Pathdeform if you are using Max. Select an edgeloop on the base convert to shape, and use the resulting circualr line as a path for the pathdeform modifier.
You could also use the Bend modifier with the angle set to 360 since the base is perfectly circular. (Or the Array tool with only one chain multiplied ina circualr fashion is also an option)
Ok, this object in it's CURRENT form is REALLY sloppy. I just winged it together because it was split off of an extruded spline from a larger part of the model. It's technically mostly quads, but I'm getting terrible pinching.
My first inkling is that the top curve needs more geo. But the real problem is how can I harden up the bottom edges without running random loops all over the place. IE I want to terminate those chamfers before they start flowing all around the object.
I'm getting this slight pinching problem in a couple parts in other areas too so any advice would help!
Ahh.. Simple is best eh. Since I started from a spline I was stuck in a complex mode of thinking.
I actualy ended up dreaming about sub-d modeling last night. Ugh. It ended up with an epiphany though and I managed to solve the problem. It's still not as clean as your solultion but it resulted in the desired result.
This is the obj if anyone's interested thing1.obj
Thanks for the push blazier. I'm gonna look at the other object I've got going in this scene try to fix the issues I have by starting with quads arranged like that.
Thanks Johnny! I was definitely worried I didn't have enough detail on the rounded part. But if you have an object like that, how would you then go about rounding off that bevel? I'm trying to get a bit of a curve going between the flat face of the object and the other part.
Figures. I finally find a site that addresses 99% of the stuff I'm interested in learning, and I can't read a damn bit of it. Life is sometimes too tragic to bear.
At least the pictures do a fairly decent job of showing me what's what. But still...
i made a video about going over this shape. same that johny did. and i used 2 methods that i want to show you guys.
the end result is the same but the time spent on each one is diferent. anywho. its rendering. i will post the link when it finishes.
Weeee thanks mate! It's nice to see other peoples workflow. That program (modo?) really makes for some mindless cleanup! I must check that program out.
Does beveling all the edges of an object work in a lot of cases? It was nice and clean there and simple to follow. I'm worried I'm gonna bevel something and then have to run around and clean up triangles all the time though. (the full object I'm working on is in my sketchbook) This was just the top piece of a slightly more complex object.
Edit: I also think I managed to get a cleaner object, after all this learning, than the one I posted before while still maintaining a bit of a curve between hortizontal sides and the flat face.
So, much of my job, while involving normal maps, rarely calls for (or is given enough time for) making a high poly and baking it down to a normal map for the low poly. So I've been wanting to practice this more at home.
I'm working on a WWII type plane, and while I know how to do the baking, and the high poly shape is going pretty well, the high poly details (panel lines and rivets) are where I'm getting stuck.
I'm looking at pictures like these:
First problem: I feel like If I were doing something sci-fi, I would make the panels relatively thick, which enough of a gap between them to really register on the normal map. Those larger panels would be pretty easy to keep my mesh clean.
What I see here, are pieces of sheet metal overlapping each other and only exposing 1/4" along the edge maybe? I'm not sure how to make all of these panels so tight without ending up with a glorious mess of a mesh.
Second problem: Rivets. Again, on something sci-fi I would probably make largish rivets that were fewer in number. Here, I see millions of tiny bumps. I'm sure I can model something that small, but how do I go about populating that over the surface of my mesh, while ensuring that all the rivet geo's point outward? (I'm using Max, is there a snap to normal someplace that I'm not noticing?) Or should all of these rivets just be painted on after the bake?
Edit: I may have answered myself on point 1. Rather than trying to make a continuous mesh with very slight variations in height, I should probably just make a bunch of intersecting floating plates, that I can overlap like they really do. . . ?
yeah i would use separate meshes, really, no need to keep a continuous mesh, esp when what you're trying to model is built up from separate different pieces. A quick way to go about this, would probably be to model out the rough shapes of all of your panels as planes basically, using your base shape as the constraint, and then just add a shell modifier on top of that to give everything the same consistent panel height. And yeah, just make some bits overlap others.
As far as width of the actual bevels on the panels, and size of rivet details, you may need to exagerate these sort of elements so they dont just turn to noise in your normals, and so its actually readable from any distance other than close up. I would be careful with this, because these are really your scale indicators, but really, unless you're going to use an insanely large texture, you'll have to fudge things around a bit to make it work. And use simply floating bits for the rivets, you may need some plugin to get the snap to normal thing? I'm pretty sure there is a really easy way to do this in max.
Tumerboy: For that many tiny rivets, I'd probably go with painting them in a bumpmap later.
I've fiddled alot with placing 3d rivets along surfaces in Max too though, and I'm not really happy with any method I've tried so far. Either I clone them out along a path, scatter them out to vertices of proxy geometry, or place them by hand or with the Advanced Painter script - all of them fiddly imo. Anyone got any light to shed on this? I remember there was a plugin a long time ago called objectGlider, that snapped one object to the normals of another, so you could slide it around and maybe even clone it.... hmmm, more research needed.
Having some trouble with that flat parts on the beginning of the barrel. I'm almost there, just need to fix a couple of things and move around some verts. But i'd like to see how others aproach it.
To paint those rivets you can use advanced Painter, its a MAXscript that lets you paint geo instances. I use it all the time to paint rivets and indents and vents.
You can also select edgeloops in your high-poly that follow those rivet lines and use "create shape from selection" in Max's edit poly to get a bunch of splines, and then use the spacing tool (looks like a ruler with 3 balls under it - its buried under the array tool in the extras palette) to instance your rivet across those splines. the "create shape" splines have difficulty maintaining a consistent "out" direction if you create a closed (circular) spline, but if you're modeling separate plates you're not going to have many closed splines.
Although to be honest, with something like that, you're better off painting the edges and rivet into a normal map, usually, because those details are so fine, and have such a weak edge, that you're not going to get very readable results if you model them accurately. Depending on your texture size, you're probably not going to get more than a pixel or two to define the plates in your normal map, and doing it in 2d will let you avoid trying to figure out exactly how wide you need to make your edges to get that good definition.
I don't think that plane is the ideal model to get a lot of Sub-D practice on.
Fair enough. I'm definitely sure there are better projects for practicing sub-d. This was just something I had interest in working on, and thought it would be ok practice.
I'm very used to painting height maps and converting them to normals. I've just heard EQ and others bitch about people painting when "it's just as fast, and much better to make a high poly and bake it."
I guess I'll just be baking the overall shapes, and painting the smaller details over it.
It all depends, if your uvs are going to 100% perfect, and completely distortion free, painting in some seam lines like that can be easier, but if they're not, you're going to have trouble getting a clean result. Anyway, it would be pretty easy to whip up a simple test case.
Having some trouble with that flat parts on the beginning of the barrel. I'm almost there, just need to fix a couple of things and move around some verts. But i'd like to see how others aproach it.
Having some trouble with that flat parts on the beginning of the barrel. I'm almost there, just need to fix a couple of things and move around some verts. But i'd like to see how others aproach it.
OBJ File
It have the steps I used to get to the final shape...Starting from a plane / edge extrude, then make a cylinder as reference, to scale the piece around and align it later on. I pick the cylinder as rotation pivot then duplicate it around and correct the misalignement of edges to have the straight parts, then correct the borders to make everything fit together, then I collapse vertices, and fix some shit that didnt align properly (I used 2 symetry modifiers to have 1 half top and 1 the entire bottom).
If someone have a better method, i m all for it It s not perfectly identical, but some tweaking on the rear part / Scaling down the flat areas would be easy ;P
Tumerboy, For the rivets, i would create shape from edge(s) then instance the shit out of one using the spacing tool (in Max) instanciating everything (on it s own layer_s). And as pointed, advance painter if your friend. Also as EQ said, model parts with different meshes.
Ok so i ended up modeling a similar thing last night, and i'll explain a little what u did.
I started off with a cylinder that was 36 sided
I added some cuts in at one end to retain the shape of the curve
Then i removed every 4 edges, leaving 2 inbetween. This becomes the basis for your flat areas.
After you have this, its simply a matter of adding in the extra edges to support the smoothing, doing that front bit, etc. You seemed to understand how the front bit works so i wont bother going into that.
On of the most important things to say is this. Be precise with your modeling! dont move verts around all free-form when trying to model exact shapes like this. Vary your edge placement to give you the different smooth shapes. Dont try to model the smoothing, unless you have a LOT more geo. Your messy geo is the main problem here, keep it clean, model methodically! =D
Heres a final shot of the thing i'm working on to show you how i resolved all the edges and such. This is a bit different shape, but that rear portion is very similar(yours has a straigh edge where mine is curved). NO OBJ cause im still working on it
Once i had the main shape done, i cut out the end ngon, threw a cylinder in there, blocked out the shape of the hole and all of its details, made sure it lined up flush with the outer piece, duplicated 6 times so i had all of the holes, and just filled in inbetween.
For the center piece that comes out, i planed it so i would have an edge there to be able to break it apart, cut that part out, and then filled in the empty space so it would have that indent in it, and then went to the part i cut out(on a different layer) and filled in the back side of that, and the edges, etc...
If i wasnt planing on making lowpoly bits for the seperate objects, and having the holes in the low poly this would have been a lot simplier. If i just wanted to show the whole/bullet detail with a normal map, i would have just floated everything on top.
Sorry but i see bad shapes with artifacts here, those are not accurate models. That piece in real life is done using slices. To understand better the forms, you should use booleans. Booleans can be great and very useful.
sorry dude i didn't pretend to offend you, really.
It's was a only critic, and it's like i see all this. If i see something wrong, i say it, and i try to help showing a method i think is better.
I'm an idiot, sure, because i'm trying to help and i receive as exchange an insult. Time losed, nice.
It seems like you don't take very well some comments. What's wrong with saying something is wrong? i don't understand it. Didn't you create a thread called "you're doing it wrong"?, don't get mad with me.
Hehe, yeah i knew i should have just responded in the other thread.
You know, its not what you say so much as how it is said. And maybe its just that english isnt your first language. But virtually every time i see you post something, i read it as you saying that the only correct way to do things is the way you do them, which would be absolutely retarded.
EarthQuake, this is not the first time you get like offended by a comment. It's like you don't know how to take critics or comments, and that's something bad dude. How could i say it without offending you?
All i can see is that you are very susceptible, so picky. And it's not a language problem, I think my english is enough clear.
i read it as you saying that the only correct way to do things is the way you do them
why "as". Do you read with a weapon in hand? i really don't understand your reaction. You are a very good coworker to work with... like dogs and cats hehehehe
What i have seen with your actitude, is that you think you are the unique person doing it well, and it's because you don't accept negative critic. You didn't do an accurate model, because when you cut a metallic cylinder, you don't get the look you have. That's not accurate and it's wrong, and you know it.
And of course, you can do it in multiple ways. I don't say anything about it, do things like you want.
Aniceto, it's faster for sure, but you don't get the real thing. Just look over the references posted, look the weapons.
Blaizer, are you trying to say that every in*game* asset must be an exact replica of the real thing? It's like saying that Boris Vallejo paints better than Frazetta.
No one is saying that your method or ideas are wrong. Thas was the subtle twist of the "you are doing it wrong"' thread. It really meant "there might be more efficient ways to do things than the way one does them, so let's discuss all that" but you must admit it's somehow less fun that way.
In short - no one is saying that your techniques are bad. If you like one way to do things and are efficient at them, go for it. However, telling someone that he is doing things wrong because the final result is not 100% accurate to the real thing, is very arrogant and ignorant. We are not doing CAD rendering of objects to be mass produced in a factory. We are making games, under very tight time constraints, displayed on small screens. This is all a matter of context really. Impressionism you know?
Even if this is a game-oriented forum, we totally should talk about these alternative techniques since we can all learn from them. But yeah please tone down, keep posting, and double think things a little!
Blaizer, are you trying to say that every in*game* asset must be an exact replica of the real thing? It's like saying that Boris Vallejo paints better than Frazetta.
No one is saying that your method or ideas are wrong. Thas was the subtle twist of the "you are doing it wrong"' thread. It really meant "there might be more efficient ways to do things than the way one does them, so let's discuss all that" but you must admit it's somehow less fun that way.
In short - no one is saying that your techniques are bad. If you like one way to do things and are efficient at them, go for it. However, telling someone that he is doing things wrong because the final result is not 100% accurate to the real thing, is very arrogant and ignorant. We are not doing CAD rendering of objects to be mass produced in a factory. We are making games, under very tight time constraints, displayed on small screens. This is all a matter of context really. Impressionism you know?
Even if this is a game-oriented forum, we totally should talk about these alternative techniques since we can all learn from them. But yeah please tone down, keep posting, and double think things a little!
Well said, this is pretty much exactly how i feel.
Hehe you are mixing things a little! There is no ego involved, I didn't post any wireframe you know! No one is making the mood worse, we are all here to learn stuff.
Also, I won't go into a game of quote pingpong since I think it's a waste of time. I though maybe I could suggest another formulation if you don't mind.
Sorry but i see bad shapes with artifacts here, those are not accurate models. That piece in real life is done using slices. To understand better the forms, you should use booleans. Booleans can be great and very useful.
Less Jackassy and a tad more polite:
I can see how EQ's technique can be valuable in production. It seems like an efficient technique to get very fast results easily. It also looks quite flexible since the sharpness of the indents can be easily edited by sliding the loops kept intact.
If more accuracy is needed (cinematics model, military simulation...) one should keep in mind that booleans and nurbs can be powerful techniques. It's a bit less flexible since you might get some 'locked' topology. Also not every modelling package does them right. But in some case it can be very efficient, and has the benefit of simulating the way the actual real life object has been engineered!
Spent too much time on this already! Back to the thread, or there will be cats.
I'm sorry. I'm a non-professional and I have to agree with EQ's modality. If the model looks good and bakes good (and you're not needing full quads for sculpting) then why does it matter if there's a small pinch or your loops aren't perfect. And also, there's no need to follow an object 100% exact blueprints, especially if the detail you're creating will get lost in the final object. I hope I got that summary correct cause I skimmed through the last couple posts.
Example: A lot of people complement final sub-d work when posted in the PnP forum. Noting how good the detail is etc. But when you see a wireframe of the object you realize it has ngons all over the place. Sometimes it just easier to end a loop in the middle of a loop. That alone gave me the confidence to say "hey I can tackle any shape so long as my end result looks good". And I find myself learning from that 100000 times more than trying to tackle something in many hours that would have looked the same if I had just left that 5 sided ngon the way it was.
I'd also have to say, please egg eachother on in this thread (and the other). Cause it's great to see discussion and whether right or wrong I'm learning from them both! There's a comforting fact in knowing that we all have ego's but we're all still willing to learn from eachother. hah
no.. but seriously..
lets get this shit back on tracks.
i can see both points of views.
EQ got pissed just because you said his model wasn't that well made. blaizer what you need to have in mind is that this is a game forum and with that in mind basically that means that the means justify the ends, that is, what matters is the final product in this case the lowpoly with normal maps. and there are inumerous ways to make them, and it doesnt really matter how you make them as long as you can "fool" the normal map baker into beliving that that shape is well made.
with that in mind i do believe that both you and eq have cool meshes. altho i tend to prefer your way of making shit blaizer, because i like to make hipoly meshes that sometimes dont have gameart purposes.
now.. i can see why blaizer got pissed. it was because of EQ's comment on you being an idiot. yeah. that was unfortunate. and he could have said things other way arround.
but oh well.. i think im digressing
and i need a shower so yeah..cya
also: jonhy when did you become a spaniard? um chapad
Replies
You could also use the Bend modifier with the angle set to 360 since the base is perfectly circular. (Or the Array tool with only one chain multiplied ina circualr fashion is also an option)
I found an another way to make rope or cable with maxscript
http://www.zortech.de/cables.xhtml
My first inkling is that the top curve needs more geo. But the real problem is how can I harden up the bottom edges without running random loops all over the place. IE I want to terminate those chamfers before they start flowing all around the object.
I'm getting this slight pinching problem in a couple parts in other areas too so any advice would help!
I actualy ended up dreaming about sub-d modeling last night. Ugh. It ended up with an epiphany though and I managed to solve the problem. It's still not as clean as your solultion but it resulted in the desired result.
This is the obj if anyone's interested
thing1.obj
Thanks for the push blazier. I'm gonna look at the other object I've got going in this scene try to fix the issues I have by starting with quads arranged like that.
obj
http://johnyontehspot.com/johny/shapee.obj
Figures. I finally find a site that addresses 99% of the stuff I'm interested in learning, and I can't read a damn bit of it. Life is sometimes too tragic to bear.
At least the pictures do a fairly decent job of showing me what's what. But still...
the end result is the same but the time spent on each one is diferent.
edit: here you go
http://edgesize.com/files/methods.obj
http://edgesize.com/files/videos/video.mov
Does beveling all the edges of an object work in a lot of cases? It was nice and clean there and simple to follow. I'm worried I'm gonna bevel something and then have to run around and clean up triangles all the time though. (the full object I'm working on is in my sketchbook) This was just the top piece of a slightly more complex object.
Edit: I also think I managed to get a cleaner object, after all this learning, than the one I posted before while still maintaining a bit of a curve between hortizontal sides and the flat face.
i see what he wants now. i just made what jony made but in 2 diferent methods.
If ya'll need a ref of the real thing let me know. Thanks guys! Love this thread!!!
I'm working on a WWII type plane, and while I know how to do the baking, and the high poly shape is going pretty well, the high poly details (panel lines and rivets) are where I'm getting stuck.
I'm looking at pictures like these:
First problem: I feel like If I were doing something sci-fi, I would make the panels relatively thick, which enough of a gap between them to really register on the normal map. Those larger panels would be pretty easy to keep my mesh clean.
What I see here, are pieces of sheet metal overlapping each other and only exposing 1/4" along the edge maybe? I'm not sure how to make all of these panels so tight without ending up with a glorious mess of a mesh.
Second problem: Rivets. Again, on something sci-fi I would probably make largish rivets that were fewer in number. Here, I see millions of tiny bumps. I'm sure I can model something that small, but how do I go about populating that over the surface of my mesh, while ensuring that all the rivet geo's point outward? (I'm using Max, is there a snap to normal someplace that I'm not noticing?) Or should all of these rivets just be painted on after the bake?
Edit: I may have answered myself on point 1. Rather than trying to make a continuous mesh with very slight variations in height, I should probably just make a bunch of intersecting floating plates, that I can overlap like they really do. . . ?
As far as width of the actual bevels on the panels, and size of rivet details, you may need to exagerate these sort of elements so they dont just turn to noise in your normals, and so its actually readable from any distance other than close up. I would be careful with this, because these are really your scale indicators, but really, unless you're going to use an insanely large texture, you'll have to fudge things around a bit to make it work. And use simply floating bits for the rivets, you may need some plugin to get the snap to normal thing? I'm pretty sure there is a really easy way to do this in max.
I've fiddled alot with placing 3d rivets along surfaces in Max too though, and I'm not really happy with any method I've tried so far. Either I clone them out along a path, scatter them out to vertices of proxy geometry, or place them by hand or with the Advanced Painter script - all of them fiddly imo. Anyone got any light to shed on this? I remember there was a plugin a long time ago called objectGlider, that snapped one object to the normals of another, so you could slide it around and maybe even clone it.... hmmm, more research needed.
I think I'll just work on the panel lines and say fuck it to the rivets, and try painting them in as needed.
Thanks guys.
Having some trouble with that flat parts on the beginning of the barrel. I'm almost there, just need to fix a couple of things and move around some verts. But i'd like to see how others aproach it.
You can also select edgeloops in your high-poly that follow those rivet lines and use "create shape from selection" in Max's edit poly to get a bunch of splines, and then use the spacing tool (looks like a ruler with 3 balls under it - its buried under the array tool in the extras palette) to instance your rivet across those splines. the "create shape" splines have difficulty maintaining a consistent "out" direction if you create a closed (circular) spline, but if you're modeling separate plates you're not going to have many closed splines.
Although to be honest, with something like that, you're better off painting the edges and rivet into a normal map, usually, because those details are so fine, and have such a weak edge, that you're not going to get very readable results if you model them accurately. Depending on your texture size, you're probably not going to get more than a pixel or two to define the plates in your normal map, and doing it in 2d will let you avoid trying to figure out exactly how wide you need to make your edges to get that good definition.
I don't think that plane is the ideal model to get a lot of Sub-D practice on.
I'm very used to painting height maps and converting them to normals. I've just heard EQ and others bitch about people painting when "it's just as fast, and much better to make a high poly and bake it."
I guess I'll just be baking the overall shapes, and painting the smaller details over it.
Thanks for the help guys.
Post wires?
As you can see it's really messy so I will be cleaning this up alot.
post some pics of the real thing.
There's small differences in each reference image that I use.
OBJ File
It have the steps I used to get to the final shape...Starting from a plane / edge extrude, then make a cylinder as reference, to scale the piece around and align it later on. I pick the cylinder as rotation pivot then duplicate it around and correct the misalignement of edges to have the straight parts, then correct the borders to make everything fit together, then I collapse vertices, and fix some shit that didnt align properly (I used 2 symetry modifiers to have 1 half top and 1 the entire bottom).
If someone have a better method, i m all for it
Tumerboy, For the rivets, i would create shape from edge(s) then instance the shit out of one using the spacing tool (in Max) instanciating everything (on it s own layer_s). And as pointed, advance painter if your friend. Also as EQ said, model parts with different meshes.
I started off with a cylinder that was 36 sided
I added some cuts in at one end to retain the shape of the curve
Then i removed every 4 edges, leaving 2 inbetween. This becomes the basis for your flat areas.
After you have this, its simply a matter of adding in the extra edges to support the smoothing, doing that front bit, etc. You seemed to understand how the front bit works so i wont bother going into that.
On of the most important things to say is this. Be precise with your modeling! dont move verts around all free-form when trying to model exact shapes like this. Vary your edge placement to give you the different smooth shapes. Dont try to model the smoothing, unless you have a LOT more geo. Your messy geo is the main problem here, keep it clean, model methodically! =D
Heres a final shot of the thing i'm working on to show you how i resolved all the edges and such. This is a bit different shape, but that rear portion is very similar(yours has a straigh edge where mine is curved). NO OBJ cause im still working on it
Pain-stakingly.
Once i had the main shape done, i cut out the end ngon, threw a cylinder in there, blocked out the shape of the hole and all of its details, made sure it lined up flush with the outer piece, duplicated 6 times so i had all of the holes, and just filled in inbetween.
For the center piece that comes out, i planed it so i would have an edge there to be able to break it apart, cut that part out, and then filled in the empty space so it would have that indent in it, and then went to the part i cut out(on a different layer) and filled in the back side of that, and the edges, etc...
If i wasnt planing on making lowpoly bits for the seperate objects, and having the holes in the low poly this would have been a lot simplier. If i just wanted to show the whole/bullet detail with a normal map, i would have just floated everything on top.
*edited, not useful
cheers!
Because of ignorant crap like this. As if there were only ever one proper way to do something.
It's was a only critic, and it's like i see all this. If i see something wrong, i say it, and i try to help showing a method i think is better.
I'm an idiot, sure, because i'm trying to help and i receive as exchange an insult. Time losed, nice.
It seems like you don't take very well some comments. What's wrong with saying something is wrong? i don't understand it. Didn't you create a thread called "you're doing it wrong"?, don't get mad with me.
sighs...
You know, its not what you say so much as how it is said. And maybe its just that english isnt your first language. But virtually every time i see you post something, i read it as you saying that the only correct way to do things is the way you do them, which would be absolutely retarded.
All i can see is that you are very susceptible, so picky. And it's not a language problem, I think my english is enough clear.
why "as". Do you read with a weapon in hand? i really don't understand your reaction. You are a very good coworker to work with... like dogs and cats hehehehe
What i have seen with your actitude, is that you think you are the unique person doing it well, and it's because you don't accept negative critic. You didn't do an accurate model, because when you cut a metallic cylinder, you don't get the look you have. That's not accurate and it's wrong, and you know it.
And of course, you can do it in multiple ways. I don't say anything about it, do things like you want.
Aniceto, it's faster for sure, but you don't get the real thing. Just look over the references posted, look the weapons.
Don't expect me to help anymore. Sorry.
not that either method would take too long in the first place...
No one is saying that your method or ideas are wrong. Thas was the subtle twist of the "you are doing it wrong"' thread. It really meant "there might be more efficient ways to do things than the way one does them, so let's discuss all that" but you must admit it's somehow less fun that way.
In short - no one is saying that your techniques are bad. If you like one way to do things and are efficient at them, go for it. However, telling someone that he is doing things wrong because the final result is not 100% accurate to the real thing, is very arrogant and ignorant. We are not doing CAD rendering of objects to be mass produced in a factory. We are making games, under very tight time constraints, displayed on small screens. This is all a matter of context really. Impressionism you know?
Even if this is a game-oriented forum, we totally should talk about these alternative techniques since we can all learn from them. But yeah please tone down, keep posting, and double think things a little!
Well said, this is pretty much exactly how i feel.
Please, don't make assumptions, you perfectly understand what i said. END
I won't be helping or posting tips and anymore, because i don't want to get another response like "you are and idiot", and later, read excuses.
Pardon me, arrogant is to don't accept a negative critic. Stop the ego...
Let's stop please, keep the mood nice and forget all this.
PD: the piece i did is done in less than five minutes...
Also, I won't go into a game of quote pingpong since I think it's a waste of time. I though maybe I could suggest another formulation if you don't mind.
Less Jackassy and a tad more polite:
Spent too much time on this already! Back to the thread, or there will be cats.
Example: A lot of people complement final sub-d work when posted in the PnP forum. Noting how good the detail is etc. But when you see a wireframe of the object you realize it has ngons all over the place. Sometimes it just easier to end a loop in the middle of a loop. That alone gave me the confidence to say "hey I can tackle any shape so long as my end result looks good". And I find myself learning from that 100000 times more than trying to tackle something in many hours that would have looked the same if I had just left that 5 sided ngon the way it was.
I'd also have to say, please egg eachother on in this thread (and the other). Cause it's great to see discussion and whether right or wrong I'm learning from them both! There's a comforting fact in knowing that we all have ego's but we're all still willing to learn from eachother. hah
P.S - both ur method and EQ work , but none is the "only" way to do it , thats what is basically what is said here.
leave the man alone! he was jsut trying to help!
you guys are being mean to him! im gonna cry now and slash my wrists! kthxbye!
lets get this shit back on tracks.
i can see both points of views.
EQ got pissed just because you said his model wasn't that well made. blaizer what you need to have in mind is that this is a game forum and with that in mind basically that means that the means justify the ends, that is, what matters is the final product in this case the lowpoly with normal maps. and there are inumerous ways to make them, and it doesnt really matter how you make them as long as you can "fool" the normal map baker into beliving that that shape is well made.
with that in mind i do believe that both you and eq have cool meshes. altho i tend to prefer your way of making shit blaizer, because i like to make hipoly meshes that sometimes dont have gameart purposes.
now.. i can see why blaizer got pissed. it was because of EQ's comment on you being an idiot. yeah. that was unfortunate. and he could have said things other way arround.
but oh well.. i think im digressing
and i need a shower so yeah..cya
also: jonhy when did you become a spaniard? um chapad