Looks like in the middle the texture is a little off alignment as it is stretched, I would also tone down the red a bit. It will look really saturated if it's lit.
its a 256x texture and it will be rendered passing by player very fast or hit and explode
so y would i do high poly + bake, if i can keep it simple ? wy would i need specular + ao + difuse + normals ?
wy every WIP posted on polycount has to be next gen and rusty ??
this is wy games sucks this days.
Cant you guys make comments and critiques for every type of models or if its not next gen its a bad mesh ?
its a 256x texture and it will be rendered passing by player very fast or hit and explode
so y would i do high poly + bake, if i can keep it simple ? wy would i need specular + ao + difuse + normals ?
wy every WIP posted on polycount has to be next gen and rusty ??
this is wy games sucks this days.
Cant you guys make comments and critiques for every type of models or if its not next gen its a bad mesh ?
Okay, if you want to make it last gen, then at least texture it properly.
Or if it is supposed to be a sloppy job because it goes by so fast, then why even showcase it, if it is not intended for show?
Have you planned on working on its normal and the back end? There suppose to be an accelerator exhaust. I forgot what you call that....:poly122:
thats wy i posted it. not to read your useless post asking for rust and normal maps.
this is not last gen.
it was not to be shown and could be only a white missile, but still i did more than needed whit it. btw do i need a reason to post my work :S didnt know that..
No, you dont need a reason, but why do it if you disregard all critique given to you? That is a really bad attitude. Also, normal maps or not, the texture is really bad, not because its low resolution, but because it stretches awfully, and has ugly repeats.
There's no need to be stand-offish about this, people are just trying to help.
The rust suggestions may have come based on what you have painted already, the middle green area looks like it's supposed to be peeled away revealing another layer of paint, there appears to be dents in the fins.
I think bumping up the contrast of the texture could help.
Make the paneling lines more noticeable.
Add a separation line for the red cap, and de-saturate that red it is too bold compared to the other colors.
Maybe add a slight gradient to the red cap so it fades from a slightly lighter red to a deeper one.
It could help to do that for the whole missile, actually. right now it feels very flat (I understand that it's just going to be flying by), but you might as well make it look good.
Having slight color gradations can add a lot of visual interest without really adding much to what you currently have.
I don't think it needs a normal map, however, it would benefit greatly from a spec map.
There's no need to be stand-offish about this, people are just trying to help.
The rust suggestions may have come based on what you have painted already, the middle green area looks like it's supposed to be peeled away revealing another layer of paint, there appears to be dents in the fins.
I think bumping up the contrast of the texture could help.
Make the paneling lines more noticeable.
Add a separation line for the red cap, and de-saturate that red it is too bold compared to the other colors.
Maybe add a slight gradient to the red cap so it fades from a slightly lighter red to a deeper one.
It could help to do that for the whole missile, actually. right now it feels very flat (I understand that it's just going to be flying by), but you might as well make it look good.
Having slight color gradations can add a lot of visual interest without really adding much to what you currently have.
I don't think it needs a normal map, however, it would benefit greatly from a spec map.
this was useful. tanks
ill take that in mind on the next missile. i think i UVmaped this whit a plane UV in the middle so its the same both ways, it was intended to be only white and red. i guess i should have did an cylindrical UV mapping after i got the idea of a better texture. i also forgot the turbine xD tanks to Nitewalkr for pointing that out ^^
you know i read almost of the PnP here and all comments are the same
looks like copy paste just to improve post count or something.
Maybe if its not meant to be seen in a still image like this..since it would be zooming past at high speed, you could add a rocket trail, or even show it with some motion blur on it so we could see how it would look in action.
Also, as far keeping it low res and not using normal maps etc...it could always be possible that when you are in a game level with people firing off rockets...there may be some stagnant ones laying around that would end up being seen...and in that case it might not hurt to add more detail to the texture.
Wire frame overlay?
Texture sheet and UV unwrap?
Multiple angles?
Views similar to what the player will see?
It helps to post these kinds of things if you want more in depth feedback.
You can't fault someone for not knowing that its ok to have blurry mess of a texture because no one will ever see it, when you post a still shot... It reads more like you're making excuses and trying to explain things away, kind of shameful really.
you know i read almost of the PnP here and all comments are the same
looks like copy paste just to improve post count or something.
I find myself repeating some of the same critiques not because I want a higher post count (working on the opposite actually) but because the same basic mistakes are being made.
If you don't like reading about some of the basic mistakes you've made, don't make them.
I think its pretty clear not everyone was in love with this rocket to the level you are. You need to be your strongest critic, if you're constantly blind to your mistakes because you're in love with everything you do, then you're going to have a hard time growing as an artist.
If you're rude or combative to people who try and help, then you're never going to go anywhere and no one will want to work with you.
ill ask the programmer if he could send me some realtime renders to see how it looks.
telling make high poly and bake isnt realy a critique or render in MR. thats not helpful or an error, maybe if you are in doubt they could just asked, thats what i do anyway.
mLink post was a great help hes actually loosed some of is time to comment on the missile and i tank him for that.
maybe its my fault for not telling right away what was the missile purpose im sry for that.
And if you actually read that link you posted - you would have eventually come across the same info as me.
5th paragraph it says: "Wernher von Braun also developed A9/A10 missile by 1943. The missile was then called V3."
I then searched for those missiles.
And the most useful image on the above link:
A bit of reading says the V3 test missile's designation was A4b - here is the design above, and that the further developments of the V3 where then designated A9/A10.
Your V3 looks nothing like the real thing, and it looks nothing like the V2 - which the V3 was a evolution of, hence my suspicion of your inaccuracy.
That's why you use Normal maps, the LOD1 could use 400 polygons or less, my model is 548 tris because i dint care about optimizing, The wings have chamfered edges and other minor stuff. with the normal map you can do the Lines and Steps you need in your model. but if you are using if for a RTS it should be the lowest as possible.
You neglected to mention you were modelling the rocket based off the red alert V2 rocket. Yet you posted ref to the german V3 experimental rocket - two completely different things.
After reading the rest of your posts in the last page i really have to ask. What were you looking for when you made this thread? Its very obvious that it was NOT to get critiques. If I'm wrong you really need to take a look at how you responded to the critiques given. If I'm not, then I'm guessing you just wanted to show off your model. If that's true, what were you expecting us to say?
Soo I should F**k my self then? I gived you good advice and showed you some references to improve your work, but if you want to Stop Advancing and get stuck in your level, then thats your problem.
well if u read it all, those that really cared and gave good feedback i tank then.
ill forget this topic. ppl are just dumb and pointless.
well if u read it all, those that really cared and gave good feedback i tank then,well if u read it all, those that really cared and gave good feedback i tank then,well if u read it all, those that really cared and gave good feedback i tank then,well if u read it all, those that really cared and gave good feedback i tank then,well if u read it all, those that really cared and gave good feedback i tank then,well if u read it all, those that really cared and gave good feedback i tank then,well if u read it all, those that really cared and gave good feedback i tank then,
Replies
Maybe some background story about V3 for those into ww.
can't tell much about the model because it seems rather simple and doesn't reveal at this stage any geometry that I could comment on.
Hi Mr. Troll!
so y would i do high poly + bake, if i can keep it simple ? wy would i need specular + ao + difuse + normals ?
wy every WIP posted on polycount has to be next gen and rusty ??
this is wy games sucks this days.
Cant you guys make comments and critiques for every type of models or if its not next gen its a bad mesh ?
Have you planned on working on its normal and the back end? There suppose to be an accelerator exhaust. I forgot what you call that....:poly122:
i guess i could extrude the faces inside down a bit i think will do it.
Okay, if you want to make it last gen, then at least texture it properly.
Or if it is supposed to be a sloppy job because it goes by so fast, then why even showcase it, if it is not intended for show?
thats wy i posted it. not to read your useless post asking for rust and normal maps.
this is not last gen.
it was not to be shown and could be only a white missile, but still i did more than needed whit it. btw do i need a reason to post my work :S didnt know that..
anyway thank you all for your efforts.
The rust suggestions may have come based on what you have painted already, the middle green area looks like it's supposed to be peeled away revealing another layer of paint, there appears to be dents in the fins.
I think bumping up the contrast of the texture could help.
Make the paneling lines more noticeable.
Add a separation line for the red cap, and de-saturate that red it is too bold compared to the other colors.
Maybe add a slight gradient to the red cap so it fades from a slightly lighter red to a deeper one.
It could help to do that for the whole missile, actually. right now it feels very flat (I understand that it's just going to be flying by), but you might as well make it look good.
Having slight color gradations can add a lot of visual interest without really adding much to what you currently have.
I don't think it needs a normal map, however, it would benefit greatly from a spec map.
this was useful. tanks
ill take that in mind on the next missile. i think i UVmaped this whit a plane UV in the middle so its the same both ways, it was intended to be only white and red. i guess i should have did an cylindrical UV mapping after i got the idea of a better texture. i also forgot the turbine xD tanks to Nitewalkr for pointing that out ^^
you know i read almost of the PnP here and all comments are the same
looks like copy paste just to improve post count or something.
Also, as far keeping it low res and not using normal maps etc...it could always be possible that when you are in a game level with people firing off rockets...there may be some stagnant ones laying around that would end up being seen...and in that case it might not hurt to add more detail to the texture.
Texture sheet and UV unwrap?
Multiple angles?
Views similar to what the player will see?
It helps to post these kinds of things if you want more in depth feedback.
You can't fault someone for not knowing that its ok to have blurry mess of a texture because no one will ever see it, when you post a still shot... It reads more like you're making excuses and trying to explain things away, kind of shameful really.
I find myself repeating some of the same critiques not because I want a higher post count (working on the opposite actually) but because the same basic mistakes are being made.
If you don't like reading about some of the basic mistakes you've made, don't make them.
I think its pretty clear not everyone was in love with this rocket to the level you are. You need to be your strongest critic, if you're constantly blind to your mistakes because you're in love with everything you do, then you're going to have a hard time growing as an artist.
If you're rude or combative to people who try and help, then you're never going to go anywhere and no one will want to work with you.
telling make high poly and bake isnt realy a critique or render in MR. thats not helpful or an error, maybe if you are in doubt they could just asked, thats what i do anyway.
mLink post was a great help hes actually loosed some of is time to comment on the missile and i tank him for that.
maybe its my fault for not telling right away what was the missile purpose im sry for that.
If you are going to do art based on a real life object, do some research, and more importantly, do some visual research.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/a9a10.htm
^ this is a link containing diagrams of what the V3 would look like. Remember the V3 was never finished.
And if you actually read that link you posted - you would have eventually come across the same info as me.
5th paragraph it says: "Wernher von Braun also developed A9/A10 missile by 1943. The missile was then called V3."
I then searched for those missiles.
And the most useful image on the above link:
A bit of reading says the V3 test missile's designation was A4b - here is the design above, and that the further developments of the V3 where then designated A9/A10.
Your V3 looks nothing like the real thing, and it looks nothing like the V2 - which the V3 was a evolution of, hence my suspicion of your inaccuracy.
548 Polygons
http://images.google.pt/imgres?imgurl=http://www.mattfabian.com/images/v2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mattfabian.com/v2.html&usg=__pUmS6fW375ZKMkncvk8o1kGR-lc=&h=1024&w=1280&sz=277&hl=pt-PT&start=2&sig2=F3eS3WjHgyNj7ltl9OKwyw&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=N0QkxGcRvBPJgM:&tbnh=120&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dred%2Balert%2B2%2Bv2%2Brocket%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dpt-PT%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DG%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:pt-PT:official%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=ASKQS-qKNty4jAeD743FDw
all those are called v2\v3 yeah world sucks
it as 3 lod stages
the lowest stands at around 150 tris
LOD1 - around 700tris
LOD2 - around 300tris
LOD3 - around 150tris close to 200 i think
definite troll, spot the clue
______________________
The usage of the word troll has developed over time. It might have had the original meaning of supernatural or magical with an overlay of malignant and perilousI][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"]citation needed[/URL][/I. Another likely suggestion is that it means "someone who behaves violently"I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"]citation needed[/URL][/I. In old Swedish law, trolldom was a particular kind of magic intended to do harmI][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"]citation needed[/URL][/I. It should also be noted that North Germanic terms such as trolldom (witchcraft) and trolla/trylle (perform magic tricks) in modern Scandinavian languages does not imply any connection with the mythical being. Moreover, in the sources for Norse mythologyI][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"]citation needed[/URL][/I, troll can signify any uncanny being, including but not restricted to the Norse giants (jötnar).
Tank you all
Meh..
ill forget this topic. ppl are just dumb and pointless.
well if u read it all, those that really cared and gave good feedback i tank then,well if u read it all, those that really cared and gave good feedback i tank then,well if u read it all, those that really cared and gave good feedback i tank then,well if u read it all, those that really cared and gave good feedback i tank then,well if u read it all, those that really cared and gave good feedback i tank then,well if u read it all, those that really cared and gave good feedback i tank then,well if u read it all, those that really cared and gave good feedback i tank then,
I think most of the issues people raised still exist but its your model you can do what you like with it so I'll leave it at that.