And thank you for the feedback Dwalker, the shotgun shells were done a bit hastily, I'll fix those, and play around a bit more with the presentation background for the final ones.
just wanted to say that you`re a beast and you`re going to go places man
love to see people from DAE be this devoted to what they do and execute such professional artwork
And reply'd to reedweinstock in pm, didn't want to randomly bump the thread, but if anyone is interested, if it's for physical based shading I don't overlay any AO or cavity.
In some flats it might seem a bit that way, but that's just because of using the AO for dust/dirt, and sometimes the cavity int he roughness to get that "rubbed/glossyer edges thing".
Got some time this weekend to bake this down, and put in some quick values, altough it's more to get the PSD started then a proper blockout.
Then get started on that sniper rifle bake
And there are some youtube vids floating around on it, basicly where the shells eject is also where they go in.
----
Progress on the texture, some parts still untoched, but found it a good time to post.
Great work man! I'm afraid that you wont have any problem looking for work with stuff like you are showing!
I hope you are right :poly124:
To answer some questions:
-Bakes are done in 3dsmax, easy to set up the cage, and I'm still happy with the speed/quality of it for normal maps.
Altough baking in xnormal for example would just be a matter of exporting the meshes/cage.
-I will post the flats, and if I forget, I always put them up on my site when it's done.
In meanwhile, if you are really curious, the wip flats of the posted images: http://imageshack.com/a/img32/3927/d6ag.jpg
top to bottom: Albedo/reflectance/roughness/normal
The metalness thing, not to much reason behind it, I have used it before (see the binoc's), there really isn't much difference outside of a slightly different organization of your textures.
If needed I could always "convert" the textures to it if it was needed.
It's just that currently I prefer the extra bit of freedom, and still having to do the nonmetal reflectance values yourself, it's a bit of extra practice so to say.
In the future it would just come down to whatever the engine I would want to use uses (once cryengine gets updated with pbs (hopefully soon) or ue4 comes out).
Your bakes came out really nice! Whats your background brightness for the "smashed windows"? When you use child lights do you have to rotate them so that the arrow faces your mesh?
Thanks guys, I have been a bit busy lately, but hopefully I'll get the finals up tonight or tomorrow morning.
For the question:
Depends a bit on how bright you want it to be, but I kinda like it around 1.5-1.6 for texturing, that seems to be fairly correspondent to the general brightness of other sky's.
For the child lights, I don't use them a lot, just when there is a bright light source like the sun, where the image can't really give off that brightness.
And there isn't a need to turn them, when you place them on the little image placer thing they face the correct way.
looks great, but I liked older version a bit more....rubber in the back were MUCH better imo http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/593/7ws9.jpg
also that normal mapped wear on bottom side of front plastic looks abit strange
I think the texture in general could afford to be a bit more subtle though.
The magazine tubes for instance. The wear it has right now is pretty strong, and in addition to it being strong and obvious, it doesn't really make sense. If the slide was grinding on there I could see it having horizontal scratches and wear marks along it, But right now It just looks like some variation in the roughness/gloss for the sake of breaking it up. Which I get, but it reads incorrectly to me personally.
As for dirt, Scrapes, Chips, Etc, I dig it as much as the next guy, I really do. I think the gun looks awesome. But As engines become more capable at accurately recreating materials I feel like the need to overly wear the texture will become obsolete.
The point i'm getting at is: As much as I love the grunge and beaten up look, I think we are moving into a generation were less might be more. I think the gun looks more low poly and less realistic now than it did with it's previous texturing for that reason. The wear that it had was reasonably subtle and realistic, not overpowering. The details that it did have (like the oil on the cheek rest) were realistic and acted as a really nice "active" areas on the model/texture. Where as the plastics and other areas were a place for the eyes to rest because they were fairly boring or "inactive", but well represented and still conveyed the material well.
It's well done, I dig it. I just think it would look better with a more subtle and realistic set up. Just my .02. Maybe i'm the only one thinks this
I think the texture in general could afford to be a bit more subtle though.
The magazine tubes for instance. The wear it has right now is pretty strong, and in addition to it being strong and obvious, it doesn't really make sense. If the slide was grinding on there I could see it having horizontal scratches and wear marks along it, But right now It just looks like some variation in the roughness/gloss for the sake of breaking it up. Which I get, but it reads incorrectly to me personally.
As for dirt, Scrapes, Chips, Etc, I dig it as much as the next guy, I really do. I think the gun looks awesome. But As engines become more capable at accurately recreating materials I feel like the need to overly wear the texture will become obsolete.
The point i'm getting at is: As much as I love the grunge and beaten up look, I think we are moving into a generation were less might be more. I think the gun looks more low poly and less realistic now than it did with it's previous texturing for that reason. The wear that it had was reasonably subtle and realistic, not overpowering. The details that it did have (like the oil on the cheek rest) were realistic and acted as a really nice "active" areas on the model/texture. Where as the plastics and other areas were a place for the eyes to rest because they were fairly boring or "inactive", but well represented and still conveyed the material well.
It's well done, I dig it. I just think it would look better with a more subtle and realistic set up. Just my .02. Maybe i'm the only one thinks this
Na, I'm going to have to totally disagree here. I've seen the files for this up close and its a great example of really spot on material definition, and a totally realistic and reasonable level of wear, interesting without being super grungy.
Sure, its not mil-sim clean, but that gets super boring.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I think the texturing is bad. I made it a point to say how much I like it. And I really do.
Regardless, I think It looked better in the previous shots. The materials were well defined (the portions that were actually textured/worked on). They had subtle but noticeable and believable wear. I personally think it had a really nice look to it. Just because you have the texture space doesn't mean you have to activate it. Not every square inch of an object needs to be interesting.
It's like you said to me one day in regards to modeling; It's not a matter of extremely minimal geometry, and not a matter of frivolous or extravagant use, it's a matter of having enough, and I think the direction the gun was going in the level of wear was "enough".
Joeri's work is awesome. He consistently delivers killer goods. I'm not disputing the accuracy of the material definition or quality of work. Simply extending my opinion that the cleaner previous version of the WIP was more appealing to me.
Darn, those materials look really good. Sorry if it's already mentioned somewhere in the thread, but is this all rendered with Marmoset?
This really makes me want to stop messing around for hours in Mental Ray and try something more artist friendly!
Chamade: these are indeed in marmoset toolbag (untill someone gets me UE4 or I do something non pbs again, then I'll branch out in that regard ), definitely worth trying out if you haven't.
I never really unwrap highpoly's, in that screenshot it's just one of max's procedural noises, and if I remember correctly you can just set it to not use UV's, but use like object/world XYZ, but that's just to get a more pretty render , I don't use it afterwards.
So I don't really use the highpoly for texturing, outside of (did it a bit, gonna start doing it more) bringing the highpoly in toolbag, and assign some quick materials, since that is easier to tweak/play around with it that way. (just basic values), and then use those values to start off the texture.
but your concerns are noted, and when I do something from real life again, I'll keep in mind what you said, and really appreciate your input on it.
(or when in the future when I have progressed again, I give that gun a little touchup/rework).
But yes currently it's limited to toolbag2 for personal work untill a UDK version of UE4 comes out or it gets implemented in the free/public version of cryengine.
reedweinstock:
yes, in the KSG it was just:
Take AO
Colorize it
Play around with the blend if settings in PS
Add a layer mask and with a brush add/subtract a bit so it isn't so clean.
And currently I also like to tune that back a bit more, and then put a layer on top with a slightly different color/a bit dark, and pick out some spots where I want it some more, or to add some variation.
Classic work m8..A texture artist who put`s plenty of thought into it..Cracking stuff bud:)
btw..Wouldn`t it be something if marmo was a useable game engine.Jeez,the possibilities!!
So I have been getting a lot of questions about this, both there and outside of polycount so I decided to just put it into a small tutorial.
It's really basic stuff, but maybe it helps out some people.
Replies
And thank you for the feedback Dwalker, the shotgun shells were done a bit hastily, I'll fix those, and play around a bit more with the presentation background for the final ones.
love to see people from DAE be this devoted to what they do and execute such professional artwork
Reed
And reply'd to reedweinstock in pm, didn't want to randomly bump the thread, but if anyone is interested, if it's for physical based shading I don't overlay any AO or cavity.
In some flats it might seem a bit that way, but that's just because of using the AO for dust/dirt, and sometimes the cavity int he roughness to get that "rubbed/glossyer edges thing".
Got some time this weekend to bake this down, and put in some quick values, altough it's more to get the PSD started then a proper blockout.
edit changed some images to links:
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/35/t2qr.jpg
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/716/vao9.jpg
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/716/t3aw.jpg
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/812/fq0p.jpg
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/203/sy6a.jpg
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/4/0o6a.jpg
You da man.
PS. I still have no clue how the action on this gun works....Just don't get it at all. Even slightly.
And there are some youtube vids floating around on it, basicly where the shells eject is also where they go in.
----
Progress on the texture, some parts still untoched, but found it a good time to post.
edit: changed images to links
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/827/ar4e.jpg
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/4/8tp4.jpg
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/843/2k94.jpg
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/546/npbf.jpg
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/593/7ws9.jpg
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/703/kwoh.jpg
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/839/dv0s.jpg
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/24/uh1y.jpg
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/833/rzqo.jpg
Keep it up! You rock!
I hope you are right :poly124:
To answer some questions:
-Bakes are done in 3dsmax, easy to set up the cage, and I'm still happy with the speed/quality of it for normal maps.
Altough baking in xnormal for example would just be a matter of exporting the meshes/cage.
-I will post the flats, and if I forget, I always put them up on my site when it's done.
In meanwhile, if you are really curious, the wip flats of the posted images:
http://imageshack.com/a/img32/3927/d6ag.jpg
top to bottom: Albedo/reflectance/roughness/normal
The metalness thing, not to much reason behind it, I have used it before (see the binoc's), there really isn't much difference outside of a slightly different organization of your textures.
If needed I could always "convert" the textures to it if it was needed.
It's just that currently I prefer the extra bit of freedom, and still having to do the nonmetal reflectance values yourself, it's a bit of extra practice so to say.
In the future it would just come down to whatever the engine I would want to use uses (once cryengine gets updated with pbs (hopefully soon) or ue4 comes out).
Can't wait to see the wire ! (and thx for the flat)
Reed
For the question:
Depends a bit on how bright you want it to be, but I kinda like it around 1.5-1.6 for texturing, that seems to be fairly correspondent to the general brightness of other sky's.
For the child lights, I don't use them a lot, just when there is a bright light source like the sun, where the image can't really give off that brightness.
And there isn't a need to turn them, when you place them on the little image placer thing they face the correct way.
looks like a freaking photo, awesome job!
Finals, I think.
more images & wireframe and such here :link
also that normal mapped wear on bottom side of front plastic looks abit strange
He has them posted on his site here: http://joerivromman.com/KSG.html
I think the texture in general could afford to be a bit more subtle though.
The magazine tubes for instance. The wear it has right now is pretty strong, and in addition to it being strong and obvious, it doesn't really make sense. If the slide was grinding on there I could see it having horizontal scratches and wear marks along it, But right now It just looks like some variation in the roughness/gloss for the sake of breaking it up. Which I get, but it reads incorrectly to me personally.
As for dirt, Scrapes, Chips, Etc, I dig it as much as the next guy, I really do. I think the gun looks awesome. But As engines become more capable at accurately recreating materials I feel like the need to overly wear the texture will become obsolete.
The point i'm getting at is: As much as I love the grunge and beaten up look, I think we are moving into a generation were less might be more. I think the gun looks more low poly and less realistic now than it did with it's previous texturing for that reason. The wear that it had was reasonably subtle and realistic, not overpowering. The details that it did have (like the oil on the cheek rest) were realistic and acted as a really nice "active" areas on the model/texture. Where as the plastics and other areas were a place for the eyes to rest because they were fairly boring or "inactive", but well represented and still conveyed the material well.
It's well done, I dig it. I just think it would look better with a more subtle and realistic set up. Just my .02. Maybe i'm the only one thinks this
Na, I'm going to have to totally disagree here. I've seen the files for this up close and its a great example of really spot on material definition, and a totally realistic and reasonable level of wear, interesting without being super grungy.
Sure, its not mil-sim clean, but that gets super boring.
Regardless, I think It looked better in the previous shots. The materials were well defined (the portions that were actually textured/worked on). They had subtle but noticeable and believable wear. I personally think it had a really nice look to it. Just because you have the texture space doesn't mean you have to activate it. Not every square inch of an object needs to be interesting.
It's like you said to me one day in regards to modeling; It's not a matter of extremely minimal geometry, and not a matter of frivolous or extravagant use, it's a matter of having enough, and I think the direction the gun was going in the level of wear was "enough".
Joeri's work is awesome. He consistently delivers killer goods. I'm not disputing the accuracy of the material definition or quality of work. Simply extending my opinion that the cleaner previous version of the WIP was more appealing to me.
This really makes me want to stop messing around for hours in Mental Ray and try something more artist friendly!
Chamade: these are indeed in marmoset toolbag (untill someone gets me UE4 or I do something non pbs again, then I'll branch out in that regard
Nerf Bat Ninja: I assume you are talking about the bump here for example:
http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/9413/rtom.jpg
I never really unwrap highpoly's, in that screenshot it's just one of max's procedural noises, and if I remember correctly you can just set it to not use UV's, but use like object/world XYZ, but that's just to get a more pretty render
So I don't really use the highpoly for texturing, outside of (did it a bit, gonna start doing it more) bringing the highpoly in toolbag, and assign some quick materials, since that is easier to tweak/play around with it that way. (just basic values), and then use those values to start off the texture.
s6: just to give you an idea where I'm coming from:
I would like to move past just doing super realistic stuff, and create more things like this:
http://static.squarespace.com/static/51893a61e4b0c9fc9cb8b84e/t/518a81ade4b0f0d9080a814b/1368031663292/m203_1p.jpg?format=1500w
http://static.squarespace.com/static/51893a61e4b0c9fc9cb8b84e/t/518aa835e4b007d5b4d0403b/1368041533211/autosniper_textured.jpg?format=1500w for example.
That is more interesting to me, then just trying to make something look exactly like a photo in real life, but still maintaining believable materials (for personal work, where I got to choose what direction to take), if that sort of makes sense
Just sometimes it's hard to find that right balance, still figuring that out.
but your concerns are noted, and when I do something from real life again, I'll keep in mind what you said, and really appreciate your input on it.
(or when in the future when I have progressed again, I give that gun a little touchup/rework).
I have some question, if you can ask, about diffrences between using (Albedo, Reflectance, rougness) and (Diffuse, Specular, Gloss)
Ask you too, if (Albedo, Reflectance, rougness) can only be used with marmoset toolbag.
Thaks
http://www.marmoset.co/toolbag/learn/pbr-theory
http://www.marmoset.co/toolbag/learn/pbr-practice
And this thread on polycount.
http://www.polycount.com/forum/showthread.php?t=124683&highlight=physical+based+shading
But yes currently it's limited to toolbag2 for personal work untill a UDK version of UE4 comes out or it gets implemented in the free/public version of cryengine.
reedweinstock:
yes, in the KSG it was just:
Take AO
Colorize it
Play around with the blend if settings in PS
Add a layer mask and with a brush add/subtract a bit so it isn't so clean.
And currently I also like to tune that back a bit more, and then put a layer on top with a slightly different color/a bit dark, and pick out some spots where I want it some more, or to add some variation.
btw..Wouldn`t it be something if marmo was a useable game engine.Jeez,the possibilities!!
Please reupload. It's very interesting for me