna can be the starting gun.
>but aren't most characters still based before dyna'd?
Nope. Think of dynamesh as digital clay. There's no need to make a base first. It lets you just pull your forms out of any shape and sculpt with total freedom. If you're dealing with a generic human character though, then yeah you'd just start sculpting on a generic human base-mesh the studio would already have for you to use, or that you should yourself already have in your resources, no need to spend time remaking it for each character.

Do you have a library of your "go to" Ears/ hands etc or just a simplified version to shape per character?
I have a female and male base mesh for heads and body. Some 3D scans as well, but that's mostly used for reference. Ears you just need a generalized shape on the base mesh, all ears are pretty much the same, just some shifting of the proportions. Humans are all similar enough that you don't need to keep remaking a base for them, at least not a sculpting base, the game you're working on may have certain polycount limits or targets that they want you to meet, a certain level of detail on the base that your stock doesn't have.
wait, even the hard surface stuff?
Naw, that more depends on the artist. If your a modeler who is also in a "3D concepting" role, then you will often flesh out your hard surface forms in ZBrush, but usually only if they are part of a creature/character. Though there are a few artists at studios who have used dynamesh to have more freedom in developing weapon concepts too. But for the most part, purely hard surface stuff is still done in poly modeling apps, though zModeler is nice if you can get used to it.
Basically. An entire player model can be modeled in maya or zbrush it doesn't matter what program you use.

Maya has smooth preview which is useful for certain things and is also good for retopo but you can do that in ZBrush and they've added tools that allow for quick retopo that do a weeks worth of work in a few seconds and it means then you've got to clean up any minor mistakes in maya.


hard surface things can be done in zbrush better now check out the latest release tool that adds polygon modeling.

i'm waiting for the next version to be honest before i buy it because i'd rather not spend money on an update.
>i'm waiting for the next version to be honest before i buy it because i'd rather not spend money on an update.
Updates have been free thus far. But I understand some people think ZBrush 5 might cost money, though they thought the same of ZBrush 4 yet it wasn't the case. They've made extra money off that keyshot bridge.
they have been talking about re-writing the program for a while now, its all spaghetti code atm. who knows, they might make it full 3d and not 2.5d.

and maybe some normal gizmo tools instead of transpose
That talk of rewriting it was for the 64bit client, which they released with 4R7.
It's never going to be full 3D, if it did, it would then perform no better than Mudbox or Blendshit. ZBrush performing so well relies on its unique approach to representing 3D shapes.

And given how well zModeler works, I don't see much of a reason to switch to a traditional polygon system.
File: 1291008401537.jpg (223.79 KB, 480x534)
223.79 KB
223.79 KB JPG
An intelligent and respectful conversation on a relatively noobish subject?

Damn /3/, you surprise me.
File: Both-Both-is-good-GIF.gif (1.84 MB, 300x189)
1.84 MB
1.84 MB GIF
Most characters are sprites
…I'm sorry, I had to

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.