Time for a new WIP kidz
Space Marine head speedsculpt...
took me an hour from sphere...
Are you the same guy that did >>589211 ?Also, I still need more of >>591840
It would be cool if slowly started adding our own models on that WIP pic, not just random stuff from the internet.Btw I wanted to say the same thing as anon above. It's you, isn't it? Shaders and that nose gave it away.
changed some bits hair was too big... >>592188>>592189)) yeah... shaders, hair and I think scars? but nose? PS: I think, the point of this WIP image is, that it's complete bulshit.. isn't that the point of whole 4chan, anyway? ))
Half-French Hottie, Part 4.Real glad this game got a Japanese patch just yesterday. This might boost the amount of fanart a bit. Hopefully Stella gets a character sheet.Is there a way to bake ramp shader lighting as you see it in the viewport? When I try to do it in Arnold, not only do I always get a smooth, uniform interpolation between the colors in the gradient, which is not what I want, I also get a ton of edge bleeding no matter what settings I tweak.
Another exercise with Netradiant.
>>592207the legs need some work from the knee down.
>>592230>Netradiantever try recreating levels from quake 3 arena or american mcgee's alice?
>>592232I'm not a good enough mapper yet to attempt something like that but there are many really beautiful maps available in source format like the retrojam and mapjam series. I could try to render some of those.
The mic on my desk has been tempting me since I got back into 3D and I figured I'd finally give it a go. Had to follow a tutorial for the wires.
>>592252i did the same tutorial about 3 years ago.
>>592258It's a nice tutorial.
>>592231What kind of work? Can you do a paint-over?
>>592231>>592303Here's some close-ups.
>>592071>>592075Yeah, I just want the best possible quality.The thing is, I see that exterior UE4 scenes almost always use dynamic lighting. Even some of the best UE4 nature renders I saw are done with simple dynamic lights, e.g. this guy's work:https://www.artstation.com/artwork/2YbXKThen there's another problem - I have a hard time getting good baked lighting in scenes like these, and it is very time consuming. Also, I may animate the weather and sun, so dynamic lighting is the way to go in that case.I'm trying out some baked static lighting, and I'll post a couple of comparisons now. I'm not that familiar with that workflow, so I don't think I can get good enough results. In pic related, I don't think I see many differences actually. I can notice that shadows on my character are more prominent, but at the same time, they don't look the best to me. Also, my grass got almost completely dark so I had to boost the diffuse brightness and SSS amount a lot, resulting in a bit different look (these slight color variations might actually be good, though, I'll keep that in mind for later).Left image is done with dynamic GI and LPV, while the right one is the new baked result.There has to be something wrong with my setup for the bake, I expected more stunning results, but I can only see some small difference with shadows and indirect lighting, which I can control just fine with my previous setup, if I wanted to change them.
One more, and don't let the contrast in the previous image fool you, since the left one has a fog starting closer from the player, so everything is more washed up as the result of that.Left - dynamic GI, LPVRight - baked static directional + stationary sky light>>592062I'll be working on it and create smaller and thinner clumps, just trying to see what to do with my lighting and if I should stick with this setup or go with baked. Also, I don't know if I should try VXGI, but it might run really bad for scene like this. And afaik I have to download it and install it first.
And here's the grass material for the guy who was asking for it. Keep in mind that the mesh itself is, IMO, even more important, because I've been using that same setup for my previous version of grass, and they looked pretty bad. Also, the lighting setup itself plays a very big part in it.
This is how the grass texture looks like (AO in this example). Really important for the end result, really gives it the needed depth. Btw, that red texture sample in the previous image is actually a diffuse texture, it just shows it weirdly, so yeah, it's not just a solid red color.And then there's how you arrange your grass planes as well - I didn't even do a good job for this one because I was testing many versions and just started doing it as fast as I could, it will need to be reworked, but basically, I did an X shape and then added additional planes on the left and the right. All the planes are slightly angled to the sides.
>>592314>>592316Thank you for the grass material. Also this this the first time I see AO like this one,it looks really soft and ... rounded on edges I guess. I also wonder if it gets visible mipmap errors on distance (I am that one guy who always bakes his stuff with maximum pixel padding, because there are no downsides to this method). Your scene is coming along really nice, both dynamic and baked. You said that you use lpv, is this all? I thought you used dfao for this one too, I really like all nice shadows you have there. In both >>592312>>592313 posts you said GI and LPV, and I don't really understand what do you mean by it. Unreal has 3 methods for GI, the first one is LPV, the second one - DFGI - does not working in 4.18 and the third one is heightfield GI which is basically a fucked up version of GI that is used only for built-in landscape in unreal. I ask this because default unreal movable light does not produces a secondary lighting bounce and can't be called GI because of it.Sorry for truckload of questions, this kind of cool work is not what you see every day and I just must ask you. There is one more thing that bothers me a little bit, and this is a post processing. Try to change slope closer to 79 in your PP, it should give you a result which represents real life colors and gamma better. It is set to 88 or something like this by default if I remember correctly. It might or might not give you a strange looking image, depending on your overall albedo values in your scene. New tonemapper is not that good unfortunately. Just screw up with it and see what looks best for your needs.
I'm I heading in the right direction. I feel I should make the mouth bigger and the chin. Even if it goes off model. Favoring the front view of the model sheet.Going to make 2 versions. An animation friendly one to shit post with. and a low res one to texture static faces on to use in Table top sim. Want to keep the base generic so I can re-use after just tweaking the face and body to make more models.I think I hate non-sphere eyes in 3D
Wasn't supposed to continue this today, but decided to use the time spent on procrastinating for something useful instead.
>>592341Not bad so far, would sit on before you add the buttons.
>>592313Dunno what system specs you have, but I reckon that VXGI would require you to have something on the level of a 1080 Ti just to run at a playable framerate in an outside environment. GI is generally more impressive in closed spaces with limited light anyway. Well, there’s no harm in trying it out anyway, and you did say that this is a “cost no object” proof of concept. Might as well get some cool screen shots out of it to share.
>>592350That's a yeti blue yeah? Love em.
>>592351I have i5 6500 and GTX 960. I have to at least try it out one day. Is the difference between VXGI and my dynamic lighting setup very noticeable?>>592319To be honest, I didn't hear about those methods for GI until now, and I see that I really didn't use DFAO. This project is on 4.18 version so I probably don't use DFGI either, don't know about the last one. I only turned on LPV in my ini file and played with that. I can get a lot of control over things like shadow strength, shadow sharpness and amount of indirect lighting through parameters for directional light, sky light and PP volume. But now I've turned DFAO on and I really like it, adds some needed depth back. Pic related, left is without DFAO, right is with DFAO. Maybe it won't be so easy to notice it for you guys, but you can see differences clearly on the rock and the wood log on the right, as well as on the character. When I turn it on and off rapidly it is very noticeable. Also changed slope to 79 like you said, didn't know about that, so thanks for that too.Yeah, I think that AO on the grass looks very nice, I baked everything in xNormal. Like I said before, I made this grass with Zbrush's fibermesh. It produces those cylindrical shapes which might not be the greatest representation of grass blades, but when I bake those, I get such a nice depth to it IMO, and it's a lot more readable in the scene. I was never satisfied with my grass until now, even when I used some grass from Megascans.
Working on a RX-79 [G] model. Just finished the head. Fucking love this Gundam. Never really have worked on a character before. I know this isn't exactly a character, but damn making the head was a bitch! Rest should be easy given that Gundam's are mostly a bunch of boxy shapes.
>>592183UE4 world im working on
>>592359Looks really good, but I have a whole bunch of crits if you don't mind.1. Bright spots on wood log. I assume that this is produced by low resolution distance fields. Try to set DF resolution scake in mesh setting a bit higher. I really recommend you to take a look at this video, it covers a lot if not everything abount DF.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nm1slxtF_qA 2.I though it is a stone until you said it's a wood log. Try to change albedo color to better represent how wood looks like, try to play with rough values, maybe add noise to shader to make top cover look more like a snow. Maybe even setup a gradient shader to smooth out connection to ground. Maybe take it one step more and setup a shader with pixel depth offset. 3. Same about grass, but I would not recommend you to do if you going for game environment. 3. You can setup the same PDO shader to smooth out grass connection to the ground, BUT at this time make it fade in distance to not kill performance completely.... Or go batshit insane and use distance to nearest surface node, which will give you overkill quality (please do not do it for grass/foliage, this is a really bad idea), but be extremely careful with it, I mean it. It really smoothes out connection to the ground and other assets.
>>592359>It produces those cylindrical shapes which might not be the greatest representation of grass blades, but when I bake those, I get such a nice depth to it IMO, and it's a lot more readable in the scene. I was never satisfied with my grass until now, even when I used some grass from Megascans.Sometimes the best detail isn’t from high detail. Whenever you intend to bake normal maps or chamfer edges, you first have to consider the scale of the object and distance at which it’ll often be viewed at, because details that are too fine will just get lost. Just try importing a cube with rounded corners and comparing to a cube with hard edges, at a far enough distance the two will just look the same.The solution is to pick the largest/smoothest transitions you can get away with that still retain a good amount of detail, so that light still catches the features at a distance. So even though your bake isn’t realistic, it’s the one that works the best, and full realism doesn’t matter at such a small scale because no one really spends time staring at the grass except us.
>>592387Haha, that's true, almost nobody would notice it. After my last post yesterday, I spent 2 hours making tweaks on my PP volume and adjusting light intensities. All that for what seems like nicer spruces (which I'm going to replace anyway) and a tiny bit better grass. Even I can barely see differences, and I have about 90+ screenshots now, each representing another tweak, and consider that I didn't change almost anything on the scene except for the grass for like... Wtf, 8 days??? That's enough, I have to continue working on new models, this is insane. I'd almost say it was a waste of time, but I think I learned a lot.>>592385Critiques are what I'm looking for, just throw them at me.Haha, I'm not sure how much of your crits will now apply, but you circled the rock, the wood log is the one behind it. The white spots are just snowflakes, I was not sure about it either when I looked at the picture, but yeah, you can see in pic related without snowfall that there are none of them. That's a good tip about connection to the ground, I'll have to check that out. Smaller rocks, grass or displaced snow around it is usually a good solution for hiding that. Oh, and I should definitely add some displacement on that vertex painted snow shader. From closer distances it looks like a paint to me when it's so flat.>pic related newest version
>>592390>8 days???Meh, I’ve been working on my project since... June I think, and I haven’t even really used Unreal editor yet, mostly cramming tutorials as I set up models in Max, and figuring out other details like level layout and scale. I have a character model that I probably need to scrap the rig for because its literally the first rig I’ve ever made, and probably wouldn’t work anyway, the deformations are shit no matter how I look at it. All in all I have about two dozen modular components for the environment that I haven’t even UV’d yet to show for it. These things take time when you’re the only one working on it. It also doesn’t help that I’m basically learning things from scratch on the go since when I started the project it was the first time in almost a decade that I even opened Max, procedural texturing or direct painting didn’t exist, and UE4 is my first game engine that’s not GameMaker. Lots of stuff to process.
>>592392Also, a lot of stuff was spent just redoing things. The character model I redid the topology for like 3 times, sometimes having to seperate the limbs and reattach them after... first character and all that.For the environment, I initially wanted to set up my meshes for turbosmooth so that I could bake out normal maps, but soon after discovered face-weighted normals and had to go back and redo a lot of stuff as I realized I could go without baking anything and produce higher-detail meshes at the same time.I still have to figure out how I’ll texture things, because I actually need to dive into UE4 to do that, since that’s where the materials and decals happen, and how Substance tools integrate into all this.
>>592401What is that supposed to mean, though?>>592392>>592394Yeah, these things take a lot of time. I hope I'll get faster as I learn more techniques and don't have to repeat the same steps multiple times, like you said. I could reuse this grass for other projects in the future now, as well as the textures.
>>592403>>592404Is this what a vagina looks like?
>>592406yeah! stay out of them, if you value your sneek (snake)
>>592406Quite the pussy then.
>>592404good shit, reminds me of Zeiram
This looks like shitI think I'll stop
>>592410I literally thought this was someone squatting with a prolapsed ass.If you are going for gross looking, your nailing it.
>>592416It's shitty in that pre-rendered 90's PC game aesthetic, so if that's the look you were going for, you nailed it.
>>592410What is this man? Tyranid?
>>592184>>592185>>592195you should make the jaw broader and the muscles on the jaw/cheeks/temples more defined. also make the brow a bit more furrowed and weathered, it's not just linear scars that leave marks on a face, it's also years of creasing skin etc that will make them feel old. At the moment he just looks like a slightly masculine 25 year old dude. even if it's supposed to be a scout marine those were still super-strong soldiers pumped with juice and cyber implants. also maybe some lines under the skin like wire traces leading to those forehead implants could look cool. and finally most marines were bald/shaven headed because mega-steroids and military discipline, he doesn't look very 40K with that hairstyle. If you really want to keep it maybe consider shaving a line down it and adding another implant there, where the hair has been removed to make way for it, that would make him look more cyber-futuristic.
>>592435I don't have time to detail this ATM. or I'd have done so. it's nearly one hour speedsculpt. I've seen shitton of 40K original/fan quality of SM s with normal and long hair. https://spikeybits.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/beast-arizes-correct.jpghttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IyZ6uZMEZ-0/VoWaqXVWaII/AAAAAAAAP5w/P_BWPa7GPYU/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/I-am-Slaughter.jpghttps://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/warhammer40k/images/6/6f/Bjorn-face.jpgSpace Marines come in every form, they are all huge tho.
>>592183too tired to rig it now.
I wonder what it's like living in a universe where individualism is completely gone and all that really matters is these huge large-scale conflicts between hivemind-esque armies, fighting for central political figures or doctrines/ideals. There is no other real path, all that matters is war and war is all there is. Brainwashed soldiers totally convinced that their side is the best side, reduced to mere numbers meant to be rammed against the opposition's numbers in the millions.I don't get the appeal behind Warhammer. It's a real depressing concept for a universe. Like war in real life but taken to the future extreme. Bigger numbers but no real meaning behind any of it. War for the sake of war. Death for the sake of death.
>>592446so you only see that "there is only war" in 40k? 40k's appeal is that there is no other universe as detailed as this, + it has amazing shitload of art. it has it's own style. every race erc is really, greatly detailed and fleshed out... the "Evil" side is also awesome. Since I discovered 40K lore universe/books, I'm really into it. I stopped reading books for many years, Internet has done that to many people... (aside from comic books)but 40K books gave me new perspective on reading. there is this huuuge, detailed universe, which is interconnected and then it has tons and tons of awesome art. when you read sci fi, you build that world in your head, but when you read 40k, this world is already built visually, with this art. you see the world with that kind of art )) I had that kind of experience when started reading it.. actually artworks and general designe of world got me into it.. PS: here's character Im starting for client/some art project.... or I'm rofftoppicking the thread
>>592452>>592184Why do they look so feminine, my senpaitachi?
>>592452I will say that I'm obviously not the biggest purveyor of Warhammer 40k media, but from the little I have been exposed to (PC strategy games, Space Marine, reading about the new entries, hearing about it from friends), and the very name of the franchise, it does seem like war is the big focus of, and the ultimate raison d'être of this franchise.I doubt there is some deep love story going on between the "Emperor" and all of his peon soldiers or whatever else. I could be totally wrong though and if I am, I admit to my ignorance of this.
>>592453because, I just started this one. SM doesn't look feminine... and I rarely do males...
>>592457Wait, is this you again (OP)? SM definitely looks gay to me though, haha. I'm trying to figure out why, I think it has to do with full lips and area around eyes.
>>592442>Thot daemonBullshit, anyone who knows the lore knows that Kaldor Draigo was only seduced to evil by Slaneesh in the form of a cute shota.
Lol, check this out, guys. I swear I didn't try to copy it, but now I might try to do just that.Since I'm posting again, I'll mention that I added that rocky structure, as well as smaller grass clumps, but you can't really see them here, maybe the few ones on the bottom left. Next, I'm going to sculpt some tiny rocks that I can spread around the ground and under the bigger rocks. After that, trees have to go through the revision, I'll possibly add another rock texture for the ground and then I can start modeling actual points of interests for a change.
>>592459gay men don't look feminine )) transgenders do. and they really don't like femininity, they are gay because they like men :D (at least most of them) people have wrong perspective about gays, because of MTV and transgender shows..
>>592471nope. Transgenders become "trans" beacuse they are sick degenerates.
>>592405>What is that supposed to meanit means it looks like warframe.
Having some fun adventures not making the cockpit look like shit.
>>592443Rigged.Is great when i don´t have to add many controllers for an NPC.
Newbie here,I need to render a scene in Arnold (school assignment).How do I make it look less shit?(Ignore the artifacts - I just made a shoddy job of rebalancing colours in gimp)
>>592464Yours looks better though.
>>592412>>592426It's a fanart of Elder Centipede from OnePunch Man.
>>592486This oversimplified model will go with oversimplified flat shading, bright colors and high contrast on the shadow(near black).
>>592476That is just default UE4's player character mesh.
>>592486Your problem is one of composition. Instead of having the water feature on the left, and path that leads to the right into oblivion, you should have made a winding mountain path that goes down and around towards the front, the niphouse needs a door or some sort of "this is the front" details, and the nipgate thing (I forget the proper term for those) should be facing the viewer for visual interest
>>592505>>592506>>592516>>592517>>592520>>592521>>592522Next time take your images and stitch them together into a collage, instead of flooding the thread with your crap. This looks super fucking boring and generic, like almost every "creature" made in zbrush, and the enemy that you selected from OPM isn't iconic or interesting to boot.
>>592526i remember it, metal bat spent like 10 chapters fighting itsomething about it ain't quite right tho
>>592532> metal bat spent like 10 chapters fighting itBarely a small chapter then Garou interrupted, your mind is fucked.
>>592504not the character.the scene.
>>592526>This looks super fucking boring and generic>enemy you selected from OPM isn't iconic or interestingI've never read the manga so I think this is interesting and cool, and I want to see more of it, and sperging about "flooding" an imageboard thread with images is dumb, especially on such a slow board, where a new WiP thread can be made at a moment's notice without anybody suffering any harm.What now? Are we gonna have a duel?
>>592552I don't see any similarities to it.
>>592555He's full of shit, elder centipede is one of the best monster designs of the series.
>>592526Pretty weird that you didn't bat an eyelid to that other anon on this and last thread posting the same volume of images of his UE4 snowy scene trying to get it right, but you take issue with this zBrush sculpt.
>>592562To be honest, the only reason I posted that many images ITT was because I was having a discussion with people and answering questions. Last thread I posted 3 images in a span of 3 days. I won't post another one for a while.
>>591954>>591975Doing a lot of packing and work this weekend, trying to get some 3D time in.
>>592565>>592385How did you learn UE4? Im thinking of getting into it. What would you recomend implying I have already watched tutorials on official site?
>>592556lighting and atmosphere is almost exact to the plains of eidolon.
>>592571I've been using UE4 for about 5 months now and this is my first exterior scene where I didn't quit after a few hours, so I'm still constantly learning.Tons of tutorials on YT and courses from Gumroad, Gnomon Workshop etc. I already feel like I went through most of the good stuff. Okay, I'll link you to a few sources I used often.>UE4 lighting academyhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grN5Yd55UIMThis is a lighting artist from Dice, his videos are long and go very in-depth, so I recommend you to wait a bit and gather some experience before jumping into it. I tried going through it 2 times before, but a lot of stuff was going over my head. Now, with the help of this snow project I learned a lot more and at this moment I'm just going through the first video series again. Now I'm finally completely understanding every detail, can't wait to see the result this will help me achieve.Actually, I posted a list before, with a bunch of channels I subscribed to, so I'll just post (updated version) it again. It covers many areas of 3D, not just UE4, though.>Arrimus3D>ChamferZone>Tor Frick>BlenderGuru>Gleb Alexandrov>quixel>Unreal Engine>Denis Keman>Mograph Plus>YanSculpts>Michael Pavlovich>Pixologic>Allegorithmic>AgenZasBrothers>Mind Games Interactive>VirtusLearningHub>PyroDev>Dean Ashford>Fabrice Bourrelly>Steve's tutorials>Futurepoly>Gnomon (!)>CGGeek>The 3D Tutor>Mike Hermes>Remington Graphics>4DVisual>CGMasterAcademy>WorldffLevelDesign>80lv>TeslaDev>Matthew Palaje>Mathew WadsteinI'm sure there's more to it. I also have to mention that it's a good idea to find some free UE4 projects, analyze them and learn from them. That's one of the most important steps actually. A lot of them are available on Gumroad (and CGPeers). Also lurk ArtStation and Polycount, find some inspiring artists and see if they have any tips to share, there's some valuable stuff on various forums.
>>592572That's a nice map. Never seen how that game looked like before. It doesn't matter anyway, since my current lighting and atmosphere setup is not what I have in plan for the end result.
>>592574And don't forget to constantly read 80lv articles, a lot of them are about UE4. That's a big one.
>>592499>>592500>>592525Thanks for the feedback, people. I wasn't really looking for feedback on the composition, though - I have a plan for it, and it involves a character sneaking into the hole in the back of the shrine (it's too late to do anything about composition at this point, anyway).What I want is suggestions on how to change my lighting/rendering setup to make it looks better. The normal map on the island in particular looks very blobby, compared to the results I get both in Substance and Sketchfab.
>>592574Thanks, much appreciated. Your posts gave me impulse to download ue4 again
>>592416render this again at a really low resolution for me, just curious
Grabed a reference from this board and started modeling today
>>592612>>592613Not sure why people are suddenly so compelled to start from this character sheet. I've seen this posted at least three times on /3/ already (doesn't sound like a lot but this board is catatonically slow). Is it because Daniel modeled it or just because it's a front and side A pose?If it's just because of the pose, people could be doing way better, this reference is really kinda bogus on the proportions. I think it would be a worthwhile effort to compile a bunch of character sheets with animu on a-poses and put that on the sticky. Too bad they're really hard to find since they compose like, 1% of character sheets out there.
>>592312>>592390Dunno man, you are using a omni directional light source almost so you get a ambient light level results.Overcast weather produces shit looking landscape in real life too, goes for every diffused light source.
>>592642>If it's just because of the pose, people could be doing way better>Too bad they're really hard to find since they compose like, 1% of character sheets out there.i believe you've answered your own question friendo>>592612Nice start, how did you do it? Sculpting?
first blockout of a poolscene i am working on
foliage like ivy and garden plants will follow
Is it okay for her to look like, she gonna kill me while I awake just for the fun of it. It was some what intentional but i need to tone it down.
>>592642Just google Character sheet and you'll see. there is no other than this, other sheets are way worse or they are wearing big dress etc... aso, it's sylised character, if done correctly it'll look good. >>592612this anon is doying pretty good worka while back, some anon posted that he was doying character following this sheet, he was clearly a begnner. but no one gave a fuck bout that. they all started correcting anatomuhhh, which I'm sure 98% of them had no gasp of. they confused that poor anon to fuck, he was correcting that model for months and months. I think at the end, he gave up on 3 all together.
>>592724Extruding edges, moving points.
>>592612Do what all the hip 3D kids do and add a giant throbbing cock.
I was tempted to give up and start a stylized harpy model. Instead I just worked more. (Harpy will be used in a game pieces I am making so It be done at some point.)The eye were spheres half the size of here body. Then I deleted the extra parts and duplicated the faces to making the Iris. I moved the Iris vertices forward a just a little and kept the old rotation. Gives the look of an eye I think. Will look much better once she has hair.This should be faster then the NinjaRat/mouse so I will get blend shapes and texturing done before I give up.Hope to be able to re-use the mesh with minor tweaks to make new models quickly.
>>592748Seems kinda dumb to hold yourself back just because a character sheet isn't on an A-pose. So many character sheets from wonderful characters out there, concept art from artbooks and games, basically anything that has a full-body could be used to start a model. Another anon was using a program to put a basemesh into position and model the character that way, could be interesting to look into. It would eliminate the need for more strict A-posed character sheets, which basically nobody makes for some reason.
>>592748Also, /3/ is a bad place to be a beginner, because there's no pre-established method everyone agrees on what a standard character modelling procedure should be. Some people will tell you to start with straight-up hipoly sculpting and retopo your work later, others will tell you to create your own basemesh and take it to a sculpting suite afterwards. There's obviously merits to both approaches, but maybe what early birds need isn't the full professional pipeline approach right off the bat, but a workflow that gets them encouraging results they can appreciate and look reasonably good.Either way, everyone here expects a certain level of competency and familiarity with these software solutions, which doesn't really come until a few months in, since these tend to be very complex as far as usability goes. The result is that the beginner is swamped with information and buzzwords like "apply yourself" and "study the fundamentals", which aren't well-defined and just serve to frustrate beginners more. Until we buckle down, come up with, and agree on a reasonable, intuitive workflow beginners can follow to achieve some decent results in the more popular modeling suites like Blender and Maya, new people looking to get into the fun will continue to get shunned away for not knowing anatomeee and the fundementels three milliseconds after starting their budding character modeling career.
>>592816P.S., I only say this because, there's plenty of character models on sketchfab that are clearly very simple and nothing super amazing, but were made with an elegant Blender/Maya/Max to Photoshop approach, and nothing else. This is the kind of path we should be telling new guys to take, not the Maya/zBrush to xNormals approach, which is long, confusing, and unsatisfying if you can't even get the first steps done correctly. https://sketchfab.com/models/2a0fec6c16ad477ea49d1a80c5ad662chttps://sketchfab.com/models/3f261b19c1f84d8b90a04bc4df5ea475https://sketchfab.com/models/3e6bf00430254ad2b898b5d7669aca8fObviously after they acquire some experience and get more comfortable with the software, you tell them to step it up to a more "mainstream" production pipeline.
>>592485this is pretty sweet, anon. i like the puffy cartoon look
>>592183>>592183hey, any houdini fans out there? i just did Applied Houdini's latest particle tut with a simple Goku mesh I made, but when I export EXR or PNG sequence the far end of the ground plane creates this "cutting" effect through the model. Any help would be appreciated.
>>592878forgot to mention but top is EXR, bottom is the screenshot from Mplay
Added a bunch of new things and started testing baked lighting again. I think I actually really can pull off better results, even though the differences between baked and LPV + DFAO are not THAT big, but still. Seems to me that I either don't fully understand how to bake properly or I actually managed to pull off the dynamic lighting really well in the first place.Either way, I realized something - if it weren't for my foliage, I could pretty much pull off 60+ fps on this. I know that I said this is supposed to be more of a tech demo - but it would definitely be nice if I could also make it perfectly playable and game-ready, while maintaining the same quality. So, I'm trying to learn how to properly optimize the foliage. This main grass that I was already talking about causes fps drop from ~90 to ~20, which is crazy. You saw how the grass texture looks like>>592316and I tried redoing the panels one more time, increasing my poly count on each panel 10x, but reducing the amount of transparency as much as I could. Didn't help at all. It's time to learn about LODs.So if anybody has some advice on how to make this optimized, please share. I'm kinda stuck now until I figure it out.
>>592881ugh, it pisses me off how stupid this is
>>592882What is stupid?
>>592612today I finished those incomplete extrusions
>>592881Well, the foliage looks very nice, I'll give you that. No idea why grass would eat up that much FPS. The trees are a bit weird though, other than the three closest ones, they look like they're out of place in the scene.
>>592891Oh, ignore the trees, they look like trash at the moment. Scene itself doesn't need to make much sense since I'm just randomly painting foliage around and making small testing areas around the map, nothing serious for now, I'm not even trying to compose a nice image.I'm not sure anymore if the grass is the only problem. When I tested it on a fresh small scene, just the foliage itself was having a huge impact, but when I tried removing all the foliage in this scene, I still had around 25 fps, so basically it the fps didn't change at all this time. My landscape is 8x8km though, because I wanted to have a nice view of the mountains. That probably also affects the performance, and I thought it wouldn't, since it's empty (although it does have a snow texture all over it)...Anyway, I reached a new plateau. I've been going through top rated ArtStation UE4 renders and some game mods and in comparison my scene still needs a lot of work. If I don't reach pic related level of quality until the end of the week, I'm going to be pretty mad. Starting to feel a bit depressed t b h.
>>592895I say the trees look better then the rocks. This looks like you ripped it from a 2 year old game. Looks nice.
>>592907It's some Fallout 4 photorealistic mod. I'm not sure how to get to (at least) that level, though. Is it the lighting? Textures? Models? I don't know, I need to take a break.
>>592812I think you are overcomplicating this character sheet thing. people who won't be able to make good models from this, won't be able to make good models from any other sheet,because they are beginners. no one will be able to make descent model first time. I'm on the same page that, 3 is fucking bad for beginners, because it's full of beginners giving other beginners, advices which they themselves will fuck up 100 % the other thing: "3 is good! because it's harsh. you'll get what you make"is bulshit )) what is the point, in getting "harsh" comments from people, who don't know what they are talking about? they are the shittalkers, mostly. + that's not how human psychology works.. >>592817I don't agree with this, for me sculpting is/was waaaay easyer than any box modelling. I have box modelled character once, then I tried Zbrush and I was awed, how much freedom it gave me. and how easily I was getting shapes I wanted. in box modelling you'll be able to make a face, but make it THE way you want to look is hard AF. actually I don't even know how to in box modelling. BTW drawing textures is not easy at all.. at least for people who had no experience with drawing. >>592888it looks awesome from forward and backward, the back/waist is too flat tho ))
>>592895Maybe your lods aren’t set up properly? UE4 does geometry lods automatically for its landscapes, but you still have to distance blend the terrain texture yourself in the material editor. You can populate the grass using a material at the same time and paint it on than placing it in manually with the foliage tool.Also, your screenshot is of modded Fallout 4, I don’t think it ought to be that hard to hit the graphics target of a fucking Gamebryo engine game. It’s modded, so of course you’re looking at the work of people who put in time to make the individual elements look as good as that PoS allows, but the lighting engine is garbage no matter how many ENBs and other post process effects you candy it up with.
>>592895Holy shit that looks good.
>>592911I don't know, I didn't touch LODs for anything yet. It's just strange to me that on one level the foliage causes huge fps drops, while on the other it seems that it doesn't cause any (but something else does, and I can't figure out what).Okay, that engine may be worse than UE4, but it still looks better than my scene. Can somebody explain why? I've been looking at it constantly for the past 2 weeks, and I'm practically blind at this point. I think it is getting better and better, but probably still not close even to that Fallout mod.
>>592910I think I'm following very faithfully the reference that she almost became 2D.I added some rotation to the top of her butt, it was really flat facing straight front. I hope it is less ridiculous now.
>>592910>no one will be able to make descent model first timeThey won't, but the idea is to make the process as straightfoward as possible for beginners, so that skill is removed from the equation as much as possible. Even starting from an A-posed reference isn't ideal as getting the face right is still difficult, something that can be bypassed with a base mesh. You'd really only need to worry on some small facial changes and getting facial hair right at that point.>I don't agree with this, for me sculpting is/was waaaay easyer than any box modellingThat's great, but it goes back to the fact that we'll never agree on what existing method is better for everyone. The point is to figure something out that works well for beginners, and often I see beginners hitting the subdivision key without even knowing that most models don't really need that, it'll just cause you to get stuck on micro details and give you a harder time UV-ing later. You *can* add details and make things look good with a more reasonable level of polygons.Drawing textures for these kinds of models might not be "easy", but it's certainly a lot more doable than getting tiny details in anatomy right, especially if you're just referencing whatever sheet you're modeling from. Not to mention Photoshop is still widely used and doing this will teach you good UV-ing habits as well. You could also just set up lighting in a nice way and bake it, would skip the need to get over the fear of opening Photoshop.
>>592968 I think beginners must try to make what they like, they, of course will make mistakes. I'm just saying that we shouldn't start booing them. I'm always suggesting them to start new ones if they don't like what they created. that way they'll already have understanding of software and second try will be 10x better. >we'll never agree on what existing method is better for everyone.because there is no ecaxt "easiest" method there. some people ar comfortable with sculpting, some with box modelling. + not everyone is interested in hand painted low poly models. I certanly like it very much, forexample, but never wanted to make them that much. >beginners hitting the subdivision keyyeah, they are beginners, that's why. they'll stop doying that, when they'll get hold of tools. >get over the fear of opening Photoshop. haha, I did not knew about this phobia )) >>592920here's what I'm suggesting. anyway, Interested in seeng completed model. are you goying to go with that sheet with whole desigh and also create clothes, accessories from there? or thinking about some other designe?
>>592920here's what I'm suggesting. anyway, Interested in seeng completed model. are you goying to go with that sheet with whole desigh and also create clothes, accessories from there? or thinking about some other designe?
>>592917The stuff in the foreground of your shot looks good! Fairly realistic and nicely broken up. It's the stuff in the back that looks too "gamey". Those large trees looks almost like perfect cylinders with nothing to break up their silhouette other than the branches. And it seems wrong that you can see their roots. Should they not be covered in all that snow? For that matter, shouldn't the branches?>>592895The rocks look like ass, but the foliage in this shot definitely has more of a "filmic" look to it. Might be the quality of the assets or maybe the chromatic aberration?
This is Vivian... My bunny. I have a long way to finish this.
>>592977>are you goying to go with that sheet with whole desigh and also create clothes, accessories from there?That's my goal
>>592977I was modeling following just the front view and eyeballing the sideview. The pic you posted showed me how shameful it was.I duplicated the empty I'm using with the reference and rotated it 90 degrees.
>>592364PROGRESS! Finally had a chance to get back on this.
>>592990this is progressing nicely
>>592979Yep, trees are hard to get right. Working on some Conifers now. I think nailing the colors is a huge thing. I see too saturated renders that try to be photorealistic on ArtStation way too often. It immediately breaks the immersion IMO. I took a tip from lighting academy and made sure my base textures and colors are really flat, because lighting and post-processing will return the color in the image. Pic related is the mix of desaturated textures and colder white balance accompanied with a lot warmer sun. I had to wait another day to clear up my mind but it still looks better to me, isn't it? And yeah, a lot of people are shitting on the chromatic aberration and I also try to avoid it, but every beautiful render I see uses some small amount of it, so I had to activate it again, but just a tiny bit. And like you said, I WANT that filmic look more than the "gamey".I know I maybe post a bit too much atm, but hopefully somebody will find some info useful.
>>592183Doing this following a tutorial by Zigor Samaniego.The tutorial is for C4D, but i'm using blender, and de glass shader on blender don't work as i expected...
Do I have a future in 3d porn?
>>593010Holy fuck I don’t know what you did from last screen shot, but the ground looks good AF now, would roll around on it like a retarded doggo. Unless it’s still causing performance issues I’d say forget about it for the time being as it’s good enough.Regarding textures, what they mean by “flat” is “delighting”, which is the process of obtaining a pure albedo map from a texture, and then reintegrating stuff like roughness, AO and depth in-shader, as you’ve correctly noted that a pure texture will double-saturate the shading of the tree surface.Assuming the texture was captured with a really nice camera and at optimal exposure settings, delighting isn’t particularly difficult to do with the RAW capture. I believe that Unity actually has a delighting tool built in, which some people say is better than trying to do it in photoshop, so you might want to try that out.If you do use photoshop, one nice trick is switching into LAB color mode, as it separates out color information into discreet channels, so you can tame the contrast without shifting hues.
>>592992Bevel those edges
>>593015I want that bip file.
>>593025The dance mocap? It's from Mixamo
>>593016Thanks, haha, it's all just lighting and color tweaks, I haven't touched my ground texture for a week. I "may" be crazy for spending so many days just tweaking things, but hopefully the results show how important it is. Thanks for that PS tip.Anyway, I think I have "enough" foliage, I'll just have to work on some tree and needle textures some more. Last thing I added are gray and red thorns and tall naked trees on the right, in the distance. Hopefully they look good. Currently, I'm using some Fallout mods for my main reference.I have to sculpt some bigger rocks and I guess that's it for nature assets... During this project I got pretty lost and I don't really know what will be the subject of my scene anymore. The environment I originally wanted to create is an area around northern Mongolia because I have one music project that I want to connect with it. A lot of these assets will fit in that biome, though.
>>593029so this game will run at 60fps on what platform m8? 1070ti and up? Xbox one X?You need to scale back the graphics and make it run on a toaster.
>>592990wooo!!! now it looks really good! GJ anon.
>>593039It's not a game.
>>593046did i say it was?
>>593047>so this game will run at 60fps on what platform m8?
>>593048>thinks only "games" run at a certain fpsoh lad...
>>593051Well, you called it a game, not me, lol. Since nobody is going to play this, it doesn't matter, and I can make screenshots and cinematics just fine.
>>593053why even use the unreal engine then, its inferior for that type of work. Just use a raytracer
>>593054Have you never seen UE4 tech demos? I'm doing it in UE4 because I want to. Even without optimizing anything and just reducing a bit of foliage density, I can easily double the FPS on my mid-range card. And I can always optimize for a game if I wanted to.I WAS thinking about dropping all the assets to Vray or Arnold though, the only problem is that they are so slow to work with on my machine and I experienced constant crashes of 3DS Max in the past. It's just painful.
>>593056I have, they look like baked shit. Use a raytracer, it will be faster and the quality will be far better. Hell, even IRAY from 5 years ago is 10x better than your results. If only I had some of my renders from back then.
>>593057I think I really will try it out in the next few days, looking forward to it. But of course it will look better than UE4, nobody is saying it won't. My goal with this was/is to try achieve visuals comparable to the best UE4 renders out there, or at least try to get close, since this is my first exterior scene ever, after all.
>>593056I'm working on an Unreal-ified reimagining of a graphically basic game in high definition, similar in spirit to those Mario 64 or Zelda remakes, except I'm working off a game that was originally 2D.Similarly, I also don't care about practical performance aspects, but it has to be in a game engine as a concept piece to cement it as a "what if?" scenario had the developers been able to utilize these tools.If I simply did it as an animatic in Max, It just wouldn't have the same impact. In some ways, pushing the limits of real-time 3D is fun in it's own right, as we haven't had any real Crysis-type releases in a long while to make even owning high-end PC hardware worthwhile... at least this is a neat endeavor for myself, and down the line should someone be interested in trying the demo, they can do so at their own risk.
>>593067Exactly. And I find it much more fun when it is in real-time. Not to mention how easier it is to work with. Game art in general is much more interesting to me, and I'm still learning a lot of UE4 while working on this so it's not "a waste of time" if I didn't made it in offline renderer.I'm just setting up a basic scene with Vray btw. Haven't touched it since I started messing with UE4 4-5 months ago. Pretty painful stuff until I figure it out again.
>>593067>as we haven't had any real Crysis-type releases in a long while to make even owning high-end PC hardware worthwhile..0/10high end PC's will give you FreeSync 2.0 at a buttery smooth 144fps at 4k.
>>593073Modern titles where 144hz has a tangible benefit usually don’t need a very high-end GPU to run at extreme settings, stuff like Doom and Overwatch can eaily hit 144hz or 4K even on midrange hardware. Display sync tech doesn’t kick in at such high refresh rates, it’s mainly for maintaining a smooth experience in the more critical sub-60 range. 4K is cool, but less than 5% of all PC users have any display res over 1080p, so it's not really a concern.My point is that frame rate and resolution is something that the end user can tune to their liking and throw as much GPUs at as they want, but doesn’t alter the core experience much, you’re still getting all the same effects developed for midrange hardware regardless.When the original Crysis came out, the systems of the time would literally choke at medium settings, I’m talking about the very highest-end stuff money could buy; brave souls would take screenshots with max settings at single-digit frame rates. It wasn’t until a full two GPU generations later till playable framerates at high settings began seeming like a possibility, and these were the days when a generation of hardware was 2x faster than the last. You just don’t see anything remotely similar today, where the recommended hardware would be something like a 1080 Ti, and even that wouldn’t even guarantee you 60fps at 1080p.
>>593073Playing a shit game at 4K in 144fps doesn NOT make the game better. The problem is not the hardware...
>>593093Doom and Overwatch are baked games, relying on cubemaps and oversimplification.>When the original Crysis came out, the systems of the time would literally choke at medium settings, it was an unoptimized mess.>You just don’t see anything remotely similar today, where the recommended hardware would be something like a 1080 Ti, and even that wouldn’t even guarantee you 60fps at 1080p.this is because of cubemaps and baked lightning
>>593105https://www.artstation.com/artwork/r0WmmAre you saying this looks bad?P.S. UE4 scenes with dynamic lighting.IMO it looks pretty great even when compared with offline renderers.
>>593109the lightning in UE4 is based on lightmaps which are by their very nature, baked. Cubemaps can be updated at a lower resolution, but they too, are baked.
>>593110Okay, you surely know more about this than me, but I'm asking - is this not looking great to you? I think even UE4 can produce some crazy good looking stuff. And what is the problem with baked lighting and cubemaps?
>>593111its a dirty hack. In a few years we will be doing real time raytracing at playable speeds and our pipelines will be much much much simpler and many engines like unreal will become redundant
>>593112Can't wait for that to happen, but until then, if it works, it works. "Dirty hack" or not, you can produce fucking beautiful imagery with UE4 if you know what you are doing.
>>592746It looks better now, i think.Would you change anything anatomically? it gets harder to find flaws when I don't have solid reference.
did this a quick test for a friend, probably not very mechanically accurate, but it looks neat. Done in blender using their "new" PBR shader.
>>592977looking great, can't believe you did this without sculpting, very well donelooking forward to seeing your face topology
>>593129doesnt reflect naturally and bloom is very vad. Also looks like it has CA. Bad.
I have been guided by proportions of the anime, but I think it looks a bit weird , specially the chest.
>>593162this is creepy, and so are you
>>593129What the fuck.. I mean nice animation, but rendering internals not modeled in CAD is blasphemy. Also add at least 2 cylinders.
>>593144The face will be a real challenge. I think the full anime style will not work I will try to blend realistic with it
I posted awhile ago about a mech model I was making.. The base model is pretty much done, spend the last 2 days UV'ing it. Hopefully on to texturing soon. My first go at it, but I really like mechs so I might do more and get better at it.
>>593175Oh and he's also fully articulated. Getting all the joints to move properly was a task.
>>593144>can't believe you did this without sculptingHave people completely forgotten how to box model? I box model everything since I have old version of 3ds max and not bothering to learn or get new software.
>>593192Sculpting is objectively superior. You're not a real artist if you just pull vertices around to fit the background image proportions, famalam.
>>593162This board is PACKED with anime girls, what the fuck is happening? I don't know how many times I complained about this, but these creepy child 3D models keep emerging more and more often these days.>inb4 generic "do you know where you at?" replies
>>593162Looks like nearly all shapes (hands, legs, face it goes on and on) need more defining.
>>593193I've seen many sculpted 3D printable STL files and all of them suck ass. Topology is huge mess and model is full of errors due to insanely high poly count making editing pain in ass.
>>593162>retards on /3/ use realistic shadowsno matter what you do, it will always look like insides of an anus if you keep doing that.
>>593057But isn't it that in UE4 it's much easier and faster to make cinematics than with offline renderers? I mean, it's realtime already, you just animate with matinee, no need to wait for weeks for it to render everything. For 1MA artists I think it's much efficient, no? Yeah, it can't produce the results on the same level of offline renderers, but it's still pretty damn good.E.g. A Boy & His Kite in UE4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zjPiGVSnfIOr this cinematic from Unity:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXI0l3yqBrABtw, this would look like Unity is much better than UE4 in terms of visuals, but A Boy & His Kite is older and they probably didn't put as much resources in it. But you can still see from these how much potential real-time renderers have. That Adam short from Unity looks really good.
>>593194>inb4 generic "the absolute state of /3/" replyMy condolences for having to come to this awful, awful board and having to look at anime, anon. May I suggest you make your own WIP thread but specifically outlaw things you don't like in it? You have the right and the means to do so.At least if you're a wallpaper paste physics enthusiast, we seem to have gotten a resurgence of material related to that this week. Weird!>>593192I don't really understand it either. People forget that you can do a lot with box modeling, not to mention you can actually still use sculpting tools in a base mesh.I guess having more polygons to work with is more freeing in a way, but your mistakes are also way more apparent. I will reiterate: most models don't need to be taken to a sculpting workflow, a solid mesh and a good paintjob will look great and arguably be much easier to achieve than a sculpted one. Sculpting is for people who have a specific goal in mind or a pipeline already well in place, not the "I want to make animu model but I don't know where to start" crowd.
>>593015how do people make jiggly parts like that ?
>>593205>But isn't it that in UE4 it's much easier and faster to make cinematics than with offline renderers?No.First of all, in 2017 almost 2018 if you dont use heavy use of Houdini particle effects and Nuke your results are going to look amateur, period.Secondly, you will spend so much time baking lighting into lightmaps you'll never get anything truly dynamic unless its very very linearlly thought out beforehand.Those videos look very dated and "yesterdays" CG.
>>593220>if you don't use the software I like, you're an amateur and your work is trash
>>593222>if you dont use heavy use of Houdini particle effects and Nuke your results are going to look amateur, period.>Citation needed
>>593223go back to your mexican cg, gringo
>>593225>shill for software without any basis>call people who disagree with you spicsPriceless.
>>593226>thinks he's in the right>posts A Boy & His Kite in UE4 as a defenseJesus.
>>593228The guy wants to use UE4 to do his work, let him be. You guys are being autistic by pushing him to use a raytracer and specialized FX software, when it's not about what the best tool for the job may be, it's about what he wants to use and what makes the project more fun for him.Jesus, it's like you've got a stick up your ass.
>>593229if you're not creating a game, use a gpu raytracer, period. Redshift is decent.
>>593192i didn't forget, I just can't do itwhen you experience the freedom of being able to draw what you like going back to box modelling seems like losing a limb
>>593229Look back through his posts and you’ll see that he’s an obvious troll, he’s just throwing out buzzwords and pretending to know better. The raytracing post alone was ultimate cringe.Seriously, go back to >>>/v/ or >>>/g/ or whatever other place you can impress someone with your deep wisdom and knowledge.
>>593232just use booleans, that is the way now
>>593234...says the anon defending UE4 Kite demo
>>593235booleans still won't help me to model a human being - the perfect shoulder topology in >>592889 isn't something I could get done just with booleans and 'shuffling around vertices', my peanut brain couldn't get to that point in any other way than retopologising a model that has been sculpted
>>593237just scan some extras in, thats how studios do it in current year.
>>593237There are many ways to get to this. You can move the vertices into place. You can use soft-select. You can use a move tool. Less polygons in theory make this process simpler because there's less geometry to adjust to get to the result you want.It's like you think that a shoulder can't look like a shoulder unless it's been sculpted to look like a shoulder.
>>593194pic related, just for you. >>593193100% Box modelling without background image reference.You are not a real 3D Artist if you can't do that.
>>593174>>593175>>593177I don't see why people here seem to comment so little on mech models.Shit looks awesome dude! I can't honestly give much of a critique as it looks pretty awesome.
>>593236I don't know how many times I have to retype that I am well aware that raytracers are obviously superior to real-time engines, but I was asking IF game engines are possibly better choice for solo artists that want to do some short animations.Btw, I'm just going through Arnold course - is Redshift worth downloading in that case, or should I just stick with Arnold for now? I see people constantly shilling it, a lot more than Vray and Arnold.
>>593243Looks very basic, if I have to be honest. Now show me how will you make all the details like creases and pores on her face with box modeling.
>>593248>but I was asking IF game engines are possibly better choice for solo artists that want to do some short animations.The answer is no! Use Redshift!
>>593236not that anon; here's your (you)
>>593252Is it free? Come on, I have free Arnold with Max 2018, do I have to download yet another program? (If it's better and used more in the industry though, I'll get it).
>>593254Yes its free! Its a plugin!
>>593243Watch your face topology. Theres a lot of tension and no edge flow building what would form those smile lines.The pic is a head I was modeling. Straight edge/box modeling.
>>593250I won't put creases and pores on her face Anon, because its a stylized model and it would look uncanny and shitty. But if i wanted to i would do these with textures like any sane person. Unless its an photo-realistic model of an old person with lots of wrinkles it doesn't make sense to sculpt these minor details. >>593254Do you have a decent GPU with at least 2-3 GB VRAM? Then download Redshift from CGP and test it. Arnold is nice but Redshift is 10x faster. Or use Unreal, there is nothing wrong with it, even if the other anon is autistic about it. Actually learn all of them, Arnold, Redshift and UE4 and you are set up for any possible way of rendering. >>593257Yeah i know i am still not really good with topology.
>>593258>Arnold is nice but Redshift is 10x faster. its not.https://www.c4dcafe.com/ipb/forums/topic/99657-arnold-vs-redshift-a-simple-comparison/
>>593258If it's stylized, then ok. Afaik, when Naughty Dog gives you a challenge for character position, you sculpt your character in zbrush. And from what I've heard multiple times from many people, they always say that in the industry artists usually don't even create base meshes with box modeling anymore, they do everything in zbrush.
>>593260Tor Frick disagrees.
>>593261Does he even do characters? From what I've seen, he's a hard surface guy. Also, his opinion definitely matters less than an opinion of one of the top game companies in the world.Idk, I even see that people sculpt stylized characters everywhere.
>>593262he'll do robots which are characters anon. Stop living in the past.
>>593260Well to be fair, this girl is an older model before i actually started seriously with Z-Brush. I definitely use Z-brush and sculpting because its faster and more effective. But i also think that an 3D artist should be able to do his own base meshes and box modelling and all that stuff even if he uses a more efficient workflow.I am mainly doing hard-surface stuff, i wouldn't call myself a character artist, and it makes no sense to do what i do with sculpting, that would be seriously stupid. pic related is what i am actually working on right now.
>>593263>In the past>Creates characters with box modelingYou're the one who needs to wake up. People even sculpt robots now.
>>593267Booleans are the present and future. Sculpting is atrocious.
>>593266But why would you box model a base mesh if after the sculpt you'd have to retopologize it again anyway? You're doing the same thing twice now. It's not hard to sculpt your base mesh either.
>>593266I'd like to model a motorcycle engine but can't find good refs
>>593266i agree that for hard surface models starting off with box modelling makes the most sense (at least for me)but organic things out of boxes, it's just old hat, even if you can get good results - if I was to model a fella in a suit of armour the guy himself would always be sculpted, and the armour made traditionally
>>593271That would only make sense if you stick with the topology of the base mesh. quad base mesh > subdivide > sculpt> reproject>>593272Not even on the sites of their manufacturers?>>593273Agree.
>>593274>That would only make sense if you stick with the topology of the base mesh. Well, I basically said the same thing as this guy >>593273you'll get hp with sculpting, and you'll get lp when you retopologize it, and then you'll bake hp to lp. Modeling your base mesh with polys doesn't make sense when immediately after you start fucking it up with brushes, your topology will be ruined. You'll retopologize it either way, so doesn't make sense to pay so much attention the first time if you really decide to box model your base mesh, right?
>>593247Thanks, and I'm not sure why either. Style wise it may not be very interesting, I just kinda made it up as I went.
>>593219In this case I grouped the points I wanted simulated, then made the rest of the points follow the animation 1:1 while the grouped points were simulated (ass, titties, belly).Working on implementing a digital asset solution where you can just plug in an animation, weight paint on the model where you want it to have physics and then tweak the physical parameters all in 1 simple interface.
>>593259Those numbers seem more in line with reality. VRay RT is about 1.8x faster if comparing an 8-core CPU to a 1080 Ti, while a big chip like the 1950X is just as fast in CUDA mode, and the 7980XE even catches up to a 1080 Ti in secondary mode.But the big question is, would you spend $1000 or more just to catch up to a $700 GPU, which you can even run multiples of? For a modern 3D workstation it’s arguably more useful to run a really fast CPU like a 7700k/8700k that can let you interact with your scene as smoothly as possible, and leave the heavy lifting to GPU power. These massive 16-Core CPUs that are available now typically perform 20% worse at tasks involving basic interactivity, and only flex their muscle at rendering. May as well save the $700 or get a second 1080 Ti for the same price and half your render times.
>>593259>>593258Which one is easier to learn and work with? Yeah, it would be ideal to at least try all of them. I have GTX 960 4GB. I want to have a fast real-time preview as well. Arnold works very nice for now, but I'm still interested in Redshift.
>>593284960 aint gonna cut it kid
>>593286Lol, it runs Vray and Arnold perfectly fine.>kidFuck off.
>>593256It's not free, you idiot (unless you pirate it, duh).
>>593287Vray and arnold dont even run on the gpu, you fucking idiot
>>593284I started with Arnold and i am not really into Redshift right now because i have a potato GPU which really ain't cut it (not enough VRAM) that's why i asked for how much you've got. 4GB should be enough. That being said, i think Redshift isn't much more difficult than Arnold. It has some more methods of rendering meaning some more options, but fighting noise works the same (increase samples). >>593288So its free when you pirate it. (duh)>>593289If you call somebody an idiot you should at least be right with your argument, but you are only half right. What does that make you?
>>593289Oh shit, that's right. Well, Vray does have a GPU version... I was using GPU for rendering in Cycles and it worked great for me. I don't know how will Redshift handle it. I'm just trying it out in active shade mode and it is already faster than Arnold, but that's only for a tiny studio lighting scene. Don't know how it will work for large ones... I have never had problems with my GPU, it still manages to handle even new games on ultra and game engines with tons of assets perfectly fine. I didn't have a reason to upgrade yet.
>>593284Arnold is insanely easy to use, it’s just one tab of sample/raydepth values, and that’s it. It’s a fully brute-force unbiased path tracer, so there’s not much to optimize, it’s always cranking out the image equal to its sample rate all the time, you simply clamp the sample depth down for each bounce type as much as needed before it affects visual quality too much.
>>593293>cont.Most of the other renderers people use like VRay and Redshift are unbiased and don’t brute-force all their lighting calculations, so you have to do a lot more work telling the engine how to handle certain aspects of the render. VRay is particularly complex in this regard, because you have to balance the AA algorithm, sample quality, various thresholds and so on. It does ultimately allow for more optimized renders in the end, but in some cases the render time saved doesn’t balance out the time you spent optimizing, so I prefer to use Arnold mainly for throwing together prototype scenes and not worry about the renderer.
>>593298You are right, Arnold is truly the easiest of them all, but i think Redshift and even Renderman are easy to adjust if you know what kind of sample rate creates noise in certain areas when its too low. Before doing final renders i always use AOV's these days to check how the noise level is on each channel. That way you can even optimize Arnold by rendering with a little noise (going one sample lower than what you want to archive) and then run only this channel through Neat Video Denoiser or something similar.
>>593293>>593298Thanks, that's good to hear. I guess I'll stick with Arnold then, if my GPU is not good enough as that guy says. I'll play some more with Redshift though, maybe it could work well for some smaller renders. After all, it's not like I'm a professional, working on industry-standard VFX - my scenes are still relatively simple anyway.
>>593305Get a tool like GPU-Z and take a look at how much VRAM Redshift uses when rendering a scene. Redshift also has an out-of-core feature, which means that it can render scenes that are bigger than the VRAM at cost of 10-20% speed.
>>593302AOVs are important to take advantage of with any renderer, but of course the more complex the engine, the more you should be looking at them. Some samples you can just crank up and it shouldn’t have a big performance impact, and as you’ve mentioned certain sample types can also be denoised without any impact to image quality. The important thing to note is that, at least in case of VRay, having too few samples can actually negatively impact render times, because the engine will try to anti-alias every dirty pixel assuming it’s detail. In this case is still worth playing around with the settings and utilize denoising for the final render just to clean the image up that last bit that would be unreasonable to do using only render settings.
>>593266I think I recognize that matcap...Did you post a modular sci-fi corridor set a while ago on another WIP thread?
>>593310yes i am still/again working on my Alien/Star Citizen inspired sci-fi corridor. Here is how the scene looks like now.
>>593316What are you rendering it with?
>>593316Yup, that's you. And holy fuck, that looks sexy as fuck. You said you were using substance painter rather than the "SC Workflow", right?
>>593318Nice, finally something inspiring ITT. It is baked, right? I did a dirty horror corridor once, posted it here a while ago. I want to try doing some corridor again, but probably with a sci-fi theme. I think I learned a lot in the mean time.
>>593319Yes, all models have an unique texture. But i am playing around with tile-able master-materials right now for the walls on the right side. Since they are in the dark and mostly hidden behind machinery i think i can get away with some cheaper methods. I also don't know how to do that SC workflow in UE4, i also think epic fucked it up somehow (it works better in Unity and CE/Lumberyard).>>593320Its a dirty and fast 20 seconds preview bake. I think the scene lends itself perfectly for the Engine.
>>593322Well, the tileable materials can easily be done in UE4, as well as the custom normals.The problem in UE4 with that workflow are the decals: you can only do albedo, roughness and normal, and you can't independently mask them. And yeah, there are some free decal shaders that do this 100000 times better in Unity.Currently I'm debating between Unity and Unreal; I would love to use unity for this workflow, but I can't live without Unreal volumetrics andl lightning...
Been away from 3D for 3 years, so this is my first project in a long timeMaking an album cover for a Christmas song my friend is making
>>593323Same for me, the volumetrics are way to sexy to leave them out especially in a scene like this. And i can't live without my small details since i am following an 80/20 rule with 80% details and 20% rest areas, so i rather give them unique textures than leave the details out.
>>593324Has Santa Died?
>>593327I'm not good enough to model a character such as Santa, so I opted for the easier version, a very blocky and badly textured Sleigh
>>593327Lightwave is good for quick character meshes, going from there into detail is another matter entirely
>>593328Add Michelangelo's David in the scene. You can find a free obj in the Internet somewhere.
>>593329You've got the hair and beard. All you've got to do now is paint the nose, the cheeks, eyes and the the bottom lip behind his mustache.
>>593322>>593323I’m going to be utilizing weighted normals in UE4, and I think it should be fine even with limited decal capabilities.Since I actually want my project to consist of levels and run at an acceptable frame rate, unique textures aren’t a go for me, and baking from a high poly for every single asset seems like a nightmare for putting together a project on my own. I figure the most optimal way to do things is to knock out models using the simplest method possible, and figure out how to shade them in-engine later.Currently I break things down into layers with large forms utilizing FWN, smaller details that would eat up too many polys as basic meshes with baked normals, and surface irregularities will be via decals.I still wonder if I’m taking the right route with this, as I want the environments to look very dilapidated and grungy, which Painter would do quite easily of course. But part of what pushed me to FWN is the sheer scale of the environments, which are often going to dwarf the player character, and that would require crazy high-res maps to deal with, the object I’m working on now is a section of bridge that’s like 4x the player’s height.
>>593336Thing is, decals still "work", but they are limited to things like pannel lines, small bolts, painted text... in a very limited fashion. They still do the trick (I think you remember pic related, it was done with ue4's decals) ; but it would be 100 times better if we were able to, at least, use independent masking and include metallic
>>593336I did maybe bake 5 objects from High poly down to low poly for my corridor, all other normal details are made with Substance or NDO. The meshes are relatively light, the whole scene is not more than 100k polys. While i do waste some VRAM with my unique textures (all 2K), its still runs pretty good on my shitty GPU, only the volumetrics on Epic settings cut my framerate down. If you use FWM and tileable texture mixed with some unique ones you should get pretty far. Also its better to spent some of your budget on polygons rather than texture. I accidentally imported a sculpted piece with a Million polys into the scene and UE laughed at me and just ran with 60+ frames, totally not phased by that many polygons.
>>593316You have a good eye. Are you working in a 3d job at the moment?
>>593341No, but thats the plan, after i am finished with this i am gonna build my portfolio and start applying to jobs.
>>593316Just use a ray-tracer for this, it will look 25x better! You said it's not a full game, so using UE4 makes no sense!/s
>>593350>/syou have to go back to >>>/reddit/
>>593350you have to go back
>>593352>>593353>they don't use RedditDegenerates.
>>593354who the fuck uses plebbit?
>>593355>degenerate using degenerate lingo>>593358To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to be able to use Reddit.
>>593360>high IQ to be able to use Redditit's like you think /pol/ shill memes are funny or something.
>>5933501) i want a job where i work with game engines, so i put work done with UE4 in my portfolio.2) Arnold takes 20+ minutes for one single Full HD image and i want to render an 4K animation with this scene with more than 3 seconds and i am not willing to wait FUCKING 100 HOURS.3) my GPU is shit, even cycles(GPU) needs more than 5 minutes to render a clear image and it doesn't even look half as good as the Arnold render4) Redshift doesn't even get the scene into VRAM and refuses to render.You are not going to convince me to use a path-tracer for this project, i have enough simpler projects (stills) where i will use one, this is not one of them.pic related, early Arnold render of the scene
>>593368I know, it was an indirect reply to this guy >>593054where he said a similar thing to that guy >>593029 because he also used a game engine but "he could have gotten so much better result with Redshift hurrr"
>>593368my only complaint is that you're not already in the game industry creating environments.your shit is top notch.please for a future project re-create a desolate berlin from ww2 akin to the game "zombie army trilogy".
>>593368Question concerning unreal because I do some work in it too. When you do corridors / halls, do you create the ceilings / floors / walls as the same object or separate objects? Basically like a hollowed out cube or a bunch of different parts? Because I always get light leaking issues when I try to create modular parts and piece them together in unreal.
>>593377Not him (I think it has been said it's modular), but I had this same exact problem with my corridor and basically the solution was simple and it fixed all the baking errors instantly - make it modular, but assemble it in a single blueprint inside of UE4, so when you put it into a scene, it's a single object, and then it will calculate everything differently - no more light leaks.
>>593379I tried doing this with my new project, it was piece together in Maya and dragged into unreal all together. The problem with this is it becomes really inconvenient to move stuff around after the fact. I'm not sure if that's what you mean.
>>593371I think i am gonna build a whole big spaceship (exterior) next. I also have an unfinished Blade Runner project ( i have rebuild the city of one trailer shot. )I totally hate Ridley Scotts last movies, but my portfolio will be a huge homage to his earlier SciFi work.>>593377These are all modular pieces snapped together.I would get a shitton of light leaking if i had a light outside of the corridor, but since i don't have it, i can ignore that problem.>>593379Interesting, thanks for that. I have literally never touched a single blueprint.>>593380If you put it together in Maya you loose the other advantage of modular pieces - less memory footprint; since you instance the pieces in Unreal and they get loaded only once.The blueprint way might avoid that.
>>593380No, you assemble it IN UE4, I'm not sure how is the option exactly called and it's too late to check it now, but you create a blueprint, import modular meshes and assemble it INSIDE of the blueprint. You then just drag a blueprint on the scene and everything is connected just like you set it up. And you can always duplicate and rearrange it again.
>>593382I have never heard of this. Interesting. Can you point me in the right direction so I can find out more.>>593381That's what I assumed. I love unreal but getting pieces to fit together properly has always been a problem. It's mostly a lack of foresight, I will want to change something and then pieces aren't fitting correctly so I have to redo stuff and it just becomes a mess. Not to mention small cracks that occasionally show up.
>>593382Also I'm not sure how assembling it in the blueprint vs the viewport would change anything in this situation. I try to make things so that they line up pixel by pixel, but will still get light leaking and other issues. It's fine if its just one story, but if you have multiple floors the lights will leak and it will just be ugly.
Second time modeling, first time using Maya. Going for a cutie girl with a bum. Am I doin' it right?Used C4D about 5 years ago and that's my only modeling experience.
>>593401C4D is nothing like Maya, Maya is mostly manual work while C4D is automated (punch in numbers or drag something and have the program do the work for you).Hard to say how you are doing if you don't show your wireframe or workflow or anything. Looks decent, I can't tell if the inconsistencies in the material is due to your shader or hard edges.
>>593379>>593382Hmm, I’ve heard of BPs being used to dynamically assemble any kind of long repeating construct (pipes, tubes, tunnels, bridges, etc), but not for basic static geometry.>>593383To do this you’d just make an actor BP, l assign static mesh components, and move them to where you want them to be, the whole BP assembly. I can’t help but think that there might be some overhead associated with loading meshes in as BPs vs just static meshes, after all the recommendations for collapsing construction BPs into meshes when you no longer need to tweak it.
>>593194are you this guy?
>>593426Lol, no. That guy was retarded, though. I like that model from the pic, I was not talking about stylized characters, but underage anime girls.
>>593429How can a drawing be underage, anon?
>>593430Please be bait.
>>593431I am legitimately curious.
>>593430>How can a 3D render represent underaged people?Autistic bait, but I'll bite.It's 3D, not a drawing, first off.Second, we're not arguing over rights of the image (which is fucking stupid) but on what the character in the image is supposed to be.Please, kill yourself.
>>593429haha )) I keep this image on desktop, as a reminder: "don't listen to every unknown person's suggestions. without knowing their abilities/knowledge. most of them don't know, what the fuck they are talking about!" BTW, that stile is just, how Japanese artists developed caricatures in their art.+ not everyone wants to fuck what they create/draw.
>>593433"We're" not arguing about anything. People are posting images of characters they're making, you keep bringing up the idea that they're supposed to be underage girls.You sound obsessed with children.
Can you explain how does he do it? I mean, I know it is photogrammetry, but what makes it so much more realistic than non-photogrammetry based UE4 scenes? The lighting is always the same, right? Is it the textures you get from photogrammetry? Because there's been an argument how UE4 sucks compared to ray-tracers, but you can clearly see from this that it can produce godlike results. So does this mean that paying a special attention to textures is what will make my projects more photorealistic? https://www.artstation.com/artbyrens
>>593437It's like he uses a different version of UE4 than me. KMS.
>>593435>You keep bringing upLiterally my only post on the subject.I'm pointing out that >>593430 seems to be talking about the whole "2D girls have the same rights as real girls", when nobody said anything about that.
>>593442>seems to be talking about the whole "2D girls have the same rights as real girls"What in the fuck are you on about? The point of my post is that you've said twice already that this board is >PACKED with creepy child 3D models and underage anime girls when you're the only one giving a shit about this. It does bear repeating: where do you think you are?Also: >Literally my only post on the subject.>>593194>I don't know how many times I complained about thisI have seen you complain in the general discussion thread too and I'm sure you`re complaining elsewhere about this inane shit.>hurr it wasn't me senpaiYeah, must be all different people, for sure.
>>593445Are you aware you are talking with multiple people?
>>593445>/3/ is so small if anyone has similar posting styles they MUST be the same personOh no it's retarded.
>>593445>Reddit spacing>Is literally autistic>Is probably a pedoYou have to go back.
Hm, I'm gonna need a little bit of help from you guys who have experience with UE4. I tried baking completely static lighting today (static directional and static sky light), and I'm getting this result. All of my foliage is really dark, and I'm not sure why. Lightmap resolutions are on default (e.g. my main grass has a resolution of 64), and lightmaps itself look fine. Also, those SpeedTree trees take care of the UVs, but they are dark as well, so I don't think I fucked something up. Directional light is at 2.0 intensity, but at 10 it produces pretty much the same result. Sky light is at the intensity of 1. Foliage is set to "static". What am I missing? Why it this happening? Should I maybe increase the lightmap resolution anyway?On the positive note, and as a response to the guy who said I need to reduce the quality of visuals (are we on /v/ or /3/?) and therefore ruin all of my hard work - this scene runs from 65 to 90 fps on my mid-tier rig when it is completely baked.
>>593437Holy fuck, this guy...https://youtu.be/h5AR3Wf1QJghttps://youtu.be/bXouFfqSfxgI must learn his secrets...
>>593466I've been going through his Twitter in hopes to learn something new. Actually I found some cool tip for making shinier plants, but that's it for now. I want to learn how he lights his scenes but from what I've found, he uses VXGI (so good luck to me with that, I don't have 2 1080Ti's).
>>593463That doesn't look too dark for me, it looks accurate in my opinion
My setup for painting depth weight for soft bodies is coming together. Looking forward to finishing and packaging it into a nice user-friendly node.
>>593463ooooooh boyherewego Have you changed your lighting samples from spars to volumetric? What is your lightmap resolution on foliage? Are you sure that you use a correct uv set for your lightmaps? What is you skylight settings? Do you have lower hemisphere is black checked in its settings? Have you tryed increasing static lighting level scale in your lightmass properties? Do you like bananas? Are you sure that you have correct setting for albedo values of your foliage?
>>593481Well actually I see that you mentioned half of this staff in your post but errors like that do usually come because all of that mentioned above. Do you have lihtmass importance volume around your level?
>>593463Yeah btw if you really want to see how your scene looks like with reduced texture sizes, you can set it up in texture max resolution in textures parameters. It is also non-destructiv, you can change it back later.
>>593467>so good luck to me with that, I don't have 2 1080Ti's.Just a head's up in case anyone is wondering, but UE4 doesn't work with SLI/CF because it does various calculations that can't be implemented across two cards. SLI for VR is going to work though, because they're just rendering the same dataset twice, not using it to interleave rendering.
>>593481Correction to this post. Don't touch static lighting level scale, I meant to say environment intensity and especially diffuse boost settings, which should provied you a lighter scene. Or just screw up with albedo tint in material editor or jump into tonemapper (which is a last thing you want to do, really)
>>593481>>593482Yeah, I mentioned a lot of it already, but here we go again:>lighting samples are set to volumetric, yes>64 (default, didn't change anything)>yes, uv sets are correct>lower hemisphere is checked (black), intensity set to 1>I haven't changed lighting level scale, will try it out EDIT: Ok, I won't>not really, but for some reason I like them as candies, in cakes and in drinks>I did some tweaks on their instances for my dynamic setup, but I made sure I put it back to 1, even tried increasing their brightness>I do have a lightmass around my level>>593488I'll try it out.It's weird, because stationary baked worked fine:>>592881Although I was almost thinking it doesn't do anything, since it barely makes difference compared to fully dynamic, and it also doesn't improve the performance. But static is another story. It gives completely different results and increases the performance a lot.>>593475Well, I'm not sure anymore. If I take into an account that I have a fog, and some relatively dark sky cubemap, maybe it is more correct, but why did I have completely different results with a dynamic setup? Pic related.Also, sorry if I'm asking too much, but in every video I saw, people just hit bake and everything looks great, or they just use stationary lights, so I have no clue what to do.
>>593490Hey, thanks, I think boosting environment and diffuse intensity did it. I just have to nail the numbers now.
>>593174feels a little cluttered with the details>>593202what exactly does that mean?
>>593510I'VE JUST BEEN IN THIS PLACE BEFORE>>593490It might be your textures. Base color shouldn't be too dark. Have you downloaded them from the World Wide Interwebz or have you done them yourself with substance or something? Try increasing their luminance a little bit, that might do the trick.
>>593512I made some in SD and some I downloaded from the internets. I don't think they are dark at all, besides, they work perfectly with stationary and movable lighting. There has to be something else that causes the problem...Update: it actually doesn't work properly. Yeah, I could do hacks and boost environment and diffuse intensity, but I also noticed that I don't get any shadows with my static lighting.Also, I'm reading that stationary is recommended over static, because it looks better and (obviously) enables dynamic shadows. I don't know what type of lighting to use for this scene anymore. I want it to look as best as it can, but static lighting gives me such a boost to the FPS that it's hard to ignore that. I have so, so many questions. If I get into static baking, I'll probably "waste" another week searching for answers 24/7... Everything works against me. It's just never good enough for me, I can't get anywhere close to quality of these results yet >>593466, or these:https://www.artstation.com/artwork/2YbXKDon't know where to put my effort now. Maybe tryharding with lighting is not the right way, maybe my texturing or something else is fucked.
>>593513>they work perfectly withstationary and movable lightingSo... you are using static? You really shouldn't. Stationary has better quality than static. In fact, skylights should in my opinion be set to movable to get access to distance fields and that sweet DFAO, though in your scene it might not be so useful. Seriously, forget about static, use stationary as much as possible: better quality and 20x more performance than dynamic. I guess static is really only meant to be used for small tiny details in unmovable scenarios, or when you surpassed the limit of 4 stationary lights per area.
>>593515Yeah, I was trying out static because it actually made my scene perfectly playable, while I had around 25-45 fps both with dynamic and stationary (no difference in fps for me, for some reason). But ok, I'll ignore static.These: >>592881>>592917were baked stationary, while these:>>593010>>593029Are dynamic GI + DFAO. For now I think those last two are my best results, but I'm still not satisfied and want to try baked lighting again. The thing is - I can barely see difference between baked stationary and LPV + DFAO.
Another thing you should forget about is LPV, it's a "prototypey" feature and it won't ever be finished because Microsoft closed the studio that was developing it (Lionsgate). Also, LPV is something that should be used alone, I mean, you should use lightmass OR lvp, not both at once. And by dynamic GI you mean nvidias vxgi or just a skylight set to movable/dynamic?You can't have baked stationary lightning with DFAO, DFAO only enables when the skylight is set to movable, even if you have enabled distance fields in your project you have to set the skylight to movable.Also, what are your pc specs? You could also try with the profiler, maybe there is something else that is lowering your performance (have you got LODs on your trees? things like that), also there is a reason why most games include a "vegetation/grass/folliage distance/quality" setting in their video options, it's because vegetation is a gpu killer, specially with a density like that, no wonder why you get your performance crippled whith grass enabled compared to when you don't have it.By the way, I highly reccomend you "Lightning Academy" by some dude called daedalus51 on youtube, long videos, but he is a pro working at DICE and they are very insightful to watch. And the unreal documentation, it's a nice entertaining read and you might get some doubts clearedBy now I'm going to sleep, godspeed.
>>593519Yeah, I watched his videos. I enabled dynamic GI in the ini file, it has to do with movable directional light, nothing to do with the sky light. And I know I can't have both lightmass and LPV at the same time, as well as DFAO and stationary.It doesn't really matter to me what I use, I just want to create a great looking UE4 scene which I could potentially use for a portfolio, that's all.
>>593401WIPin Maya, how do I turn on the smooth mode? Where it softens the edges.
>>593524For crying out loud >:o
>>593525Press "3" for smooth preview, press "1" to go back. Press "2" to display the original object's wireframe and the smoothed preview at the same time.You can go to Mesh > Smooth to smooth the mesh as well, but be careful, since this isn't like smoothing in something like zBrush: if you delete the object's history, you won't be able to revert the smoothing, so make sure you plan ahead when you actually decide to smooth out your mesh.
>>593525One more WIP before bed. Wew
Wall-mounted tank refiller, will retopo this tomorrow.
>>593328Okay but why is it at heaven
>>593567Fuuuuck thats beautiful!
>>593570Thanks anon, so are you!
>>593567>W-what did he mean by this?Did you sculpt it or didn't care about topo while modeling? But then again why does it matter if it won't animate?
>>593567Are you able to share the concept art this is based off? Or did you just it from your brainhole?
Holy crap boys, just finished making my main character sculpt. Gonna do retopology for the first time. Any tips?
>>593490 I wonder what have you used to create foliage for your scene. I wanted to create scene with a lot of foliage for a long time, but I just can't force myself to buy speed tree, and creating trees completely by hand sounds like too much work.
>>593656He mentioned it in the previous thread, it's a ZBrush fibremesh that's been rendered to texture in xnormal and pasted onto regular billboards.
>>593656>>593658This, but I'm experimenting with different methods. While some of the grass IS created with Zbrush, the trees and some bushes were made with SpeedTree, and I also created some grass by modeling separate grass blades and then baking them to a texture. Trying to figure out what works the best.>totally using this opportunity to slap yet another screenshot in this dying threadSee pic related, yesterday I tried making a grass with an actual grass textures again and now you can clearly see the difference it makes (the greener one is a new version with photo textures, while the lighter one is the old version created with fibermesh). It's just so much more realistic. I'll probably rework everything yet again, although not sure anymore, because I still like that fibermesh grass, even though the texture is a plain color. Maybe for something a bit more stylized, but still realistic, like Uncharted.
>>593587Neither, I meant I have to retopo to make a low poly out of it (so I can texture it, and because I'm making a game prop).>>593601First (kind of) time trying to design my own stuff. It's inspired modern military aesthetics, so I've been looking at a lot of APCs, helicopters, etc. as a source of inspiration.
>>593666Actually, I was wondering how is it done with hard-surface stuff. I thought that you first model a low poly, duplicate it and then add details for a high poly version. That way you don't have to retopo, idk.
Mech with some quick texturing. All I really have time for at the moment, might pose and stuff later on.
>>593667For people using the sub-d workflow (control loops), it's generally easier to start with a high poly, because HP topo is what's the most important to get your control loops in the right place and obtain the right smoothing (plus soft, flowing shapes are much easier to obtain working high>low).There are a couple workflows that are becoming more used and involve making a mid-poly, then by minor adjustments, turning it into both a high and a low. The quad chamfer + turbosmooth workflow (used by chamferzone amongst others) involves creating your game geo, then using smoothing groups/hard edges to generate the HP.The workflow I'm using is rounded edge (Tor Frick's), where you create a mid-poly with all your details but relatively irrelevant topo, then use a special shader that will create your bevels. Creating the low is as simple as removing the extra details and faces you want to bake down.
>>593678Where do you sculpt hard surface in? And when do you start sculpting?I did my mech in Maya, not sculpting at all and it took a million ages. I feel like I could have done more with sculpting, and maybe it wouldn't have taken so long either.
I want to model some sci-fi corridor as well, but I'm looking at other people's works on ArtStation, and man, is that scene overdone. Nobody would even bat an eye on it so I feel it's not worth spending time. It seems like literally everyone made some sci-fi scene at some point. It's not even that hard to make all those modular walls, it just takes time to add tons of details.
>>593686Sci-fi is easy. Not real guidelines, lots of flat surfaces, textures do most of the work. That's why I do mechanical. Some people think hard surface is harder than organic.. those people are nuts.Sci-fi corridors look impressive, but they are really just a bunch of glorified boxes for the most part.
>>593686>>593694There are very few things in modeling that are "hard". 99% of it is knowledge, this comes from repetition and learning tips and tricks along the way. Mechanical / hard surface is the easiest, just lots of time doing little details that anyone can do. Organic can be trickier, but it still comes down to knowledge. I'm not sure there is any room for skill in this medium, which is why it has become so oversaturated.
>>593694Exactly my thoughts. I really enjoy organics and sculpting more than hard-surface, and I also think those are much harder to work with. I definitely like me some nice sci-fi models and scenes, but there are just too many of those out there. All those neat models with millions of crevices, pipes, screws etc. don't actually make any sense, they just "look cool" because they are rich with superficial detail. I don't know, that kind of art subject just doesn't make much point to me.>>593697I can agree with this, too, yeah. It is kinda worrying.
>>593694>Some people think hard surface is harder than organicYeah, that's because sometimes it is. Let's say modeling a gun inside and out for manufacturing purposes vs sculpting a cute girl character for game production. One can turn out however it turns out and be perfectly acceptable, even if it's not what was originally wanted, while the other will literally kill you if you model parts incorrectly, on top of having many more precise parts that can't simply be done "by eye". It can end up taking a hell of a long time to build mechanical objects with moving parts, I'd say it easily takes longer to design a gearbox than any game character.
>>593699At least we have the knowledge wall, unlike graphic design that literally everyone can do. But even still, there is enough interest that the field is heavily oversaturated, from talking to people in conferences and personal experience. When you look at art station, there are thousands and thousands of 3d works that are more impressive than yours. Half of those people are probably not employed, and they are your direct competition. It's a bit disheartening, but if anything it can be used to push you to create better things.
>>593700Well that's not a fair comparison. That is basically the hard surface version of photorealism. Most hard surface models are not designed to kill someone in real life. If you want to compare designing an accurate gun vs designing a photorealistic tiger, I'd take the gun any day.
>>593396Not exactly what I have in mind but when I get able to model what I have in my head maybe I revisit this file. Will see if I model her ear today.
Working on a Hadaka Apron.
>>593728could you show the wireframe of the hand? It looks great.
>>593562^meany tips on modeling the inside of mouths? [spoiler]and vag+bootyhole[/spoiler]
>>593728shoulder wires please
>>593015would love to see a screencap of that node setup there fren
>>593697>knowledge, this comes from repetition and learning tips and tricks along the waynigga that's exactly what a skill is
>>592452fucking terrible why is everything here so shit?