obviously the skills are there. this is pretty sweet looking. i have a question tho: if its a sniper rifle....wouldn't you need an extended stock for better support? as is....it would be super tough to be steady with it.
***unless it's like a mass effect compact thingy of course.
you need to change a few more things from the concept. right now the gun has no way for you to look down the scope which is kind of a big problem if its suppose to be a snipper rifle.
the design doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Such as the scope pivoting down where the butt of the gun is. If that is so, your face would be taking all of the recoil of the shot; making the user a sniper for one shot only. Also, where would the trigger hand thumb and forefingers rest? And for such a large scope, the iron sights are kinda useless.
Modeling however, is well done, Its just the design I have issues with.
Nice modeling skills. Although the design doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But I must say I'm all for weapons that are impractical for the sake of coolness.
Modeling looks good, but it looks like you modeled it straight to the concept without any further interpretation as to what and why pieces are where they are. Your model should help elaborate on the concept and bring it to life, by pushing the elements that have been drawn in that one state. To me it seems as though the parts in front under the barrel connecting to the lower front body of the rifle are the arms of the bipod and the back end that covers the scope I would actually make a foldable stock that is put up when the rifle needs to be transported quicker and through rougher terrain. When it's in position the stock unfolds and uncovers a more ergonomic handle that's not seen in the current concepted state. I think incorporating those types of elements would help bring out the model and the idea of the rifle.
My crit for the model would be that it looks too boxy right now, in that there are a lot of details with very harsh edges that look more like they're stuck together... The magazine for instance is very blocky in your model but has a smoother look to it in the concept. Something I've learned over the years is that concepts never translate to models perfectly, and it is our job to help visualize the concept in 3D and fill in the gaps, I wouldn't be afraid to add or modify things you think don't "look right" on the model in comparison to the concept.. If there's an area that you can smooth out that you think would look more natural or might just look better I would suggest trying it.
Good job so far, just keep at it I think this could be really cool.
Beating a dead (but loveably important) horse; that design is evil and should be destroyed with fire. Your modeling looks clean, though as others have stated it is pretty boxy.
three main things to consider when creating or interpreting a weapon concept:
1) What is it's purpose?
anti-personnel, anti-material, Short range, long range, high power, conceal-ability, silenced/covert, etc. These will affect things like barrel length, bullet caliber, fixed/folding/no stock, bullpup or standard magazine placement, scope use, iron sights use, red-dot sight use, bi-pod, front pistol grip, etc.
2) What does it shoot?
Standard bullet-in-brass shells? Shot-Shells? Caseless ammunition? Lasers/Plasma/Misc Focused Energies? What the weapon fires will determine many things, magazine size (or magazine requirement), replaceable battery ammo, need for an ejection port, charging bolt or lever, etc.
3) How do I hold it?
Ergonomics are a very important part of weapon design, after all if you cant hold a gun how do you expect to fire it? Let alone with any accuracy. Try to think of how the gun would feel in your hands, or whatever creature will be holding it and consider their anatomy when designing things like the handle, stock placement, where the face will rest on the weapon when fired from the shoulder, location of iron sights and scopes, location of front grips where applicable, weight of the weapon, reaction to recoil (if any), etc.
This is a bit of a simplified approach, but once you define these two fundamental aspects of the weapon you'll have a logical, believable base that makes creating an attractive looking weapon infinitely easier. Think of it like designing a car; attractive sheet metal is worthless without a well thought out chassis and power train for it to go over.
This isn't targeted so much specifically at you; for all I know you dont care about firearms at all and you're simply practicing how to create high poly models by making one. However, this is something that has come up a lot lately and I think it is worthwhile to put more effort into explaining the validity of such an approach.
I'm not a fan of the design. I'd like to see a jack added to the scope so it makes it obvious that you get plugged into it (plus some switches and stuff could make it really cool, check out the OICW and AICW scopes they have tons of neat knobs)
I think the front grip needs to be accented, and the handle thinned out and built more ergonomically.
...like the other comments, the modeling is good, its just that the original gun is designed poorly.
Sir Isaac Newton didn't know nuthin about chargin no lazers.
They dont have recoil on Enterprise, etc..
This is the reason I dont post guns i create on my page or in forums. Freakin purists, 90% of the gaming public don't know shit about guns and could care less as long as when they press the button it goes pechew pechew and makes a pretty sound. As long as my producer likes my work, I'm good with it.
Modeling looks good, but it looks like you modeled it straight to the concept without any further interpretation as to what and why pieces are where they are. Your model should help elaborate on the concept and bring it to life, by pushing the elements that have been drawn in that one state. To me it seems as though the parts in front under the barrel connecting to the lower front body of the rifle are the arms of the bipod and the back end that covers the scope I would actually make a foldable stock that is put up when the rifle needs to be transported quicker and through rougher terrain. When it's in position the stock unfolds and uncovers a more ergonomic handle that's not seen in the current concepted state. I think incorporating those types of elements would help bring out the model and the idea of the rifle.
I agree that the stuff I got rid of in front was almost certainly a bipod, I didn't really like what it did with the silhouette and all in all it was a very large and clunky piece compared to all the other components. It didn't fit. As for the foldable stock I don't really like the idea, I don't really see this as being a weapon with any sort of thought put into it as to convenience; it's big, it's bulky, it's unwieldly and it looks like it could kill a tank. However, I understand what you're saying as to reading into the shapes on the concept, maybe extrapolating different ideas than are necessarily stated outright. I think I'll experiment with that kind of thinking more when I'm more comfortable with this kind of modeling. I'm still getting used to dealing with massive amounts of shapes and parts, until now I've done mostly real-world, simplistic-by-comparison stuff.
My crit for the model would be that it looks too boxy right now, in that there are a lot of details with very harsh edges that look more like they're stuck together... The magazine for instance is very blocky in your model but has a smoother look to it in the concept. Something I've learned over the years is that concepts never translate to models perfectly, and it is our job to help visualize the concept in 3D and fill in the gaps, I wouldn't be afraid to add or modify things you think don't "look right" on the model in comparison to the concept.. If there's an area that you can smooth out that you think would look more natural or might just look better I would suggest trying it.
Good job so far, just keep at it I think this could be really cool.
Well I know what you mean by boxy, but honestly I like the aesthetics of this a lot. There aren't many areas I don't like (the mag is one of them, I'll end up redoing that). Maybe I just don't know what to look for yet.
This isn't targeted so much specifically at you; for all I know you dont care about firearms at all and you're simply practicing how to create high poly models by making one. However, this is something that has come up a lot lately and I think it is worthwhile to put more effort into explaining the validity of such an approach.
I've modeled more than my fair share of realistic weapons. I can name most of the parts of any given pistol or rifle and give their function; I could point out dozens of functionally pointless things on this current model. I think I've "earned" the right to try this style, if you don't mind. I'm an artist, not a mechanical engineer. I don't need to design something functional, I need to make something look appealing. You think the latter follows naturally from the former, I think that's only if you have creative blocks. We could go back and forth for weeks and we aren't going to because I'm just not going to address any more posts about the realism of a gun that is very obviously not supposed to be realistic in any way.
What does it mean to "earn the right" to make a goofy weapon? I've said it before and I'll say it again; this thought process is nothing but LAZY. There is no "right" involved, anyone can make anything they want, you dont have to "earn" anything; but that doesn't magically make it cool. I dont think Carol Shelby said "man I've been working on well functioning cars all my life, I need to take a break and work on a Pinto sequel."
If you dont want critiques than don't post. I never saw a banner on the site that said "Polycount: Post here to Get Your Dick Sucked." So don't expect everyone to shake your hand and cum buckets because you have "style" and are "above" realism.
If you really want to play that game though and pretend that cool design overrides functionality then you might want to look into making the gun attractive. A bunch of boxes does not an attractive firearm make. Try to add some interesting forms and break up the silhouette. Maybe I suggested starting from function because you haven't come up with a compelling form?
The same goes for the "gun purists" ruining guns thought. People desiring plausible functionality don't "ruin guns," being afraid of critique and negative feedback does. If you cant make a gun attractive AND functional then maybe you just aren't good at making guns.
Normally I'd end this with a statement on how I'm not trying to be a dick and I'm just trying to help, but the kiddie gloves are obviously not helping.
Now that I look at it more it looks like the part the scope connects to could slide away to reveal the eyepiece, which would be cool looking in the FPS view.
But we all know looking cool in fps isn't what counts, it's having the correct number of ridges on the focus nob for your scope.
OH YEAH, your gun is rediculous, I'm not a gun-nerd but I noticed you put a greeble were you should of put a zot!
What does it mean to "earn the right" to make a goofy weapon? I've said it before and I'll say it again; this thought process is nothing but LAZY. There is no "right" involved, anyone can make anything they want, you dont have to "earn" anything; but that doesn't magically make it cool. I dont think Carol Shelby said "man I've been working on well functioning cars all my life, I need to take a break and work on a Pinto sequel."
If you dont want critiques than don't post. I never saw a banner on the site that said "Polycount: Post here to Get Your Dick Sucked." So don't expect everyone to shake your hand and cum buckets because you have "style" and are "above" realism.
If you really want to play that game though and pretend that cool design overrides functionality then you might want to look into making the gun attractive. A bunch of boxes does not an attractive firearm make. Try to add some interesting forms and break up the silhouette. Maybe I suggested starting from function because you haven't come up with a compelling form?
The same goes for the "gun purists" ruining guns thought. People desiring plausible functionality don't "ruin guns," being afraid of critique and negative feedback does. If you cant make a gun attractive AND functional then maybe you just aren't good at making guns.
Normally I'd end this with a statement on how I'm not trying to be a dick and I'm just trying to help, but the kiddie gloves are obviously not helping.
don't think just because your allowed to criticise here people have to do as you say. its his gun and he decides what he does. and just because you dont like it you dont have to shout down the creator.
your nothing but a bully.
Given you've made it clear that what you're going for is something that looks cool,
I don't think the design looked cool from the beginning.
Yeah it's a bit late for that now but I really don't know why you chose that one. It looks like a really poor design to my eyes...
And more derivative of stuff like Gears than actually taking inspiration from the source material, Which is why it came out like a mishmash.
I don't even mean "lolz it's unrealism" or anything, it just doesn't read as a beefy gun, it reads as.... just some shit a teenager drew in his schoolbook.
That's just what I think of the design. I'd love to give crits but it's just a really shit sketch and imo you wont be able to fix it without deviating massively from the original.
this has nothing to do with bullying Tadpole, this has to do with being very tired of hearing the same excuses over and over again.
Of course he doesn't have to follow any of the critiques I or anyone else provides, but when all reasons listed are lame excuses to avoid some research or extra thought it really gets on my nerves. To go even further and proclaim you know better and you're doing it for style because form and function are mutually exclusive it just makes my blood boil.
you need to take a chill pill man, seriously , i agree 100% about research and functionality, but lets not derail another thread where you still fail to see when to make something cool rather than 100% functional is sometimes the better case, just look at UT3 weapons etc, so many examples...not saying this design is cool tho , i find it pretty chaotic , but still , its the man's art, and just respect it.
Sandbag: I told you that I am completely uninterested in any criticism that you or anyone else gives relating to the realism of the gun in terms of functionality, yet you continue to attack the work on these grounds and insult me directly. I explained my reasoning and you disagreed - too bad. You've been condescending from the beginning and frankly I couldn't care less about why. Grow up. I have people in here telling me actual problems with the aesthetics of the weapon (as they see them, anyway) and I shoudn't have to scroll through five paragraphs of your ranting to get to them. If you keep this up I'll report you for derailing.
Harry: I don't know what source material you are referring to. I also don't know why you assume it was inspired from Gears, when any other number of popular games and movies (from as far back as what, Alien?) have had ridiculously oversized weapons such as this - but that's not really the point, the point is that I don't know what you think it looks like a mishmash of. Regardless I'm probably too far in to fix it now.
Dejawolf: I think it will be quite perfectly functional in a game.
Justin_Meisse: I kinda like that idea. I'll play around with it.
I did some work on the LP but it's not really enough to show atm, we had a blizzard today and it took like five hours to clean the damn drive. Tomorrow hopefully.
I also like the idea of a rifle that smacks you in the face for being a sniping bastard
anyway, agreed with johny, you need to place crits in context. he decided to make that concept, looks like a pretty good rendition to me.. if you want to crit the concept, then go track down mr chrislazzer and see where he tells you to stick it
Harry: I don't know what source material you are referring to.
IRL; the source material of all art ultimately... If you want to make something look a certain way you always take *some* inspiration from reality, or your work becomes what we call "derivative" of existing artwork. I'm not saying don't take any inspiration from existing art, but this concept honestly doesn't look researched at all. Maybe the artist did it on purpouse, but it really looks like a naieve sketch by someone who played UT or gears a couple of hours for inspiration.
I also don't know why you assume it was inspired from Gears, when any other number of popular games and movies (from as far back as what, Alien?) have had ridiculously oversized weapons such as this
For the record, aliens weapons weren't oversized, they were like, XM29 sized but not even that bulky, and the smart gun was just an mg42 on a camera mount, so...
The reason I say it looks gearsy is pretty much how it's very bulky in the front end with almost nothing in the rear, which is a common theme in all the Gears weapons.
but that's not really the point, the point is that I don't know what you think it looks like a mishmash of. Regardless I'm probably too far in to fix it now.
The reason I use the word mishmash is 'cause its just a collection of random forms with no apparent thought as to how the whole object reads. I also think it was a shoddy choice on your part to make the side panels all vertical. I think it would look a *lot* more interesting, and still be true to the ref, to have a bit of a slant on some areas. Right now you've only placed variance in your angles on two of three axis, which is a common mistake when people are only using one side ref - But you can also interpret that as free run to do whatever you want in the angles not shown by the concept sketch.
Racer did the same thing with his laser thing and I'm willing to bet it's the reason why he was disappointed with the end result (in particular, from FPV)
See, in fpv, the angles you see are *mostly* the ones that aren't depicted in side-on refs, and because they aren't depicted, you've simply stuck with "no information," So, from FPV, you'll see a bunch of boring-ass right-angles.
This thread is silly. The gun looks decent and doesn't need to be realistic. The modeling is fairly proficient.
Crits:
The gun is way too flat on the side, i see a lot of greebling and surface texture but very little that makes it interesting from FPS. You've gotta go with either good design or realism and in this case i think the design could be improved. If it's supposed to be meaty and heavy let's see some structure, not just flat planes with greebles in them. Pull some of that stuff out horizontally, widen the shapes, more depth of surfaces, make it look like all of this complex scifi stuff is necessary to hold the gun together and disperse force.
The reason I say it looks gearsy is pretty much how it's very bulky in the front end with almost nothing in the rear, which is a common theme in all the Gears weapons.
This. That works fine in gears because it's a third person shooter, it falls a little flat in a fps gun.
![[Deleted User]](https://polycount.com/themes/polycount/design/default-avatar.gif){kind=avatar}
Replies
The grips on the handle look really sharp. I don't know if its from the angle of the shot but it looks like it those could be rounded out more.
***unless it's like a mass effect compact thingy of course.
modeling looks great though
Modeling however, is well done, Its just the design I have issues with.
Sir Isaac Newton...
...like the other comments, the modeling is good, its just that the original gun is designed poorly.
My crit for the model would be that it looks too boxy right now, in that there are a lot of details with very harsh edges that look more like they're stuck together... The magazine for instance is very blocky in your model but has a smoother look to it in the concept. Something I've learned over the years is that concepts never translate to models perfectly, and it is our job to help visualize the concept in 3D and fill in the gaps, I wouldn't be afraid to add or modify things you think don't "look right" on the model in comparison to the concept.. If there's an area that you can smooth out that you think would look more natural or might just look better I would suggest trying it.
Good job so far, just keep at it I think this could be really cool.
three main things to consider when creating or interpreting a weapon concept:
1) What is it's purpose?
anti-personnel, anti-material, Short range, long range, high power, conceal-ability, silenced/covert, etc. These will affect things like barrel length, bullet caliber, fixed/folding/no stock, bullpup or standard magazine placement, scope use, iron sights use, red-dot sight use, bi-pod, front pistol grip, etc.
2) What does it shoot?
Standard bullet-in-brass shells? Shot-Shells? Caseless ammunition? Lasers/Plasma/Misc Focused Energies? What the weapon fires will determine many things, magazine size (or magazine requirement), replaceable battery ammo, need for an ejection port, charging bolt or lever, etc.
3) How do I hold it?
Ergonomics are a very important part of weapon design, after all if you cant hold a gun how do you expect to fire it? Let alone with any accuracy. Try to think of how the gun would feel in your hands, or whatever creature will be holding it and consider their anatomy when designing things like the handle, stock placement, where the face will rest on the weapon when fired from the shoulder, location of iron sights and scopes, location of front grips where applicable, weight of the weapon, reaction to recoil (if any), etc.
This is a bit of a simplified approach, but once you define these two fundamental aspects of the weapon you'll have a logical, believable base that makes creating an attractive looking weapon infinitely easier. Think of it like designing a car; attractive sheet metal is worthless without a well thought out chassis and power train for it to go over.
This isn't targeted so much specifically at you; for all I know you dont care about firearms at all and you're simply practicing how to create high poly models by making one. However, this is something that has come up a lot lately and I think it is worthwhile to put more effort into explaining the validity of such an approach.
PLUG! So in the future wireless is obsolte? LOL
wireless can be jammed or hacked
I'm not a fan of the design. I'd like to see a jack added to the scope so it makes it obvious that you get plugged into it (plus some switches and stuff could make it really cool, check out the OICW and AICW scopes they have tons of neat knobs)
I think the front grip needs to be accented, and the handle thinned out and built more ergonomically.
Sir Isaac Newton didn't know nuthin about chargin no lazers.
They dont have recoil on Enterprise, etc..
This is the reason I dont post guns i create on my page or in forums.
But this looks like a good start, keep it up.
Well I know what you mean by boxy, but honestly I like the aesthetics of this a lot. There aren't many areas I don't like (the mag is one of them, I'll end up redoing that). Maybe I just don't know what to look for yet.
I've modeled more than my fair share of realistic weapons. I can name most of the parts of any given pistol or rifle and give their function; I could point out dozens of functionally pointless things on this current model. I think I've "earned" the right to try this style, if you don't mind. I'm an artist, not a mechanical engineer. I don't need to design something functional, I need to make something look appealing. You think the latter follows naturally from the former, I think that's only if you have creative blocks. We could go back and forth for weeks and we aren't going to because I'm just not going to address any more posts about the realism of a gun that is very obviously not supposed to be realistic in any way.
Sarcastic or not, that's what I had in mind for how the scope works.
If you dont want critiques than don't post. I never saw a banner on the site that said "Polycount: Post here to Get Your Dick Sucked." So don't expect everyone to shake your hand and cum buckets because you have "style" and are "above" realism.
If you really want to play that game though and pretend that cool design overrides functionality then you might want to look into making the gun attractive. A bunch of boxes does not an attractive firearm make. Try to add some interesting forms and break up the silhouette. Maybe I suggested starting from function because you haven't come up with a compelling form?
The same goes for the "gun purists" ruining guns thought. People desiring plausible functionality don't "ruin guns," being afraid of critique and negative feedback does. If you cant make a gun attractive AND functional then maybe you just aren't good at making guns.
Normally I'd end this with a statement on how I'm not trying to be a dick and I'm just trying to help, but the kiddie gloves are obviously not helping.
Now that I look at it more it looks like the part the scope connects to could slide away to reveal the eyepiece, which would be cool looking in the FPS view.
But we all know looking cool in fps isn't what counts, it's having the correct number of ridges on the focus nob for your scope.
OH YEAH, your gun is rediculous, I'm not a gun-nerd but I noticed you put a greeble were you should of put a zot!
your nothing but a bully.
Dang, I want my money back. ROFL
I don't think the design looked cool from the beginning.
Yeah it's a bit late for that now but I really don't know why you chose that one. It looks like a really poor design to my eyes...
And more derivative of stuff like Gears than actually taking inspiration from the source material, Which is why it came out like a mishmash.
I don't even mean "lolz it's unrealism" or anything, it just doesn't read as a beefy gun, it reads as.... just some shit a teenager drew in his schoolbook.
That's just what I think of the design. I'd love to give crits but it's just a really shit sketch and imo you wont be able to fix it without deviating massively from the original.
Of course he doesn't have to follow any of the critiques I or anyone else provides, but when all reasons listed are lame excuses to avoid some research or extra thought it really gets on my nerves. To go even further and proclaim you know better and you're doing it for style because form and function are mutually exclusive it just makes my blood boil.
Harry: I don't know what source material you are referring to. I also don't know why you assume it was inspired from Gears, when any other number of popular games and movies (from as far back as what, Alien?) have had ridiculously oversized weapons such as this - but that's not really the point, the point is that I don't know what you think it looks like a mishmash of. Regardless I'm probably too far in to fix it now.
Dejawolf: I think it will be quite perfectly functional in a game.
Justin_Meisse: I kinda like that idea. I'll play around with it.
I did some work on the LP but it's not really enough to show atm, we had a blizzard today and it took like five hours to clean the damn drive. Tomorrow hopefully.
anyway, agreed with johny, you need to place crits in context. he decided to make that concept, looks like a pretty good rendition to me.. if you want to crit the concept, then go track down mr chrislazzer and see where he tells you to stick it
For the record, aliens weapons weren't oversized, they were like, XM29 sized but not even that bulky, and the smart gun was just an mg42 on a camera mount, so...
The reason I say it looks gearsy is pretty much how it's very bulky in the front end with almost nothing in the rear, which is a common theme in all the Gears weapons.
The reason I use the word mishmash is 'cause its just a collection of random forms with no apparent thought as to how the whole object reads. I also think it was a shoddy choice on your part to make the side panels all vertical. I think it would look a *lot* more interesting, and still be true to the ref, to have a bit of a slant on some areas. Right now you've only placed variance in your angles on two of three axis, which is a common mistake when people are only using one side ref - But you can also interpret that as free run to do whatever you want in the angles not shown by the concept sketch.
Racer did the same thing with his laser thing and I'm willing to bet it's the reason why he was disappointed with the end result (in particular, from FPV)
See, in fpv, the angles you see are *mostly* the ones that aren't depicted in side-on refs, and because they aren't depicted, you've simply stuck with "no information," So, from FPV, you'll see a bunch of boring-ass right-angles.
There's me trying to be insightful.
Crits:
The gun is way too flat on the side, i see a lot of greebling and surface texture but very little that makes it interesting from FPS. You've gotta go with either good design or realism and in this case i think the design could be improved. If it's supposed to be meaty and heavy let's see some structure, not just flat planes with greebles in them. Pull some of that stuff out horizontally, widen the shapes, more depth of surfaces, make it look like all of this complex scifi stuff is necessary to hold the gun together and disperse force.
This. That works fine in gears because it's a third person shooter, it falls a little flat in a fps gun.