Maybe this was a bit too ambitious. Also being that it was originally a 2D design, and,frankly you can cheat like hell in 2D like you cannot in 3D. Also the design of the critter predates my Constructive Anatomy for Animation class I took with Sheldon Borenstein, so the anatomy of these creatures is a bit fluid and the feet a bit cartoony. So.. what next? I don't know...
Well, it ain't time to get disheartened just yet Scott
First off, lets make a solid decision here because it's been feeling vague. Are you attempting to for the most part build a really nice and detailed cage in Maya that will smooth nicely to give you enough detail for a finished piece with perhaps just a hand painted bump map for detail?
OR:
Are you trying to provide a much lighter cage for the process of subdividing several times and detailing out in Zbrush? Because in my view, those *can* be two somewhat different workflows.
I usually work in the first way, but mainly because I'm just not fast or rehearsed enough in Zbrush yet. Perhaps that will change later I don't know. If were talking about the first method, heres a wire in that vein that may or may not help:
Now, I did it ages ago, so there's things I'd probably do better nowadays. I'm not for a moment saying it's perfect, but these are some notes in contrast to your wire that strike me:
Every edge means something. Every edge is there for the purpose of defining a shape or volume. No more, no less.
It's predominantly quads.
The polygons are for the most part, generally speaking fairly equi-distant. Quite important for subdivision work.
There is a cohesive 'flow' of the edge loops that follow the contours of the creature. This means the subdivided result is quite aesthetically pleasing. But it's way more than that. It means that when you're building it, you can select entire loops and shift them around. It's the loops that *define* the shape of the creature. When I look back at your wire it's just sort of haphazard and disorganized.
The thing about conquering hi-poly is, that it's really two staged. One is tools and workflow. Two is ( perhaps more crucially ) topology. And that bit you just get better at with practise.
I think I sort of get it, but it may take a LOT of editing of the mesh, and I am woried about time. (I can't take much more than a month on any sort of project or it gets backburnered), Also the proportions and arms probably need to be reworked a lot to bring a sense of "balance" back to it. Many have commented (in another form) the arms are too large. btu yeah the largest problem is the fact that any sort of "orgainization" escapes me. Well I'll noodle on this a bit more and see what I get.
Ah... Yeah probably, As it is, I may have to practice a few heads.
Also I have discovered tne amazing problems associated with importing a fully triangulated (game asst) mesh into Z-Brush, and only by humungous subdivision can you overcome the problems associated with sich a mesh.
Heh, yeah... avoid triangles like the plague when working with Zbrush! In fact, anything other than well-laid-out quads can sometimes lead to unexpected problems when Zbrushing, mainly due to pinching.
Replies
Just a thought.
Scott
First off, lets make a solid decision here because it's been feeling vague. Are you attempting to for the most part build a really nice and detailed cage in Maya that will smooth nicely to give you enough detail for a finished piece with perhaps just a hand painted bump map for detail?
OR:
Are you trying to provide a much lighter cage for the process of subdividing several times and detailing out in Zbrush? Because in my view, those *can* be two somewhat different workflows.
I usually work in the first way, but mainly because I'm just not fast or rehearsed enough in Zbrush yet. Perhaps that will change later I don't know. If were talking about the first method, heres a wire in that vein that may or may not help:
Now, I did it ages ago, so there's things I'd probably do better nowadays. I'm not for a moment saying it's perfect, but these are some notes in contrast to your wire that strike me:
Every edge means something. Every edge is there for the purpose of defining a shape or volume. No more, no less.
It's predominantly quads.
The polygons are for the most part, generally speaking fairly equi-distant. Quite important for subdivision work.
There is a cohesive 'flow' of the edge loops that follow the contours of the creature. This means the subdivided result is quite aesthetically pleasing. But it's way more than that. It means that when you're building it, you can select entire loops and shift them around. It's the loops that *define* the shape of the creature. When I look back at your wire it's just sort of haphazard and disorganized.
The thing about conquering hi-poly is, that it's really two staged. One is tools and workflow. Two is ( perhaps more crucially ) topology. And that bit you just get better at with practise.
Am I making any sense?
Scott
Scott
Also I have discovered tne amazing problems associated with importing a fully triangulated (game asst) mesh into Z-Brush, and only by humungous subdivision can you overcome the problems associated with sich a mesh.
Scott