Best Of
Re: LOW-POLY ART
Hey guys, nice seeing stuff still getting posted, i've been in this thread for 20 years XD
redmond_david
3 ·
480tris 256mapRe: Yury Taran – Senior 3D Character Artist | Portfolio & WIPs
Sharing the technical stage of my stylized character (Fortnite-inspired style).
• 34k tris
• Game-ready low poly
• Clean deformation-friendly topology
• Optimized UVs
• Bake completed
The character is now ready for the texturing phase.
Focused on maintaining strong silhouette and readable shapes while keeping the mesh efficient for real-time use.
Yury_Taran
3 ·
PAID FREELANCE per world/asset- 3D Artist (Three.js & VRM Models)
About the Project
A browser-based 3D social platform where communities hang out in shared virtual worlds using customizable avatars. Think of it as a cozy, low-poly metaverse rendered entirely in the browser with Three.js.
What We Need
We're looking for a 3D environment and character artist to create:
Avatar Base Model & Customization System
- A modular base avatar model in VRM format
- The base model must support texture swapping for:
- Skin tones — multiple palette options via swappable body/face textures
- Eye colors — swappable iris textures or tintable material regions
- Hair styles — separate mesh pieces that can be swapped on/off
- Clothing — modular clothing meshes (tops, bottoms, shoes, accessories) that layer over the base body
- UV layouts must be consistent across all swappable pieces so textures and clothing fit interchangeably
- Must support humanoid bone structure with normalized bones
Worlds / Environments
- Interior and exterior themed environments
- Each world is a single-scene GLB model loaded into a Three.js scene
- Environments need walkable floor planes and logical bounds
- Warm, stylized lighting baked or supported by the engine
Requirements
- Experience creating modular character systems with swappable parts and texture variants
- Experience exporting optimized
.glbmodels for web/WebGL - Understanding of real-time rendering constraints (draw calls, texture budgets, polycount)
- Familiarity with VRM avatar format and humanoid rigging
- Ability to create consistent art styles across avatars and environments
- Portfolio showing stylized/low-poly 3D characters and environments
Nice to Have
- Experience with Three.js or web-based 3D rendering
- Experience with baked lighting / lightmap workflows for WebGL
- Ability to create modular/reusable props and furniture sets
- Experience with world-building tools or level design
Deliverables
Per Avatar Set
- Base body
.vrmfile with consistent UV layout - Texture sheets for each skin tone / eye color variant
- Separate clothing and hair meshes (
.glbor bundled in VRM) - A style guide documenting UV regions, naming conventions, and how pieces swap
- Source file (
.blend/.fbx)
Per World
- Final
.glbscene file (optimized, single file) - A 1280x720 thumbnail preview image (
.png) - A brief spec sheet: recommended camera position, floor bounds, any hidden objects
- Source file (
.blend/.fbx) for future iteration
maikaxd
3 ·
Re: Show your hand painted stuff, pls!
Hi everyone! This is my 3D model that I did a few months ago 
More on Artstation: https://www.artstation.com/artwork/a0Z30R
More on Artstation: https://www.artstation.com/artwork/a0Z30R
Nekw
5 ·
Re: CAHDD™ (Computer Aided Human Designed & Developed) — voluntary workflow transparency + watermark too
"On the “pro-AI” angle, I get why it reads that way. The intent isn’t to
promote it, it’s more that it’s already in the mix whether people like
it or not"
That's like saying 'arsonists exist whether we like it or not, so we should group them together with firefighters because they sort of do the same thing.' or 'rapists exist and rape all the time, and it's impossible to solve, oh well, we'll put them next to their victims for better exposure.'
I'm not sure why any leeway is given towards generative AI. The sampling methods in the largest LLMs were sourced without artist consent. It is the largest, most flagrant mass theft of intellectual property in humanity's history, piracy included, and chucks morality and dignity in the fucking trash compactor
That's like saying 'arsonists exist whether we like it or not, so we should group them together with firefighters because they sort of do the same thing.' or 'rapists exist and rape all the time, and it's impossible to solve, oh well, we'll put them next to their victims for better exposure.'
I'm not sure why any leeway is given towards generative AI. The sampling methods in the largest LLMs were sourced without artist consent. It is the largest, most flagrant mass theft of intellectual property in humanity's history, piracy included, and chucks morality and dignity in the fucking trash compactor
zetheros
3 ·
Re: CAHDD™ (Computer Aided Human Designed & Developed) — voluntary workflow transparency + watermark too
Yo.
I didn't read every single post in the thread, because I am tired, but your persistent and relatively cool-headed responses @TheAllusionist piqued my interest enough that I gave things a good once-over and figured I would offer some additional perspective/feedback.
The... system(?) I suppose I'll call it, seems a bit unaware and overly complex. I feel bad saying "needless", because I do get the feeling you've put a good deal of time, thought, and energy into defining this system but I can't help but ask... why? Folks hear me rant about it at work sometimes, with certain folk or professions where they take a normal ass thing and then give it a fancy title. A department lead or producer or someone will whip out a powerpoint for shareholders and be like, "INTRODUCING PROJECT NOURISHMENT" and then describe making a sandwich. Like just saying you're making a sandwich, it's fine. Sometimes making a sandwich is a good and appropriate thing to do but we don't have to pretend we're making the coolest thing since pocketed pants.
The tl;dr of the system seems to be "it'd be cool if we declared how much AI we used cause it ain't going away". Nice. So is it easier, more clear, or in any way better for me to whip out this watermark than for me to just say "Yeah I don't use AI lol"? Like if I were going to put together a personal website or portfolio, I would just say that. "I made this shit, I promise if you hire me I could do a version of it on a napkin but the quality would really depend on if you gave me like, pencils or crayons." We have perfectly good words and icons (AI) to indicate a lack of AI usage. And honestly for people who don't use AI - I wouldn't be caught dead using these watermarks because they're part of an "AI-supportive system". Regarding your "Stages" - to me, Stages 0 and 1 are effectively the same thing in terms of the important bit (AI usage), but I would be concerned that people seeing any stage of this watermark will cause people to think - at a glance, that some AI is being used.
Why isn't it enough to just encourage folks to disclose the extent of their AI usage in whatever fashion suits them? I just don't really see the point in all the ™, the new terms, symbols, and labels beyond that. AI tooling is such a damn mess, no watermark is going to be enough for me to validate anyone or any work (to use your system's rating structure as an example - to me if you hit 3, you're probably dipping into gen-AI territory and I have stopped caring). There are a lot of ways to take issues with AI - theft, lack of integrity, lack of creativity/authorship, replacing people's jobs, etc - it just gets so... muddy. And I think that's one of the saddest things about it. Used to be you saw an illustration and you knew someone illustrated it, and you could go find more from that illustrator, learn about them, learn about their process, their tools, their history - why things turned out exactly the way they did. You could argue that your system is designed to give people a way to communicate some of those exact things (at least regarding the process) with more clarity, but it could never provide the amount of detail I would actually want - which means it's just making things more muddy. If I don't take issue with AI (particularly gen-AI) usage, then I probably don't care to what extent they utilized it. If I do care, then you've probably lost me after "Stage 1".
Somewhat ironically, I think utilization of this system would decrease the human element in terms of communication. Not having a "system" and just encouraging people to be open about their usage would result in more unique and varied ways for people to do just that. Sort of how you can get a feel for certain job applicants by the "style" of their resume, or their website. I would personally want people to be... themselves, with their disclosures.
That all said and considered, I feel like this system does feel pretty pro-AI. If you don't use AI you can just say that. If you do use AI then here's a system for you to disclose exactly how much and maybe you won't feel so bad about it.
Yeah AI's a thing, yeah it's getting harder to avoid encountering it at least as a sidecar option in a lot of software. The unfortunate consequence is that regardless of watermarks or people's choice to disclose, the world will grow less and less trustworthy. A little AI usage gauge doesn't do much to change that. Perhaps the existence of this dealio will make people be like, "Ok well I don't need the watermark but it is a good idea to disclose stuff so I'mma do that"? And maybe that is ultimately a benefit?
idk, but there's some thoughts.
idk, but there's some thoughts.
Two Listen
5 ·
Re: The Bi-Monthly Environment Art Challenge | January - February (100)
@elfennani Cool update! I think the render is currently a bit too dark and low contrast. To counter that, you could try increasing the light's intensity and make sure that the values of the albedo textures are not too dark (use values of processed PBR scans as a reference?). Additionally, light could come from offscreen sources, for example neon signs on the other side of the road, making the shapes more readable (also allows for color contrast). Perhaps you can approximate offscreen light sources from looking at the concept, or play around. Generally, to take a step back and direct oneself, find it helps to take a render into an image editor to quickly try things (levels, paint in light, overpaint to explore composition or textures). Once happy with the result, attempt to apply it in 3d. In my opinion, the edge of that garage cover is a bit too evenly torn up and I would consider adding tearing more selectively.
@jaaaks Welcome! Curious to see what you created so far, but it seems like you didn't attach any images?
@StarbirdUlt Looks like a solid start, though I would note the shadowed area is quite dark, making it hard to read. looking forward to the next update. Any ideas what techniques your going to use and for which elements? Keep it up!
@jaaaks Welcome! Curious to see what you created so far, but it seems like you didn't attach any images?
@StarbirdUlt Looks like a solid start, though I would note the shadowed area is quite dark, making it hard to read. looking forward to the next update. Any ideas what techniques your going to use and for which elements? Keep it up!
Fabi_G
3 ·
Re: CAHDD™ (Computer Aided Human Designed & Developed) — voluntary workflow transparency + watermark too
We Linkedin now
pior
3 ·
Re: CAHDD™ (Computer Aided Human Designed & Developed) — voluntary workflow transparency + watermark too
The site does not get to the point, right away. In my opinion, you need to explain exactly what is being proposed, and do it "above the fold" which is immediately on the first homepage view, before someone has to scroll down.TheAllusionist said:
I really don't understand why a lot of comments are on my writing, but it appears to be the price for being long winded.
I don't see how the CAHDD system actually works, until I get to the How it Works page, and even then I have to scroll down 1/3 of the page before I get an explanation of what the watermark actually means. This should be the first thing we see when we go to your homepage.
The problem is not the style of the images, the problem for me is the fact that all of the images on your homepage look like they are 100% AI generated. They have all the hallmarks of AI-gen content, and browsing your site there are a ton of these generated images.TheAllusionist said:
Thanks for your input and follow up, the color scheme of warms with diffuse glows for hero header and footer images is a personal choice of pursuing warm earthy tones, might not be everyone's cup of tea so I will take it under advisement. I think this groups comments definitely point to replacing the three medium images in a horizontal row on the front page. The gallery was an effort to show a sample of images at different stages labled appropriately to show the concept.
None of them use your watermark system, except the car.
The car image has your Stage 3 CAHDD watermark, but it's not a trustworthy assessment since the whole image looks like it came straight out of the generator. What human input was used here, other than prompts?TheAllusionist said:
The Porsche 944 Turbo (951) has 968 wheels (not hubcaps) on it, a popular upgrade for many late offset 944s, I myself have early offset and prefer "Phone Dials", but in the Porsche world those wheels would be recognized for what they are and not questioned. The last two sentences may come across as defensive or worse, but that is not what is intended, I just wanted to point out some conclusions being made aren't true.
When I mentioned the hubcaps, I should have explained why it looks AI generated. Look at how distorted this is, is this a 3d model? Is this an overpaint? Looks like typical AI hallucination & distortion.
Also the foglights are pretty obviously not what's in the design of the real car. The Porsche emblem, the flaring, it's all over. What exactly was your contribution to your homepage images?
The errors are everywhere. What is up with these hands?
How many knuckles?!
For me the biggest problem with the whole CAHDD concept is, it's a watermark that doesn't make sense on its own. I have to look it up to figure out it's Stage 3, and then parse what that means, and examine the image to see if I trust the assessment. Most people aren't going to take the time to do this, I only did this because I'm trying to put in a good-faith assessment of what you're trying to do.
Despite the sense you have that all the feedback is negative, it's in fact all constructive criticism, it's meant to help you improve your work. That's a foundational aspect of how the Polycount Forum works. People are generally honest, and get right to the point. And when they don't, when it devolves into ad-hominem attacks or whatever, we try to steer people back on track. The feedback is meant to help the OP improve their work.
Why not just include some text above or below the image that explains what you did? No need to search around to find an explanation, it's all right there. This is a common strategy when presenting work that was done by a team. You explain what your part was... "I modeled the interior, the exterior and scene were created by others" or even better you provide your colleagues' names to credit their contribution, while explaining exactly what your personal contribution was. Here's an example, see the sidebar: https://www.artstation.com/artwork/JeKdEd
Anyhow, I think you could salvage this initiative by coming up with some good solid terminology people could use for the credit text. And demonstrate this process with each image you have on your site.
Eric Chadwick
4 ·