Best Of
Re: Fire hydrant modeling questions (was: Hello professionals)
Before I start, I noticed that you spent some real effort modeling each part separate. Fuckin' nice. Keep doing that and you'll have less issues going forward.
Alright, so what I noticed at the back was confirmed when looking at your model.
When you connected the main body cylinder to the three conical nozzle parts, you altered the main body's cylinder so much in order to make them fit that you made it non-cylindrical in the process.
Look at how deflected these selected edges are in comparison to the rest of the cylinder. In these areas it's no longer a cylinder:
The way I would go about this would be to start by ligning up all the geometry you want to intersect properly. I chose the same amount of sides you did for the main body because I could see that the amount of sides you chose for everything just barely didn't line up.
The only variations between mine and yours will be:
-I noticed in the refs you uploaded that the three nozzles should be at the same Z-height. I lined mine up. A bonus to this is that it makes the geometry easier to line up.
-The amount of sides to the nozzles will be determined by how many I need to make them fit nicely into the main body cylinder. 20 for the big one, 14 for the small ones.
The sizes for the nozzles I copied from yours by placing mine on top of yours and inserting them as floaters into the main body, ready for booleaning.
Then I upped the amount of sides on the small nozzle until I could envision myself making the cuts shown in the nextnext pic when they're all grey.
TEMPORARY FUTURE TIME! These are the cuts I'm envisioning and they will be my supporting geometry. No alteration of the main body cylinder will happen outside these lines and that will ensure that the cylindrical shape of the main body cylinder doesn't get fucked. No, not proper fucked.
Back to current time, I selected the outermost faces of the nozzles and scaled them down until they matched yours in size. From this...
..To this: That gave me the same amount of conicity™ as you had.
Back To The Future©, and this new cut will dictate where the melding of the nozzles will stop.
Now it's time to clean up the boolean intersection. First I select every vertex that is only connected to two edges. These verts are generated in a (max) boolean operation and do absolutely nothing except hide behind other verts thinking you cleaned up your boolean, but you didn't, so everything looks whack for some reason. Select them and delete them (ctrl+backspace):
Now it's time for some cleanup. If this was some huge boolean operation with thousands of verts on something that wouldn't be important I would just select and weld the verts by some small distance, but because this is a practice in making the right decisions, and there's 20 verts to weld, I'm gonna do some thinking on this.
Because the edges on the nozzles are shorter than on the main body cylinder, the error generated by altering the topology will be less noticable if I target weld the main body's verts onto the nozzle verts. The same logic applies to the nozzles. Big nozzle has longer edges, therefore weld those onto the small nozzle's verts. I also connected the verts that are selected here to create that new quad between the two nozzles.
Now did I plan on having to create this quad in the planning stage when looking at how many sides I wanted each nozzle to be? Let's ask Mark Wahlberg.
A couple of edgeloops...
..And a symmetry modifier later:
This is why I bother, when you look at the results. When you squish the geometry of the main cylinder like you did, the reflections on it don't stay cylindrical. They can't. Some effort is required, but I'm guessing I spent less effort trying to select the appropriate amount of sides on cylinders and making them fit than you did. Yours on the left, mine on the right.
An added benefit I just noticed after completing this is that I see that the refs call for the small nozzles to intersect with the big nozzle, and that the big nozzle's conical shape should dominate that intersection. This workflow achieved this by accident by following the sizes of your nozzles. Mine left, yours right.
I have a bunch of other things I could critique, if you want me to. I will spend twice the amount of time to critique your work than you spent modeling, if you ask.
Now let's play a little game of "Find the Ngon". No, not the obvious ones on the flat faces of the nozzles.
Alright, so what I noticed at the back was confirmed when looking at your model.
When you connected the main body cylinder to the three conical nozzle parts, you altered the main body's cylinder so much in order to make them fit that you made it non-cylindrical in the process.
Look at how deflected these selected edges are in comparison to the rest of the cylinder. In these areas it's no longer a cylinder:
The way I would go about this would be to start by ligning up all the geometry you want to intersect properly. I chose the same amount of sides you did for the main body because I could see that the amount of sides you chose for everything just barely didn't line up.
The only variations between mine and yours will be:
-I noticed in the refs you uploaded that the three nozzles should be at the same Z-height. I lined mine up. A bonus to this is that it makes the geometry easier to line up.
-The amount of sides to the nozzles will be determined by how many I need to make them fit nicely into the main body cylinder. 20 for the big one, 14 for the small ones.
The sizes for the nozzles I copied from yours by placing mine on top of yours and inserting them as floaters into the main body, ready for booleaning.
Then I upped the amount of sides on the small nozzle until I could envision myself making the cuts shown in the nextnext pic when they're all grey.
TEMPORARY FUTURE TIME! These are the cuts I'm envisioning and they will be my supporting geometry. No alteration of the main body cylinder will happen outside these lines and that will ensure that the cylindrical shape of the main body cylinder doesn't get fucked. No, not proper fucked.
Back to current time, I selected the outermost faces of the nozzles and scaled them down until they matched yours in size. From this...
..To this: That gave me the same amount of conicity™ as you had.
Back To The Future©, and this new cut will dictate where the melding of the nozzles will stop.
Now it's time to clean up the boolean intersection. First I select every vertex that is only connected to two edges. These verts are generated in a (max) boolean operation and do absolutely nothing except hide behind other verts thinking you cleaned up your boolean, but you didn't, so everything looks whack for some reason. Select them and delete them (ctrl+backspace):
Now it's time for some cleanup. If this was some huge boolean operation with thousands of verts on something that wouldn't be important I would just select and weld the verts by some small distance, but because this is a practice in making the right decisions, and there's 20 verts to weld, I'm gonna do some thinking on this.
Because the edges on the nozzles are shorter than on the main body cylinder, the error generated by altering the topology will be less noticable if I target weld the main body's verts onto the nozzle verts. The same logic applies to the nozzles. Big nozzle has longer edges, therefore weld those onto the small nozzle's verts. I also connected the verts that are selected here to create that new quad between the two nozzles.
Now did I plan on having to create this quad in the planning stage when looking at how many sides I wanted each nozzle to be? Let's ask Mark Wahlberg.
A couple of edgeloops...
..And a symmetry modifier later:
This is why I bother, when you look at the results. When you squish the geometry of the main cylinder like you did, the reflections on it don't stay cylindrical. They can't. Some effort is required, but I'm guessing I spent less effort trying to select the appropriate amount of sides on cylinders and making them fit than you did. Yours on the left, mine on the right.
An added benefit I just noticed after completing this is that I see that the refs call for the small nozzles to intersect with the big nozzle, and that the big nozzle's conical shape should dominate that intersection. This workflow achieved this by accident by following the sizes of your nozzles. Mine left, yours right.
I have a bunch of other things I could critique, if you want me to. I will spend twice the amount of time to critique your work than you spent modeling, if you ask.
Now let's play a little game of "Find the Ngon". No, not the obvious ones on the flat faces of the nozzles.
Thanez
4 ·
Re: The Bi-Monthly ENVIRONMENT ART Challenge | May - June (72)
Hey all. Officially the last day of the challenge. So here is my ''final'' result. However, I still want to do some stuff here and there. Which are obviously the tentacles. I also want to add some tentacles to the fence, just some extra ornamentation. Besides that, some post-process effects (color grading) and fixing the chimney smoke. However, I'm happy with this piece already. Looking forward to seeing all your results!
Cheers!
Oh, and yes, the final - final gif will loop + have better quality.
tomsanders1993
18 ·
Re: The Bi-Monthly ENVIRONMENT ART Challenge | May - June (72)
a bit late to the party, but I also want to take on the props challenge since the props seems a fit to my next environment. here's my updates sofar:
- the ropes/strands will be made with tiling textures
- the plants/moss will use different materials
- I plan on finishing these 4 props first and moving on the the other when I have time
critiques and comments are appreciated!
--
@Pinkfox checkout minute 23:00 -25:00 from the video link, I think that's the effects you want. the water plugins is super easy to use I think its just drag and drop. the water material is also provided within the plugins
- the ropes/strands will be made with tiling textures
- the plants/moss will use different materials
- I plan on finishing these 4 props first and moving on the the other when I have time
critiques and comments are appreciated!
--
@Pinkfox checkout minute 23:00 -25:00 from the video link, I think that's the effects you want. the water plugins is super easy to use I think its just drag and drop. the water material is also provided within the plugins
hasgan
4 ·
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKBs9l8jS6Q 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdCvwmebWN0
Re: Show your hand painted stuff, pls!
Hello! Havent done any hand painted characters in a while, been working on my dark rider, more in my thread
Pav3d
6 ·
Re: Show your hand painted stuff, pls!
Hello! I hope everyone is doing well! I recently did a 3D environment study using a concept created by Lok Du.
You can also find it here on my Artstation: https://www.artstation.com/artwork/xJXgqX
You can also find it here on my Artstation: https://www.artstation.com/artwork/xJXgqX
BrandonRay
8 ·
Re: CANT FIND A JOB : DONT BECOME AN ARTIST ?!!!
I mean all this in a constructive way.
You're not getting hired because what you're presenting doesn't look good. experience doesn't come into it when you're not competing with graduates on quality.
Your asset work is not there yet.
I mainly looked at the weapons since that's the subject matter I'm most familiar with and I believe you're not paying close enough attention to reference in terms of both the forms and materials. for example - that AK appears to be missing a gas system and is very strangely proportioned, I don't think the sights on the Thompson match up to either the expensive early version or the cheaper ww2 military one, I have to wonder what happens to the flashlight on the p229 when it's fired. Hopefully you're getting the picture.
Your presentation is not helping,
The background on your site is an immediate turnoff - if you didn't make it, it shouldn't be on there and we all know you didn't make it.
Your lighting is flat and dead - read up on simple 3 point light setups and concentrate on a clean and clear presentation. That's all you need for asset work and anything more just gets in the way.
good luck with it
edit : also the website is really irritating, the auto changing images make it very difficult to look closely and analyse your work.
As a rule, anyone hiring would much prefer to look at a vanilla artstation page than any thing custom.
You're not getting hired because what you're presenting doesn't look good. experience doesn't come into it when you're not competing with graduates on quality.
Your asset work is not there yet.
I mainly looked at the weapons since that's the subject matter I'm most familiar with and I believe you're not paying close enough attention to reference in terms of both the forms and materials. for example - that AK appears to be missing a gas system and is very strangely proportioned, I don't think the sights on the Thompson match up to either the expensive early version or the cheaper ww2 military one, I have to wonder what happens to the flashlight on the p229 when it's fired. Hopefully you're getting the picture.
Your presentation is not helping,
The background on your site is an immediate turnoff - if you didn't make it, it shouldn't be on there and we all know you didn't make it.
Your lighting is flat and dead - read up on simple 3 point light setups and concentrate on a clean and clear presentation. That's all you need for asset work and anything more just gets in the way.
good luck with it
edit : also the website is really irritating, the auto changing images make it very difficult to look closely and analyse your work.
As a rule, anyone hiring would much prefer to look at a vanilla artstation page than any thing custom.
poopipe
4 ·
Re: The Bi-Monthly Environment Art Challenge CONCEPT THREAD | July - August (73)
@Pinkfox to echo everyone else, I love the hard surface environment you've picked for this challenge!
I don't know if this has been posted before but this is a really solid stylized environment as well.
https://www.artstation.com/artwork/68o6Rw
I don't know if this has been posted before but this is a really solid stylized environment as well.
https://www.artstation.com/artwork/68o6Rw
Orbit
6 ·
