How can I improve? I want realism, but I'm not getting it and idk why
>>536529>but I'm not getting it and idk whyUh because your shit doesn't look real. To elaborate: none of what you modeled has the complexity (or the semblance of complexity) of the real life things you're attempting to simulate.Trees don't look like that, rocks don't look like that, grass doesn't look like that, light doesn't work that way, etc.You don't have normal maps, your grass all rook same (needs randomized orientation, different clump types and sizes, different colors, different blade sizes, realistic looking lighting), same with all the rocks and stones, the tree trunks have no texture, the leaves on the two trees are clearly image planes, etcI mean watch this video for Blender (or go find one for Max or Maya or whatever, there's a really good one for the CryEngine using Maya):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gF6qkByl-_MOr to go even further (again, with Blender): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eshOzshjt90>but I don't use BlenderThe concepts are universal
the lighting is very flat. also dont use shaders from the software.
>>536576Great tutorials! My computer is overclocking just by watching them, but the results look great
An important thing is to use references (something that the tutorials posted above dont do, even if they are helpful technically). If you don't do that, you will end up modeling using your preconceived notions to what things looks like and it will end up boring and unrealistic. It's like symbol drawing, when you start drawing. For instance if you had to model a pine tree, you would instinctively make a cone shape on a stump when a pine tree could look like this : https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Pinus_densiflora_Kumgangsan.jpgSame for rocks or anything really. Rocks don't look the same wether you are in Iceland, Egypt or Arizona.A good thing to get realistic result and to train your vision is to pick a location and use google images to find and save various images of that location, and try to decode what makes the trees, rocks, grass, the relief of the terrain, etc characteristic. And then try to create a scene using that knowledge, try to replicate what you see and forget what you know. You dont need to copy exactly the references photos but really try to identify what makes them special and put that into your thinking as you model and texture the stuff.
>>536529The distance fog isn't realistic. It looks like the air is clear until about 20m away it suddenly becomes foggy. The fog doesn't effect the sky for no reason.
>>536529First of all, get rid of that nasty vignetteSecondly, learn how to do basic lighting.The grass looks very dark while the rocks are really light. It's like the rocks are in the daylight, and the grass is in the shade, or really wet.Thirdly, your grass, and trees very obviously "repeat" and don't look organic. Use more variety in your grass, and the make the trees not look like they are the same model. Maybe don't even use the same model.As someone else mentioned, The fog looks really bad too.It needs to not be there, or at least needs to start happening at a greater distance.Use reference photos, and just compare your work to the reference. You need to take the time to notice details, and see how you can mimic that effect in your scenes.
>this thread>people think you need realistic models to have a realistic compthats only half of the problem. use a decent renderer and not whatever the fuck >>536529 this shit is.
>>537385To be more specific, the lighting and renderer together are the the most important thing. If you can succeed in making even the simplest object super-realistic, everything else is just details.Start with a brick on a table or some other dumb simple shit, and try to figure out how to make that one thing look really fucking good, then apply what you learned to everything else.
Those rocks look like space dinosaur eggs.