Home 3D Art Showcase & Critiques

[WIP] Rain Cannon

Earlier this week I started working on a new weapon for Project Nevada: A rail cannon! NOT a rain cannon, stupid typo :poly142: (can a mod fix that if possible?). It's meant to be an over-the-shoulder heavy energy weapon.

render08.jpg
render09f.jpg
render07.jpg

I based most of the model off of http://cghub.com/files/Image/080001-081000/80422/885_realsize.jpg. I did take some liberties with the design though as to turn it into an over-the-shoulder weapon and make it compatible with the Tesla Cannon animations from Fallout New Vegas, hence most of the rear section. The magazine on the side is just for show just like on the Gauss Rifle in game. That rectangular scope will be used for aiming and will resemble a monitor of sorts.

My main issue is that I feel like the rear body is lacking something. Maybe I'm missing detail in some other places too. I'm pretty happy with the result so far otherwise. If you have any comments/critiques I'd love to hear them!

Replies

  • 3DVlad
    Hey Zealote, nice rain cannon =P
    I know you said you modified the design, but I think you should have kept a few elements like that canister up top and the bent handle, they basically broke up the linear look of the gun, and for you if you look at the silhouette as it is now it actually looks pretty boring. As a test make a quick render in max from a side view, and look at your alpha so u just look at the silhouette, does it have an interesting outline? can you tell its a gun? The model itself looks solid though =)
  • Zealotlee
    Thanks, and you do make a point about the silhouette. I tried the canister on top but I wasn't happy with it, maybe I'll try it again but a little differently. As for the bent handle, it wouldn't serve me any purpose to make that where it is. I made extra sure to line up the potential hand placements on the weapon, hence the side handle where it is. You can definitely tell it's a gun from the side silhouette though. I'll look into what else I could add to make the shape a bit more interesting.
  • Zealotlee
    I went ahead and re-did the canister on top. I realized why it looked bad last time and now that I do have it in place it looks a lot better. I added some extra details in there too, and some indent floaters on the sides to give it more interest and appear less flat.

    render10.jpg

    Any further comments/critique are welcome. Still not sure if I should move on to the low poly yet.
  • roosterMAP
    Offline / Send Message
    roosterMAP polycounter lvl 14
    Looks good. But your viewport shader is killing me. It may be because you put a light in your scene. If so, get rid of it.
  • BARDLER
    Offline / Send Message
    BARDLER polycounter lvl 12
    Not going to lie... I would love to see someone make a rain cannon. Lol, looks good so far, but like rooster said the viewport lighting is pretty awful to look at.
  • Zealotlee
    I'm afraid that's default lighting with the default standard material applied. No lights at all. I tried using the 3Point Shader but that looks even worse since the dark side is even darker. I'm no lighting expert in 3DMax, what should I do so the viewport screengrabs don't look like crap?
  • wright.tom85
    darnit, now I want to comp out a rain cannon...
  • iconoplast
    Offline / Send Message
    iconoplast polycounter lvl 13
    Rain cannons: they exist!

    I don't know how to fix the viewport problem though.
  • Zealotlee
    Hah! Using AA guns to scare away rain is brilliant.

    Anyway before I start modeling the low poly I wanted some advice. I want to know the best possible way to model the cylinders that come out of the side and the indented areas of the upper rail.

    render11.jpg

    I would just keep the entire side flat but those small cylinders do stick out of the side and contribute to part of the silhouette. I'm concerned about how the projection modifier will view this area if I just made it flat and then surrounded the extended parts with a basic 6 or 8-sided cylinder. Should it be okay?
  • Zealotlee
    It's been a while, I'm mostly done with the low poly. I'm looking for some input on it before I start unwrapping and baking. Once again my main concerns are along the upper rail, hence why I added more geometry there.

    lowwires01.jpg
    lowwires02.jpg

    Here's some nice renders of the high poly finalized too for reference.

    render13.jpg
    render12.jpg
    render11.jpg
  • Zealotlee
    Okay well I finished the low poly model and did my first bake today. As expected I got some really strange errors. For some reason some parts aren't even being captured by the projection cage or something. Basically they don't render out on the normal map even though the UVs are set up properly. Here's what's goin on:

    bakeerrors01.jpg
    bakeerrors02.jpg

    And here's the normal map and the UV map so you can see that there are actual parts missing. (UVs aren't actual size)

    rcuvs.jpg
    railgunlowbakenormalsma.jpg

    If you spot any other weird errors let me know. Needless to say I've got a lot to figure out here.
  • percydaman
    When your using the 3point shader, you need to actually need a proper 3 point lighting setup for it to show off the model properly. Fortunately its all in realtime, so it should take long to experiment until you get something that looks decent. One, keylight, one fill/bounce light and one rimlight, is all you need.
  • percydaman
    Here's something I whipped up for a gun Ive been working on for last few days. Its using the 3point shader and 3dsmax viewport. I don't like that the viewport doesn't show as high a resolution textures as marmoset, but maybe thats improved in max 2012. I used the place highlight tool to get the best spec I could get with the key light.

    So its possible to get decent results, but it'll never look as good as marmoset. I don't own marmoset myself yet, I'm still on the demo, but will be buying it here soon. The way I see it, if prospective employers will look at the assets on my webpage, then the 50 bucks or whatever marmoset cost, is well worth the investment.

    The stuff on my website, I used UDK, because I always assumed that showing how it looks in a real game ready engine, would be preferable to an employer, but I think I'm going to redo them for marmoset.

    Sorry to hijack the thread.

    3point01.jpg


    3point02.jpg
  • percydaman
    Oh and regarding the normal bake issue, you might try xnormal. I've had it with max's crappy quality normal bakes. I've gotten good results, but it seems to take quite alot more effort then xnormal. I'd give it a shot.
  • Zealotlee
    Yeah a lot of people around here seem to use xnormal so I'll give that a try.

    Also don't appoligize for hijacking the thread. You're hijacking it with useful information :)
  • Zealotlee
    Okay so xNormal seems to have solved the issue of the missing areas on the normal map, but now I've arrived at a whole other set of problems. For one thing the smoothing groups I set up on the model now seem to be taking a real effect and messing with things a lot. Before I post some screens (I need to fix some errors) I'm going to post the normal map xNormal outputted and see what the problems are.

    railcannonbakenormals.jpg

    A few other questions too. What should I do regarding smoothing groups? Should I only smooth areas that are at 90 degree edges or make the object one smoothing group. What about the cage for xNormal? Should I use their method of just making an actual cage mesh (not using the projection modifier) and exporting that?

    I'm also making some adjustments to the UV map to better utilize the space after seeing some areas a bit too low res for my tastes.
  • nordahl154
    Offline / Send Message
    nordahl154 polycounter lvl 9
    I'm also not too fond of the default viewport render settings in 3ds Max 2012, so I messed around with the viewport settings and turned "realistic" off.
    Nice model by the way! Can't wait to see how the normal map looks applied. :P
  • percydaman
    I'm still fairly new to xnormal, so more experienced users might be better help, but I've never specified any cage for xnormal. I've used the default method, which I guess is some raytrace method. About the smoothing groups: from what Ive seen, your smoothing groups definitly seem to impact your normal map. I usually put on a smooth modifier, specify an angle until it looks about right, then adjust any as needed. I dont think you want to make everything one smoothing group.
  • Zealotlee
    Well I figured out the problem! A while ago I remember my friend telling me how to bake normal maps with xNormal and to use the Ray Distance Calculator. Well turns out not using it at all was the best thing to do! It came out relatively clean, aside from the weird shading towards the tip (clean on the normal map at least).

    render14.jpg
    render15.jpg

    This is the biggest issue so far with the bake and I don't think it's a photoshop fix either:
    bakeerrors03.jpg
    What's going on there?

    EDIT: Nevermind I fixed it. A lot has to do with how the wires are set up I've noticed.
  • nordahl154
    Offline / Send Message
    nordahl154 polycounter lvl 9
    Nice! Always good to tweak values. Can we see the wireframe of the low poly now with the normals applied?
  • Zealotlee
    Sure thing, here it is. I cleaned up the normals a bit in photoshop too.

    render16.jpg
  • percydaman
    wow something is definitely screwy. No idea how it would create such a wonky normal map. I've never had it do something quite like that. Your low poly model seem fine enough.
  • Zealotlee
    Well the wonky-ness is gone in game luckily. I just put a basic metal texture with the normal/AO over it and added a quick display for the monitor. No specular yet. I really like xNormal's results a lot better than Max's already.

    screenshot60f.jpg
    screenshot59t.jpg
    screenshot62.jpg
  • Zealotlee
    Did some work on the texture. (Don't mind the over-glowyness of the first pic, fixed that already)
    screenshot68s.jpg
    screenshot63b.jpgscreenshot64r.jpg
    screenshot65d.jpg

    Comments/critiques on the texture so far? I haven't completed the specular yet but it's partially done.
  • DDuckworth
    Offline / Send Message
    DDuckworth polycounter lvl 6
    percydaman wrote: »
    Here's something I whipped up for a gun Ive been working on for last few days. Its using the 3point shader and 3dsmax viewport. I don't like that the viewport doesn't show as high a resolution textures as marmoset, but maybe thats improved in max 2012. I used the place highlight tool to get the best spec I could get with the key light.

    So its possible to get decent results, but it'll never look as good as marmoset. I don't own marmoset myself yet, I'm still on the demo, but will be buying it here soon. The way I see it, if prospective employers will look at the assets on my webpage, then the 50 bucks or whatever marmoset cost, is well worth the investment.

    The stuff on my website, I used UDK, because I always assumed that showing how it looks in a real game ready engine, would be preferable to an employer, but I think I'm going to redo them for marmoset.

    Sorry to hijack the thread.

    3point01.jpg


    3point02.jpg

    Hey, i'm hijacking this thread further just to let you know - marmoset is a game engine, it's just part of a game engine used for presentation purposes only. It came from the Darkest of Days game that some of the well known members here worked on, it was sort of an offshoot that they realized was a useful tool to others :) So to say that you are using UDK to show it in a game engine, you are doing the same in marmoset.

    As for you Zealot, sweet gun man, for hard edged objects I have a lot of troubles from xNormal, it works great for soft/organic forms, but I just use maya for my hard edged bakes, if it's not picking up certain areas make sure your cage envelopes those areas, then if it's still not then I am pretty clueless.

    For comments on your tex, your color scheme to me seems a little torn - where you have the glowing blue it looks very nice, but then it clashes hard with the intense reds. Personally I would try to keep it more themed with a very limited color palette, perhaps make the glow red or make the trigger and screen blue. Either way if you keep the red I think it could be toned down a bit especially on the screen - seems very harsh to me.
  • percydaman
    Hey, i'm hijacking this thread further just to let you know - marmoset is a game engine, it's just part of a game engine used for presentation purposes only. It came from the Darkest of Days game that some of the well known members here worked on, it was sort of an offshoot that they realized was a useful tool to others :) So to say that you are using UDK to show it in a game engine, you are doing the same in marmoset.

    Yeah, I'm aware of what marmoset is and how it came about. The point I was making is that UDK, while I like it alot, it doesn't have some of the neato technology that marmoset has for showing off models. What I love about marmoset is how they tightly focused its capabilities and build some great stuff into it to achieve that. Like the hdr lighting/shadowing/reflections.
  • percydaman
    Zealotlee: Looking good so far. I have a crit from a design standpoint: It doesn't look comfortable sitting on the soldier's shoulder. I think it needs some kind of should pad, rest or something like that. I can imagine the gun getting blown out of the soldier's grip after a shot, because its missing any sort of shoulder stop.
  • Zealotlee
    Thanks for the crits guys.

    @Duckworth: I'll look into giving it more of a blue color scheme and going with some cool colors. Maybe some yellow accents to offset it a bit like on the caution panel but you're right about the red being too intense in some areas. After all even the beam it fires and the resulting explosion is blue colored. The red trigger though is from the concept art and kind of implies "Don't touch this button unless you're absolutely sure you want to unleash hell" :)

    @percy: As far as modeling anything new goes I'm past that point already unfortunately. However I was thinking that the bottom did need something and some kind of padding would work with the existing geometry I think. I'd just have to rebake the normals in that area and overlay the new ones. I've got to have this done by the end of this week plus other stuff for Project Nevada. I don't want to do anything that would add a lot more production time.
  • Zealotlee
    So I got Marmoset, and boy is it giving me trouble!
    marmosetwtf.jpg
    What is it doing to my model there? Playing around I turned on the world-space normal view and those circled areas were completely black. What does that mean exactly and why is it messing with those faces in particular? I tried exporting it both in OBJ and FBX, and the OBJ looked even worse. Also how do I get it to export to a non 32-bit format so that when I convert it, it doesn't look all pixelated and gross?
  • Zealotlee
    It's done! And looking good in Marmoset too! Thanks for all the help guys. You're awesome and helping me grow as an artist!
    railcannonportfoliopage.jpg
  • RexM
    Looks great, I think the texture would benefit greatly with more contrasting details though, as well as more specular highlights.

    It looks kind of flat right now.


    You should also consider adding a normal map that adds nicks, scratches, small details that would be expected on certain parts of the weapon, like corner pieces.
  • parrino
    It looks awesome the only thing i would suggest (I tend to think more logically than creatively) is making something for who ever is using the weapon to have it sit on their shoulder or something to brace themselves, a weapon that size i would expect to have a decent amount of recoil.
  • DDuckworth
    Offline / Send Message
    DDuckworth polycounter lvl 6
    The finished product definitely came out great, i like the final color scheme and all, great piece - glad to see it finished!
  • Fred2303
    Offline / Send Message
    Fred2303 polycounter lvl 7
    Great! i love it! good job
Sign In or Register to comment.