It starts May 12, and ends Sept 12. Let's see what you got!
https://polycount.com/discussion/237047/the-brawl²-tournament
Best Of
Re: How The F*#% Do I Model This? - Reply for help with specific shapes - (Post attempt before asking)
Below is an example of what this iterative block out process could look like: Start with relatively simple geometry that captures the overall shape and contours of the object then increase the mesh density as required, by adding loops with loop cut and bevel / chamfer operations or by applying the subdivision, until there's enough geometry to support the next smallest surface features.
Adjust the topology layout as required to turn corners around shapes and redirect the loop flow that defines the narrower edges between some of the shape transitions.
Here's an additional (front) view of the topology layout around the part.
There's more than one way to approach the order of operations and topology flow. Which approach makes the most sense and how complex the base mesh should be depends entirely on how accurate and detailed the final high poly mesh needs to be.
For something like this, it probably makes sense to keep the mesh relatively simple while creating the basic shapes and setting up the loop flow around the sharper edges then apply one or two levels of subdivision before adding the smaller details like the drain and screw holes.
Some additional write-ups that cover the iterative block out process:
https://polycount.com/discussion/comment/2751240/#Comment_2751240
https://polycount.com/discussion/comment/2751340/#Comment_2751340
https://polycount.com/discussion/comment/2776197/#Comment_2776197
Briefly adding to that: occasionally there's a subtle smoothing artifact near pole vertices and it may be necessary to adjust the vertex's height so it's consistent with the surrounding geometry. Usually it's not an issue but sometimes star poles can leave little dimples on compound curves, even after they're resolved to quads.
On surfaces that have compound curves like this, sometimes the corner details are constrained by the number and size of the radial segments and other times it's the circumferential segments that are the limiting factor. Ideally the number of segments in the curve will line up with and support the corners and any intersecting shapes.
Below is an example of how segment spacing impacts the size and quality of rounded corners on shapes with compound curves. Increasing the segment count does tend to increase the accuracy but how much geometry is required to hold the shapes really depends on the size of these details and the desired sharpness or quality of the corners.
It tends to be a lot easier to work through the basic shapes first, adjusting the segment spacing of the curves whenever possible to match edge and corner details. This also makes it a lot easier to solve any topology routing issues and avoid creating poles out in the middle of a curved surface. After the basic topology flow is solved the support loops around the edge of the shape can be added with a simple bevel / chamfer operation.
FrankPolygon
Re: [WIP] Triumph Rocket 3R Bike (SubD Model)
kosh3d
Re: Classic Art Inspiration for Game Artists
) does the job perfectly fine ...
Regardless of the intent of the website (exploring a space of visually similar things, if I understand correctly), searching for something as specific as an artist name should bring accurate results, or nothing at all if not referenced.
Also the title of the website itself gives a sus vibe, as "imagine more art" makes it sounds like one of the many AI generators out there.
The analysis tool being locked behind a login is another not-quite-red-but-almost-red flag IMHO. And then it seems to lead to a completely unrelated product advertised as "Unlock world-class creative feedback to elevate your art". So if this is just a thinly veiled attempt to onboard people into some kind of "AI feedback" generator, thanks but no thanks (or at least, just be upfront about it).
pior
Re: BRAWL2 [Environment] Landing Plaza, northoftherain
I'll do my best but stressing really is only going to make things worse now that I realize
northoftherain
Re: AI Art, Good or Bad? A (hopefully) nuanced take on the subject.
this is far away from any AGI.
Neox
Re: Greentooth Sightings in Videogames
Joshua Stubbles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gEwGrseLNY&feature=player_detailpage#t=310s
Re: Game Industry Layoffs - WTF?
What’s wrong with AAA games? The development of the next Battlefield has answers.
EA insiders describe stress and setbacks in a project that's too big to fail.I wouldn't go as far as to claim it has the answers to what's happening, but it surely have some answers.
A few choice quotes:
A lofty player target was set for Glacier: 100 million players over a set period of time that included post-launch.
"Obviously, Battlefield has never achieved those numbers before," one EA employee told me. "It's important to understand that over about that same period, 2042 has only gotten 22 million," another said. Even 2016's Battlefield 1—the most successful game in the franchise by numbers—had achieved "maybe 30 million plus."
(...)
Despite the big ambitions of the new leadership team and EA executives, "very few people" working in the studios believed the 100 million target was achievable, sources told me. Many of those who had worked on Battlefield for a long time at DICE in Stockholm were particularly skeptical.
This is not a goal, this is a bet. They didn't get past 30m players in their most popular title just because they didn't feel like it, it's because they don't know how to given their constraints. Setting the latest title scope and the budget with this as a concrete goal is absurd. And what they're staking on it? The devs jobs, people who understand this is out of touch but get ignored and sidelined.
"Development of games has changed so much in the last 10 to 15 years," said one developer. The new arrangement excites investors and shareholders, who can imagine returns from the next big unicorn release, but it can be a less creatively fulfilling way to work, as directives come from the top down, and much time is spent on dealing with inter-studio process. Further, it amplifies the effects of failures, with a higher human cost to people working on projects that don't meet expectations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This other article is also interesting. I'm not from the US and wasn't aware of this, but I guess it's another (and an important one) piece in the puzzle of what has been going on with mass layoffs in recent years.
How a little-known tax change sparked a tech layoff surge
New R&D tax rules upended the tech sectorFor nearly seventy years, US companies could immediately deduct the full cost of their research and development activities, from engineering salaries to software development and contractor fees. (...)
That landscape changed in 2022, when a provision from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which had been delayed, took effect. To offset the cost of lowering the corporate tax rate, lawmakers required that R&D expenses be spread out, or amortized, over five years for domestic activities and fifteen years for foreign ones, rather than being deducted all at once. (...)
The impact was immediate and severe. When companies filed their 2022 tax returns under the new rules, they found themselves unable to offset their R&D spending against taxable income fully. For cash-strapped firms and those not yet profitable, the result was a sudden and painful increase in tax bills, just as venture funding was drying up and borrowing costs were rising. The financial pressure forced companies to make tough decisions, and in many cases, the largest and most flexible expense – headcount – was the first to be reduced.
This has to have a chilling ripple effect on the industry, not only due big players firing people. People getting laid off don't spend on entertainment and the US is a huge market with global impact.
Celosia