The BRAWL² Tournament Challenge has been announced!
It starts May 12, and ends Oct 17. Let's see what you got!
https://polycount.com/discussion/237047/the-brawl²-tournament
It starts May 12, and ends Oct 17. Let's see what you got!
https://polycount.com/discussion/237047/the-brawl²-tournament
Best Of
Re: Sailor moon Sculpt
I will try to adjust the face proportions and see how it feels, thank you!
SSkelton
2 ·
Re: Maya to Unreal - Vertex Animated Textures Baker Script
@ArthurYoshi If that still isn't working, I'm not sure what might be causing Unreal to not recognise the files. Apologies, I can't be of more help.
Hymil
1 ·
Re: Maya to Unreal - Vertex Animated Textures Baker Script
I used Unreal 5.3, but that shouldn't really matter. The issue your facing is most likely that you didn't put the .uasset files in the right place.ArthurYoshi said:Thank you very much for sharing!I'm learning how to use it but the Unreal .uaset files are not being recognized, which version of Unreal were you using 5.3?
Make sure that the downloaded VAT folder is directly in the content folder of your UE project.
https://github.com/hqo998/Maya-Vertex_Animation_Texture-Baker/tree/main - ReadMe
So, the file structure should look like content/VAT/... - Add the VAT folder inside of the content folder in your Unreal Project
If you attempt to move .uasset files into a different file structure instead of moving them in-engine, the references break and annoyingly enough Unreal won't recognise the file in the content browser.
Hymil
1 ·
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gl2hTmgG18k&t=595s
Re: Article: Game Art Art
I've added several new articles 
- GTAV: Underestimated Glow: https://simonschreibt.de/gat/gta-v-underestimated-glow/
- Cozy Space Survivors Breakdown + Post Mortem: https://simonschreibt.de/gat/cozy-space-survivors/
- Talk: Being a Tech Art Detective: https://simonschreibt.de/gat/being-a-tech-art-detective/
- Cyberpunkt: Broken Edges: https://simonschreibt.de/gat/cyberpunk-broken-edges/
- Anno 1800: Shadows of Beauty: https://simonschreibt.de/gat/anno-1800-shadows-of-beauty/
SimonT
6 ·
Re: Feeling lost and hopeless out of education as a games artist
Yeah, your characters looks simply ugly and deformed to be brutally honest. That's why you don't get a job. You wouldn't want to play a game with these characters neither, would you?
You picked the hardest part first. That's why you are stuck. Character design is nothing that you start with. You may arrive at it at one point, at the top of the mountain. When you really want to do character design, and not just model from a concept, then eagerly learn anatomy. And learn to draw. That's the mountain that you need to climb first. This is not done in days or months. And it requires lots of time and talent. Which you both may or may not have. Definitely throw out the human concepts. They drag your portfolio down.
When you want to improve in the technical part, then start with hard ops stuff. Make small props, and make them looking good. A car gives you more than enough trouble already, that's too big. Pick easy things. Simple things. Things that can be done in a few hours, to learn the basics, and to improve quickly. A tea pot with proper shading and rendering, a pencil, a ballpoint pen, a glass. And always finish it. And once you can do this stuff to a degree then you can start with organic things.
And learn to work from references and concepts. It's a big misconception that a 3d artist also has to be the one who makes the concepts. Most of the time he does not. Your concepts sucks, since you still struggle with anatomy. And so the result sucks too. Use great references, and you will produce better results.
hth and Kind regards
Tiles
You picked the hardest part first. That's why you are stuck. Character design is nothing that you start with. You may arrive at it at one point, at the top of the mountain. When you really want to do character design, and not just model from a concept, then eagerly learn anatomy. And learn to draw. That's the mountain that you need to climb first. This is not done in days or months. And it requires lots of time and talent. Which you both may or may not have. Definitely throw out the human concepts. They drag your portfolio down.
When you want to improve in the technical part, then start with hard ops stuff. Make small props, and make them looking good. A car gives you more than enough trouble already, that's too big. Pick easy things. Simple things. Things that can be done in a few hours, to learn the basics, and to improve quickly. A tea pot with proper shading and rendering, a pencil, a ballpoint pen, a glass. And always finish it. And once you can do this stuff to a degree then you can start with organic things.
And learn to work from references and concepts. It's a big misconception that a 3d artist also has to be the one who makes the concepts. Most of the time he does not. Your concepts sucks, since you still struggle with anatomy. And so the result sucks too. Use great references, and you will produce better results.
hth and Kind regards
Tiles
Tiles
1 ·
Re: Gina (critique welcome)
I don't think I'd call that a failure. As for the artifacts in your top right screenshot, that seems to be exacerbated by the fresnel effect/reflection and the fact that the backside of the top is visible behind that for even bigger contrast.
We are probably looking roughly along the projection direction, here, which is why the lower/outer edge of the rim looks smooth. If the top wasn't a seperate object, the transition to the skin would likely show the same smooth curve (from this angle or a bit higher, which is close to eye height, so not a bad compromise, and assuming it isn't hidden by the geometry).
Since it is a separate object, we don't have that advantage, but any sloping etc. won't help much either, since this is simply your geometry showing. It's not that the edge looks awful, but that the lower/outer edge of the rim looks much smoother in comparison. A sloped rim (which you could do in the LP only, too) might help you to even that out from different viewing directions or shift the projected edge away from the geometry edge so that the angle change doesn't alternate across the latter and/or we see both sides of the edge from a wider angle (less chance to see the silhouette), but it can't change your geometry, which might have added to your decision to aim for a higher polycount.
In this case, because we don't have to see the inside of the top, you could indeed model the rim with a slightly flatter angle than 90 degrees from the start and it might improve things a bit without detracting from the realism in a meaningful way. But you are also correct that this doesn't apply for shapes that are equally visible from all sides and since you can't make it too obvious, it's probably not worth the trouble at this point and not as impactful as increasing the resolution.
Like you have probably gathered from the wavyness thread, there will almost always be some warping from some viewing angle if the geometry is different enough. If you want to avoid that completely and have a dense and regular enough mesh for the overall shape, you could e.g. do your normal details in 2D directly for your lowpoly or bake from a subdivided lowpoly (assuming high and low are more or less the same SubD mesh with the same topology and the only difference are details like ridges or seams). In this case, that would mean that all elements would be as angular as your outer edge, though, just consistently.
As for much higher LP resolutions, I don't have any experience with that, but I'd wager at one point it makes sense to stick to quads and subdivide. Or at least use tools like quad fill and do triangles at the very end (if necessary at all, which seems less likely with increasing resolution). The basemesh for high and "low"poly could even be the same.
For what it's worth, I wouldn't increase the resolution at this point and finish with the old specs. This is a bit like someone throwing a spanner in the works from outside, only you are doing it to yourself. But it's your decision.
We are probably looking roughly along the projection direction, here, which is why the lower/outer edge of the rim looks smooth. If the top wasn't a seperate object, the transition to the skin would likely show the same smooth curve (from this angle or a bit higher, which is close to eye height, so not a bad compromise, and assuming it isn't hidden by the geometry).
Since it is a separate object, we don't have that advantage, but any sloping etc. won't help much either, since this is simply your geometry showing. It's not that the edge looks awful, but that the lower/outer edge of the rim looks much smoother in comparison. A sloped rim (which you could do in the LP only, too) might help you to even that out from different viewing directions or shift the projected edge away from the geometry edge so that the angle change doesn't alternate across the latter and/or we see both sides of the edge from a wider angle (less chance to see the silhouette), but it can't change your geometry, which might have added to your decision to aim for a higher polycount.
In this case, because we don't have to see the inside of the top, you could indeed model the rim with a slightly flatter angle than 90 degrees from the start and it might improve things a bit without detracting from the realism in a meaningful way. But you are also correct that this doesn't apply for shapes that are equally visible from all sides and since you can't make it too obvious, it's probably not worth the trouble at this point and not as impactful as increasing the resolution.
Like you have probably gathered from the wavyness thread, there will almost always be some warping from some viewing angle if the geometry is different enough. If you want to avoid that completely and have a dense and regular enough mesh for the overall shape, you could e.g. do your normal details in 2D directly for your lowpoly or bake from a subdivided lowpoly (assuming high and low are more or less the same SubD mesh with the same topology and the only difference are details like ridges or seams). In this case, that would mean that all elements would be as angular as your outer edge, though, just consistently.
As for much higher LP resolutions, I don't have any experience with that, but I'd wager at one point it makes sense to stick to quads and subdivide. Or at least use tools like quad fill and do triangles at the very end (if necessary at all, which seems less likely with increasing resolution). The basemesh for high and "low"poly could even be the same.
For what it's worth, I wouldn't increase the resolution at this point and finish with the old specs. This is a bit like someone throwing a spanner in the works from outside, only you are doing it to yourself. But it's your decision.
Noren
1 ·
Re: The Bi-Monthly Environment Art Challenge | January - February (94)
Things are off to a great start! One suggestion I might add for future posts is to add multiple angles so it's easier to look at all parts of the model.Geausselain said:Hello everyone,Once again I've come to try my hand at this challenge in the hope of finishing it one day! Not like all the other times x')I've started my 1st big modelling pass. I'm still missing a few elements that I'll tackle next time!Good luck everyone! You've already achieved incredible results!
I have finished the high poly part of the model. I took advice from @BillyJackman and shortened the length of the box I don't know how I didn't see how long it was lol. I decided to join in on the clay render trend. After days of deliberating I decided to make the flashlight solar panel powered. I added a panel on top of the box for sunlight and I just realized after rendering that I forgot to add a glass shader for the box below the lid to show the powerbank, but my next move is baking and texturing in Substance Painter.
Edit: I also realized I put the red nozzle button on the wrong cylinder but I have corrected that as well.
crayz4pnutz
7 ·
