M1 & M1A1 Carbine

RonanHayes

1944 D-Day : Operation Overlord

The following have been developed by one of our contract artists Stephan. While these renders are a day or two old (Pixelation on the stock and sights have been fixed and the wood tone is the dark red brown as found US weapons during WW2)

Here is what we have

Joseph Silverman

With the exception of the back of the stock, the metal looks a little flat. Mostly colorless greys until you view it really close. Detail's are very nice, but considering the viewdistance guns are often gonna' be at in enemies/allies' hands, I think it'd do a lot to keep the bigger forms/lighting in mind.

Also, unless you're using a very advanced lighting system, I think it'd do a lot to 'bake' in some shadows. The underside of the gun darker, etc.

Tumerboy

It looks like you have an M1 Carbine, and and M2 Paratrooper model. I thought M1A1 was the military designation of the Thompson submachine gun?

RonanHayes

Yeah the naming gets confusing, I could have messed up the naming, I am by no means a researcher. But as best I am aware this is infact the M1A1 Carbine.

There is also the M1 Garand and M1A1 Thompson.

@SupRore

The engine has a very advanced lighting system so we are in good hands. Plus we don't want to add wear and tear as back in 1944 most of these weapons would only have been used in training. THey were also well maintained.

I'll double check and look over the rest.

Joseph Silverman

[ QUOTE ]

Plus we don't want to add wear and tear as back in 1944 most of these weapons would only have been used in training.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it looks to me like that is almost all you have. The weapon looks nice, for sure, but it's all little detail -- scratches, nicks, and woodgrain. A good game texture, typically, will show form and detail from far back, too, just the bigger stuff -- light, shadow, and color variation. Your texture doesn't seem to have a lot of that. If you look, from the zoomed out screenshots the Carbine's sight looks like it's a flat grey color -- that definitely isn't ideal, since I'm sure you'll see the gun from that far back a lot.

RonanHayes

Yup will send it on.

I should also point out that we have overlays in the game that will add the extra dirt, grime, scratches etc. So they will make up for the clean 'New' look. As we want the initial weapon to have. But I know what you mean about viewing from a distance where you feel it doesn't have as much personality as it does up close.

I'll see what we can do, and better get some renders from ingame first, with the lighting engine in full swing, before we make such adjustments.

Cheers for the crits it's good to get more points of view, so I can get better results for our content.

Tulkamir

Nice lookin gun man.

Looks like you have some inconsistant pixel density on your textures that kind of stands out though. It's really noticible on the 4th shot from the bottom. May want to work that out a bit.

EarthQuake

the metal is pretty nice but i think your wood needs work, right now its mostly just one color with no real variation, you need some wavey type lines, like this: http://i.timeinc.net/outdoor/large_images/riflestock3.jpg or http://www.gun-parts.com/accessories/oct24_01.jpg

RonanHayes

Circa 44 Carbine that one of our researchers owns. The treatment of the wood has also been consistent with how it should have been in 1944. The only difference is that over the past 63 odd years the various oils, impurities etc have darkened the wood more.



The grain isn't really as distinct as you would have expected. We own 4 original Carbines, and it's a close match too them, with the difference being the actual colour of the wood which is slightly less dark and retains the original red.

The pixel density has been fixed (as stated in the first post)

SneakyP

nice work man!

EarthQuake

Regardless of that, my point was that the detail you have now doesn't read as anything but flat color in FPV, which looks bad. Remember realism or accuracy doesn't always equate directly to quality. Right now the most interesting part of the first rifle is the end of the buttstock, you have some cool details there, and cool highlights painted in. From the side view atleast, but when you actually look at your FPV render there you have a big empty detailess section that is pretty much the largest visible section of the model.

Also adding a slight gradient to the entire model goes a long way towards giving a bit more appealing look.

Quickel

What did you use to render? Straight out of Max or something like Shader FX? I like how clean and sharp your renders look.

Slum

Looks like renders using the catmull-rom filter

RonanHayes

Ah sorry I know what you mean now. I thought you meant add more wear and tear just for the hell of it.

I'll make sure the pixel density is moved back somewhat.

Render wise, I believe some are screengrabs and some are just plain renders with nothing fancy about them.

Cheers
Ronan

The Umbrella Man

What's wrong with adding wear and tear for the hell of it? Has this rifle never been used? Is it just for display? I've never seen a rifle that clean, in all my years in the ARMY. I think wear and tear would make the thing look less static and more believable.

adam

Just a bit of a brainstorm here, to give the gun some character and not look like the typical portfolio rifle: