the dragon

aresee

Haven't been as active as I would have liked. I'm graduating very soon, and while completing those recquirements, I had been completing this for a recent local IGDA meeting to help illustrate some hi-res game modeling concepts and techniques.


click for the turnaround

cholden

All of that muscular detail in the abs and pants folds is in the texture alone? Honestly, I see a huge list of problems here, but I'd rather get more details on what we're looking at here before I go into that cause I'm not sure what you're doing with this character.

CheapAlert

Indeed, so many polys yet so little muscular definition taken advantage of.

aresee

What I was trying to pull off was using the polygons to try to get a smooth outline and using the texels of the normal maps to do all the rest. The end result is usually a lot easier to unwrap, rig and deform.

mr.toast

yes he needs more muscular detail, especially in his arms and delts, even in a relaxed state bruce lee is one ripped mofo

MoP

Whoa, that's a shedload of polys doing nothing.
If you're trying to illustrate what can be done with a high-poly model and a normal-map, you need to put much more of those polys into actual silhouette instead of just rounding out the model.
For example the pants have loads of big folds in the normal-map, yet the outline of the pants is almost perfectly smooth with no folds at all - this just looks kinda weird.

Remember that the normal-map is best for faking internal details that won't be seen in silhouette, so stuff like muscles is good for normal mapping, but having no folds modelled into the pants (ESPECIALLY with that huge amount of polys you're using) just looks weird.

The general proportions and such aren't bad, but you really need to get more out of your low-poly model.

aresee

Thanks MoP, I'll try some of that stuff out.

aresee

Began to address some of the issues pointed out before.

MoP

That's a bit better now - but I still really don't understand why the mesh is so dense? If you absolutely insist on using that many polys, at least use them to add detail and form,b rather than just smoothing everything out like he's made of dough.

aresee

The main reason for having such a high polycount is because I'm using my polygons to get a smooth outline and let the normal maps do all the interior detail. By maintaining primitive shapes in certain areas like the torso and arms, it is easier to unwrap and to rig and deform those areas in the future. If I can use a normal map for wrinkles, folds and anatomy and they do the job, then why spend all the extra time modeling all those extra unnecessary loops? The end result also looks a lot closer to the high-res stuff as than it would have before.

I know it's a bit unorthodox but I'm just trying something different. I'm still working on the silhoutte some more.

MoP

Hmm, I don't buy that argument. You're kinda defeating the object of using normal-maps in the first place. With the current amount of polys you have in the body, you could just define muscle shapes with pure geometry and just use a diffuse texture and achieve the same amount of detail as your normal map currently seems to be creating.

Seriously, I don't think there's any excuse for that kind of poly wasting. I know I probably seem harsh, but I think a hell of a lot of people will agree with me here...

Sean McBride

I totaly agree with mop here... You really don't need that many poylgons on your "low res" mesh. Optimize that stuff man! The highres mesh looks pretty good though. Needs some facial work along with the feet. The mid-sectin looks so much more developed than the head or feet.

Thegodzero

quick paint over of the low poly mesh.

MoP

Well, I wouldn't quite go THAT low! But the point TheGodZero is illustrating is a very valid one. Silhouette is all that matters with normal-maps. You can create an almost identical silhouette, if not better, with half the amount of polygons you're using now.

aresee

I get what you guys are saying, I really do, but I'm not going for a low-poly silhouette. I'm trying to get it to be about as smooth and round as I can get it. I've done some more editing to the silhouette and normal map that I'll post up later.

I'm confused to how you're saying I'm defeating the purpose of using normal maps? How am I defeating the purpose if I'm saying I'm using them for my interior detail and the polygons for the outline/silhouette, and then you state that silhouette is all that matters and that I'm not getting it?

I respect your comments and I don't think you're being harsh at all. This is based from a workflow that I've seen described recently for next-gen character development. It makes sense to me because this way, characters won't have such a polygonal look to them, and we can use the normal maps to fake all the rest.
...update coming soon.

CheapAlert

[ QUOTE ]
I'm confused to how you're saying I'm defeating the purpose of using normal maps? How am I defeating the purpose if I'm saying I'm using them for my interior detail and the polygons for the outline/silhouette, and then you state that silhouette is all that matters and that I'm not getting it?


[/ QUOTE ]
don't pull a kitteh, now

normal maps don't make a silhouette, the mesh figure itself does. normal maps simply shade/light the model and doesn't change the shape outline in any way i know of.

aresee

I know that normal maps don't make a silhouette, I understand how they work. That's not what I was confused about.

The3DGuy

the point they are trying to make is this: how are you going to make normal mapped muscles? you are gonna model them in then extract the normal map data right? well if you are gonna model all those muscles, and the polycount doesn't matter anyway, they why bother with the normal map. it will probably look better using the high poly version depending on what image size you would use for your normal map.

The point is that you are defeating the purpose of a normal map by doing it the way you plan. its moot to make one.

I am not sure you fully understood how useless/waste-o-time the way you plan to do it is. Sorry if thats too harsh but seriously, you will save yourself time by not worrying about the normal maps

motives

how many polys is the "low-poly" model?

MoP

[ QUOTE ]
I'm trying to get it to be about as smooth and round as I can get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It shouldn't be about making the silhouette smooth, it should be about making the silhouette detailed. I think that's what you're not really getting here.

Basically, you've got a mesh which does not resemble the human form. You should be aiming for a mesh which, even without normal-maps, should be fairly anatomically correct, and stuff like cloth folds should be modelled, with this amount of polys.

It's not about smoothness. It's about detail. You can have smoothness as well as detail - what you have here is just smoothness, no detail - which is defeating the object.

You cannot argue that your low-poly model has hundreds, if not thousands of polygons which are essentially adding nothing to the model.

Or maybe you think you can argue that? I'd like to hear it...

Remember, think detail and silhouette, not smoothness. Thinking only of smoothness leads to formlessness, as I hope you can see.

Remember, I'm only trying to help. You could probably argue that this is one of those "personal preference" things, but I think that in this situation there are fairly clear sides of "right" and "wrong" for a mesh. Currently you're closer to the "wrong" side.

cholden

Good post TGZ, and aresee, listen to MoP.

Your 'low-poly' mesh has clearly too many polygons. It really shouldn't look that different from current low polygon characters. Here's an example of how a low poly mesh with a normal map looks, scroll down to see the wireframe and materials at work.

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=241130&page=4&pp=15&highlight=martian

pior's aqua boy
http://boards.polycount.net/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=5271&page=&fpart=1&vc=1

poops workflow
http://www.poopinmymouth.com/tutorial/normal_workflow.htm

I can send you more examples if you want, but I strongly suggest you study the art assets of existing normal mapped games, such as Doom3 and Fear.

aresee

Alright, alright, I'm just going to call this a failed experiment and move on to the next one. I was just trying something different and it obviously did not mesh well with you guys, I apologize. Back to the drawing board.

Jon Jones

[ QUOTE ]
obviously did not mesh well with you guys

[/ QUOTE ]

So it's everyone else's fault they didn't like it? They'd like it if it wasn't bad.

They try to give you constructive advice, and this is how you repay their kindness? Way to go, man, good luck getting any help with that attitude.

MoP

Well, maybe that's a bit harsh, Jon. I don't think he meant it quite in the way you're taking it.

It's cool if you want to try something different, but usually I'd research into methods before you do this - if you are doing "different" things, why are they different to what's being done currently? I think in this case, you were doing something that was different because other people have tried this method before, and discovered it was not the best way of doing things, and so went to try something else after discarding it.

So yeah, it's good to try different things, they are definitely the way to learning and developing. You may feel bad about what you consider to be wasted time, but it's not really wasted time at all if you've learned something, right?

dougjuno

[ QUOTE ]

So it's everyone else's fault they didn't like it? They'd like it if it wasn't bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's a matter of "like" so much as "getting" it. I think most of you fail to see what his intentions are with this. Plus, he is using a method that has been described to him. He is working off of what he has heard, not what he has seen. I have seen this process in action for a next gen title and he is on the right track. He knows he can get the same shape with much fewer polys but he doesn't want obvious poly edges that you can pick out like on Doom 3 and count. He knows how to construct a low poly mesh. I think there are many areas that could use some work, I'm not saying it's good or bad, I think that the pecs and shoulders can be defined better with the geometry and maybe a few other areas but if you guys saw the real deal in action you'd know where he is coming from.

-=Warhead=-

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
obviously did not mesh well with you guys

[/ QUOTE ]

So it's everyone else's fault they didn't like it? They'd like it if it wasn't bad.

They try to give you constructive advice, and this is how you repay their kindness? Way to go, man, good luck getting any help with that attitude.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah dude calm down. I think I see a vein popping out of your head :P.

Jon Jones

[ QUOTE ]
I think most of you fail to see what his intentions are with this. Plus, he is using a method that has been described to him. He is working off of what he has heard, not what he has seen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant.

It isn't working. Period. He got advice from professionals with hands-on experience with this tech. Their critiques clearly hurt his feelings, and he had a fit. They're trying to help him, and he's taking what they say personally, when he should simply be listening instead of claiming he knows better.

Art is a learning process, and having thin skin is a serious liability. Attention is respect, and he isn't returning it. Manners, manners.

killingpeople

[ QUOTE ]
"... I was trying to [...] get a smooth outline and using the texels of the normal maps to do all the rest. The end result is usually a lot easier to unwrap, rig and deform."

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"I get what you guys are saying, I really do"

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"I respect your comments and I don't think you're being harsh at all."

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"I know that normal maps don't make a silhouette, I understand how they work. That's not what I was confused about.

[/ QUOTE ]

aresee,
the biggest issues i had with this model is that the anatomy was very awkward and i could not see your logic with the low poly model. your previous works shows better understanding in both of these areas.

blarg!

toddiej

I have to admit that if I saw this and didn't know what was trying to be accomplished here I would be like "who the fuck does this aresee think he is?" I don't think he was being whiney or getting angry at all. I just think he was getting frustrated about trying to get the point across about the method he is using. Not really getting pissed or hurt or thinking he knew better.

Here is the method as I understand it.
-model the "low poly" at around 15000 tris, blocking out basic muscle forms.
-use zbrush to add details and more muscle definition.
-don't model all definition out as in certain places (ie. wrinkles on face and areas like the elbow) it will not disrupt the edgeloop flow and make it far easier and more efficient for rigging/unwrapping. Use zbrush to define those areas.

Do I think that this is a good representation of the method? Not really.

Do I think the method has its merits? Definitely.

What I would change
1. Even out the polygon distribution, shoulders are extremely dense compared to his belly area.
2. Block out and define more muscles.
3. Get better reference as you have a lot to live up to modeling Bruce Lee. Either that or model a fictitious character but still use good face reference.

acc

The reason it's so hard to find logic in the low poly model is because there is no low poly model in this thread. There's a high poly model and a high poly model with a normal map on it, but no low poly model. Thegodzero's paintover is the closest thing to a low poly model and it's not even a model to begin with.

If you're trying to display a hi-res game modeling technique, you need to do something applicable to games. That's a requirement. In this case, both the model and its normal map are useless for games because the model isn't low poly enough to run on even next-gen engines and therefore the normal map isn't on a low poly model (normal mapping doesn't do anything on a high poly model because it won't be projected onto the low poly one when you go to make the normal map for it).

So in the end what you've come up with is a different technique for high poly prerendered modelling, which is not what you were aiming for and not up to prerendered quality.

People liking it has nothing to do with anything. The models in this thread are not suitable for games; not even next-gen ones.

aresee

Jon, I'm sorry if it seemed like I was throwing a fit. I didn't take the comments from anyone personally, everyone's supposed to be professional around here, after all.

I never said I know better, I was just trying something different and explain my point. Now that I've learned from the rest of the guys why they don't agree with that method, I'm going to apply that new knowledge to my next work. Hopefully I'll have better luck next time.