The BRAWL² Tournament Challenge has been announced!
It starts May 12, and ends Sept 12. Let's see what you got!
https://polycount.com/discussion/237047/the-brawl²-tournament
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: Early-Late 2000s CGI/Game textures
Yeah, that's a good strategy no matter what software.
The only caveat is PBR usually expects "color" style textures to be stored in sRGB... albedo, emissive, specularColor, etc.
All other textures are expected to be "linear sRGB"...roughness, metallic, normal map, etc.
That's been a difficult thing to teach to artists. sRGB vs. Linear, and which matters when.
General guidance I've used is... if a texture is meant to be captured with a camera, then make sure gamma is applied (sRGB, gamma 2.2, basically the same thing).
Gamma workflow vs. Linear workflow is really hard for artists to learn, it's such a weird thing. But, so necessary when working in 24bit color, and with PBR pipelines.
I wish there was a better way to explain this!
The only caveat is PBR usually expects "color" style textures to be stored in sRGB... albedo, emissive, specularColor, etc.
All other textures are expected to be "linear sRGB"...roughness, metallic, normal map, etc.
That's been a difficult thing to teach to artists. sRGB vs. Linear, and which matters when.
General guidance I've used is... if a texture is meant to be captured with a camera, then make sure gamma is applied (sRGB, gamma 2.2, basically the same thing).
Gamma workflow vs. Linear workflow is really hard for artists to learn, it's such a weird thing. But, so necessary when working in 24bit color, and with PBR pipelines.
I wish there was a better way to explain this!
Eric Chadwick
4 ·
Re: People with Autism + ADHD innatentive who aren't medicated do you have any advice to be productive?
I can identify with a lot of what you describe - I'm sure many other people on here can too.
After many years of living with low impulse control and literally no patience I have established the following two things...
- Beating your face against a problem for hours without a break rarely results in a well solved problem.
- Only ever working on things that have long term value is a recipe for burnout.
I recommend getting a block of those nice square stickynotes and a sharpie. Whenever you sense that you're getting frustrated/stuck/etc. pick them up and spend 20 minutes doodling funny stuff or little life studies.
- it keeps me (somewhat) sane at least
You use a sharpie because not being able to erase what you did is an excellent artistic training tool
You draw on stickynotes because stickynotes are temporary
also - what pior said
After many years of living with low impulse control and literally no patience I have established the following two things...
- Beating your face against a problem for hours without a break rarely results in a well solved problem.
- Only ever working on things that have long term value is a recipe for burnout.
I recommend getting a block of those nice square stickynotes and a sharpie. Whenever you sense that you're getting frustrated/stuck/etc. pick them up and spend 20 minutes doodling funny stuff or little life studies.
- it keeps me (somewhat) sane at least
You use a sharpie because not being able to erase what you did is an excellent artistic training tool
You draw on stickynotes because stickynotes are temporary
also - what pior said
poopipe
4 ·
Re: Early-Late 2000s CGI/Game Models
I remember watching Bay Raitt modeling gifs endlessly with my classmates back in the day.
Done in a software called Mirai
https://spiraloid.artstation.com/projects/KPyRB
Done in a software called Mirai
https://spiraloid.artstation.com/projects/KPyRB
jStins
3 ·
Re: Early-Late 2000s CGI/Game textures
Hi there,
I'd say you are thinking about this backwards. You are assuming things about the past based on what you know of game art and 3D software of today, which I suppose is an intuitive thing to do ... but this leads you to imagine things about previous tech and workflows that just don't apply at all.
- First off, metalness and roughness are just greyscale masks. They can of course be be baked down from complex materials (like the materials one may create in Substance) but that's in no way mandatory. These greyscale masks can be created any way one wants, and because of that the only thing needed from a texture baking tool is the ability to transfer a simple texture map (regardless of what it may be called) from one object to another. As a matter of fact, for some stylized art styles painting the needed masks by hand (either projected on the model or directly on the 2D texture) can still be much faster than attempting to create a complex Substance material and baking it down.
- Secondly, just because an older game looks great doesn't mean that it uses bells and whistles analogous to today standards. Games from the PS2/PS360 era managed to look great with very simple rendering tech. It is perfectly possible to make a character look fantastic with just a well painted diffuse map and a simple mask driving specular on/off. As a matter of fact this simplicity is IMHO specifically what made some older games visually striking, because it favors a strong differentiation of materials (shiny/not shiny).
Here's a rip from The Boss from MGS3, loaded into XNAlara with a very simple material setup applied. The skin of her face looks matte, and her outfit looks shiny. But this doesn't involve any baked metalness or roughness (or any handpainted metalness or roughness either for that matter) - just a low specular value applied to the face and a high specular value applied to the outfit. That's it ! It doesn't involve any painted masks. And the game as whole doesn't use anything more complex than that on anything really. It's enough to convey a whole world of rich locations and characters.
You can see this effect (or rather, this design choice) very clearly in game during the first Sokolov cutscene. His black leather coat has strongly painted highlights in the diffuse texture to take care of most of the look, and it is enhanced by a bit of dynamic spec applied to the whole garment. It's as bruteforce as it gets but it works.
I would highly recommend you to look into actual asset rips from any game you are interested in to see the texture sets involved. Or even better, attempt to mod your own models into PC games from a few gens ago with a strong, still active community (like for instance games that are being community-enhanced with highres models and texture packs). There's a ton to learn from poking around.
And it will also shed some light onto why the way we are building game assets now is incredibly resource-intensive, compared to the barebones (but efficient) processes of 20 years ago.
I'd say you are thinking about this backwards. You are assuming things about the past based on what you know of game art and 3D software of today, which I suppose is an intuitive thing to do ... but this leads you to imagine things about previous tech and workflows that just don't apply at all.
- First off, metalness and roughness are just greyscale masks. They can of course be be baked down from complex materials (like the materials one may create in Substance) but that's in no way mandatory. These greyscale masks can be created any way one wants, and because of that the only thing needed from a texture baking tool is the ability to transfer a simple texture map (regardless of what it may be called) from one object to another. As a matter of fact, for some stylized art styles painting the needed masks by hand (either projected on the model or directly on the 2D texture) can still be much faster than attempting to create a complex Substance material and baking it down.
- Secondly, just because an older game looks great doesn't mean that it uses bells and whistles analogous to today standards. Games from the PS2/PS360 era managed to look great with very simple rendering tech. It is perfectly possible to make a character look fantastic with just a well painted diffuse map and a simple mask driving specular on/off. As a matter of fact this simplicity is IMHO specifically what made some older games visually striking, because it favors a strong differentiation of materials (shiny/not shiny).
Here's a rip from The Boss from MGS3, loaded into XNAlara with a very simple material setup applied. The skin of her face looks matte, and her outfit looks shiny. But this doesn't involve any baked metalness or roughness (or any handpainted metalness or roughness either for that matter) - just a low specular value applied to the face and a high specular value applied to the outfit. That's it ! It doesn't involve any painted masks. And the game as whole doesn't use anything more complex than that on anything really. It's enough to convey a whole world of rich locations and characters.
You can see this effect (or rather, this design choice) very clearly in game during the first Sokolov cutscene. His black leather coat has strongly painted highlights in the diffuse texture to take care of most of the look, and it is enhanced by a bit of dynamic spec applied to the whole garment. It's as bruteforce as it gets but it works.
I would highly recommend you to look into actual asset rips from any game you are interested in to see the texture sets involved. Or even better, attempt to mod your own models into PC games from a few gens ago with a strong, still active community (like for instance games that are being community-enhanced with highres models and texture packs). There's a ton to learn from poking around.
And it will also shed some light onto why the way we are building game assets now is incredibly resource-intensive, compared to the barebones (but efficient) processes of 20 years ago.
pior
3 ·
Re: What Are You Working On? (3D) 2025
Procrastinating texturing by playing with wind in Unreal
Re: Stuck: My Topology Journey Has Hit a Wall
@Gikkio Although there is some overlap in the basic art, observation, and problem solving skills required: concepting and subdivision modeling are different disciplines. While it may be possible to learn both at the same time it tends to be easier to focus on mastering each discipline separately.
It's generally recommended to practice hard surface subdivision modeling by recreating real world objects, with a lot of detailed reference material, instead of working from concept art that's vague or open to interpretation. This approach to learning from real world objects tends to make it easier for other artists to provide objective feedback that's focused entirely on the technical aspects of subdivision modeling.
Concepting can be done in 2D or 3D. Whether to start with one or the other could be it's own debate but one of the bigger challenges is that critiquing concepts and providing useful skill building feedback tends to take a lot of time and effort. So it's often more difficult to find artists willing to provide in-depth feedback on concept art. Especially when just starting out, because the supporting illustration or modeling skills also tend to require a lot of development.
When it comes to the existing concept: there's a few shapes and depth queues that could be developed further to visually suggest functionality. Both the concept art and subdivision model could benefit from further iteration based on comparison to or inspiration from real world references.
Something that can really help with building both of these distinct
skill sets is to spend more time iterating at each stage of the project
and analyze the results on your own, while also asking other artists for
feedback, before moving on to the next step in the process. Take the
time to really break things down and try different approaches or shape
configurations and compare the results both to each other and similar
real world objects.
At this stage of the block out the only real concern is testing which shape configurations have the most dynamic visual impact and plausible functionality. This basic block out could be iterated on several more times, by drawing additional inspiration from real world references and evaluating the model from different points of view (first person, third person, inventory screen, etc.)
Below is a quick example of a basic block out that follows the primary
forms in the concept art and a second block out that further refines
some of the shapes and adjusts the proportions around the grip and guard
to match something from the real world.
For the modeling process: consider spending more time in the block out phase and try to capture all of the primary shapes before adding any support loops. That way it's a lot easier to test different ideas without having to manage a lot of complex support loops and the final shapes can guide the loop routing.
Below is an example of what an iterative block out process could look like. Start by defining key features like the barrel and slide then add additional shape details that create some visual separation between the surfaces. Create the basic outline of the frame and grip shape then use a series of bevel / chamfer operations to create softer shape transitions and round overs. Non-destructive workflow elements can be used to speed up the initial block out while also keeping things editable for easier shape refinement.
Efficent subdivision modeling really comes down to keeping things as simple as possible while accurately representing all of the primary forms. The goal at this stage of the block out is to just create a basic mesh that has all of the larger forms and enough space around the shapes to create a clean path for support loops to flow around the shapes.
Here's a link to a write-up that covers how to manage some of the tradeoffs between mesh complexity and shape accuracy: https://polycount.com/discussion/comment/2751340/#Comment_2751340
Once the basic block out is complete, support loop paths can be added around the edges that define the larger shapes using basic modeling operations like inset or bevel / chamfer. Modifiers can also be used to streamline this part of the process by using edge weights and vertex groups to control the placement and width of support loops generated by bevel / chamfer operations.
After the primary features in the base mesh are locked in with support loops around the major shape transitions, move on to adding smaller secondary shapes and tertiary surface details, using the existing geometry to support the intersecting shapes whenever possible.
Here's a link to another write-up that covers how to analyze and plan out shape intersections: https://polycount.com/discussion/comment/2776197/#Comment_2776197
Keeping the base mesh relatively simple and using an
iterative block out process to work from the larger primary forms to
the smaller secondary forms and tertiary surface details helps keep the
mesh clean and well organized. While also avoiding the time sink of
having to re-work the larger shapes after the details have already been
added.
Another thing to consider is that certain types of surface features can be added using "floaters" (detached floating geometry). Just be sure that there's enough room around any detached features for the flange that's used to blend the base of the detail into the underlying surface.
Recap:
-Focus on developing specific skill sets independently of each other. Multiple skills may be required to complete a specific project but try to break the entire process down into digestible parts and seek feedback on each of the required skills before moving on to the next stage of a project.
-Dedicate more time to iterating on different ideas and shapes during the concept and block out phase. Try to accurately represent the shapes in each part of the object in a way that visually defines and clearly communicates their function.
-Block out the primary forms first, keep the mesh as simple as possible while still holding accurate shapes, then add secondary shapes and tertiary surface features in subsequent modeling passes. Let the larger shapes guide the loop flow around the model and use the existing geometry of the larger shapes to support shape intersections and smaller details whenever possible.
Some links to additional hard surface subdivision write-ups with animated workflow demonstrations:
https://polycount.com/discussion/comment/2779584/#Comment_2779584
https://polycount.com/discussion/comment/2777123/#Comment_2777123
https://polycount.com/discussion/comment/2780536/#Comment_2780536
FrankPolygon
9 ·
Re: Early-Late 2000s CGI/Game Models
Oh my goodness I did these tutorials back in the day. Am I old now?
artquest
4 ·
Re: How The F*#% Do I Model This? - Reply for help with specific shapes - (Post attempt before asking)
@5rettski There's a few different ways to approach organic subdivision modeling but it's generally a good idea to start by establishing the proportions with a block out of the facial planes to create a base mesh. Part of this block out process usually involves creating basic loop paths around key facial features (eyes, mouth, nose, ears, etc.) using either C or X topology patterns.
Some good examples of the different topology layouts can be found in the polycount wiki:
http://wiki.polycount.com/wiki/FaceTopology
http://wiki.polycount.com/wiki/Subdivision_Surface_Modeling#Organic_Surfaces
http://wiki.polycount.com/wiki/FaceTopology
http://wiki.polycount.com/wiki/Subdivision_Surface_Modeling#Organic_Surfaces
There's also videos from the period (around 2004-2007) that cover the hows and whys of different facial topology layouts:
https://youtu.be/im9XZf2C1s0(C topology was often used for
more stylized characters and X topology was generally associated with
more complex character models that had a lot of skin folds or other fine
details but that's just an observation and is more descriptive than
prescriptive. Often the decision to use one topology layout over the other was made before even starting the block out but it's still possible to re-route loops and change the topology while modeling.)
The basic shapes and topology flow around key facial features can be created by extruding edge strips and connecting the space between them.
Some artists prefer to start by outlining orifices like the eyes, nostrils, mouth, etc. then move on to defining hard landmarks like the brow ridge, nose bridge, chin, cheeks, etc. This is supposed to make it easier to connect the adjacent edge strips since the segment count can be adjusted to match before any of the actual modeling work is done.
Other artists might develop the facial features in isolation, creating an entire nose, mouth, eye socket, ear, etc. then connect everything together and adjust the topology as needed to create facial lines and folds. It's also possible to strip model the muscle groups and face planes then connect them to resolve the topology flow but that seems like a lot of unnecessary work.
Modeling the nose in isolation could be done by starting with the bridge and modeling outwards, as shown below, but it's probably easier to start by defining the Alar cartilage and nostril then expanding out to the tip and up into the bridge. (There's an example of that approach in the wiki.)
The modeling process itself is fairly straightforward: load up a front and side view image then insert and extrude edge strips to define the major planes and loops that make up the shapes. Focus on creating good topology first then work on pushing and pulling everything into shape. Having good topology that flows nicely helps avoid the pitfall of spending a bunch of time making something that looks great but is difficult to connect to adjacent topology.
Organic subdivision modeling is all about establishing the loop paths then pushing and pulling everything into shape. Try to really nail down the larger forms in the first pass then add the loops to support smaller details later, once everything looks proportional and accurate. Otherwise it's just too easy to get lost in the details and it's often difficult to attach overly dense meshes to each other without chasing poles and triangles around the entire face.
The example below is by no means accurate, it's more of an approximation based on the older version of the character and it's been close to two decades since I've modeled a character using pure subdivision, so definitely study the topology references in the wiki.
If you're using Blender there's a somewhat obscure approach to refining
the shapes in subdivision models that was used occasionally in the late 2000's.
This workflow involved strip modeling a character's base mesh to
establish the loop flow then instead of manually pushing and pulling the
verts and edges in edit mode, just switch to sculpt mode and use those
tools to push the geometry around with the subdivision preview enabled.
To be clear, the purpose of this workflow isn't high poly sculpting, it's to enable a cleaner visual preview of the shadows and highlights on the surface and make it easier to push and pull the geometry of the base mesh into shape so the final subdivision model has a more refined feel. It's also way easier than tweaking individual verts with the move tool and tabbing in and out of edit mode to hide the wire frame.
Another thing that really helps with character modeling is to have other references up and regularly orbit around the model while switching the camera from ortho to perspective mode to get a better sense of the volumes. Looking up art anatomy references and learning the basic muscle groups can also be really helpful.
There's a few artists that still post here who specialize in characters or otherwise have more expert knowledge of anatomy so hopefully they can chime in and share their experience or memories of subdivision modeling from this era.
FrankPolygon
6 ·