HK 416
polycounter lvl 11
First gun in a year
rip it apart. m4's have been a challenge I have wanted to do for a long time but m4s are made all the time so i made something with a similar design
Oh this is just the high poly*
silenced it because silencers are cool
rip it apart. m4's have been a challenge I have wanted to do for a long time but m4s are made all the time so i made something with a similar design
Oh this is just the high poly*
silenced it because silencers are cool
Replies
Theres some small details I was planning to do during texturing that I left out of the model but I dont see anything major, but I did have some instances where there was a clash of references and I picked and chose styles.
Brightside, can you please go into further detail? The gun proportions have to be fine because I modeled it against a side image, so im guessing you mean little details
However with that said the M4 has quite a few different versions with different stocks and rails etc. From my reference I am counting about 17 of the rectangle indents on the stock and you only have 6 going across.
Your's however does look like a paintball version of the M4 though http://www.ioffer.com/i/RAP4-T68-Desert-Storm-Paintball-Marker-Gun-153531921
So you do have an m4 stock that is accurate, I am not sure if that particular style is accurate to a military version though.
All in all though its a solid model its smoothing really nice, you got wires you can post?
Just to clarify this is NOT an M4. I've always wanted to model an m4 because of the challenging body shapes, but everyone makes m4s so I picked a gun with a SIMILAR design, the HK 416.
I will get up some wires tomorrow
Was my reference by the way, now that I look at it again I have some small little chunks of geometry I need to place around but nothing very major
(The metal piece before the barrel is different than on my gun because I saw another picture without it, and I personally though it looks better with out it, I also saw another one with a longer barrel. So like I said I pick and chose what things to keep based on references.
I hate doing paintovers on such small renders so I'm going to point them out the best I can...
1. The buttpad of the stock is incorrect, so is the bottom of it, it needs to extend out more.
2. The buffer tube doesn't look round and there are more threads in it than 2.
3. The ring around the safety switch (on the right side) is non existent, that is just oil, the whole thing should be flush with the receiver.
4. The Magazine release is not round.
5. The tubes on the side need to be rounded more and wider.
6. Corners on the dust cover need to be rounded out more.
7. Forward assist needs to be bigger.
8. Charging handle is too thin http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/LMT/Charging_Handle1.jpg
9. Bolt release isn't round like that.
10. The part of the receiver on the left side that holds the mag release needs to be rounded out more aswell, and the mag release itself is too thing (on the inside/left side)
11. The section of the lower receiver the connects to the upper receiver at the front (before the RIS) is not square, it's round.
12. Edges on the front of the magwell are too sharp.
13. The back of the top receiver should end flush with the lower receiver, right now its looks like a whole separate part.
14. The start of the top rail, above the charging handle has a slight curve up from the handle, to the start of the rail.
15. All of your rails are wrong (I don't know how people can get these wrong) http://www.biggerhammer.net/picatinny/rail_profile.gif
16. The edges on the RIS system are too sharp, both at the front and back. The RIS itself is slanted because of the rails.
17. Barrel is too wide throughout and you're missing the gas block.
That's all I can see anyway from that tiny ass render.
Will start nailing down that list tomorrow.
I also didn't expect the renders to be that small until I combined them in PS
Generally, you need to spend more time actually studying your references, instead of just trying to line it up in the side view. A lot of stuff here you can just look at and see are off, like the width of the rails. Its a skill in itself to be able to properly analyze concepts/refs.
I just use the side view to get the layout of the gun, and anything I cant see from the side well enough I go and look at more references from the angle I need.
Will do though, luckily I woke up in a mood to fix this thing up.
Look forward to seeing more
Guy Brightside is eventually right, but if you fix that rail width and gas block, you will be totally okay.
Ever notice how weapons look different many games even if it's the "same" model?
In my opinion it's okay, if you make weapons different on some way, nobody gives a shit about threading on buffer tube in-game.
Make it recognizable as hk416, the rest is your art style.
Modeling accurately from concepts/reference is a very good skill to have. Some day you'll end up on a project with very strict art guidelines and the "meh whatever, its close enough" mentality will not fly.
This is such a common weapon(m4 type) that it is extremely important to model it accurately, as everyone in the world will see instantly when it is not.
Errors/Inaccuracy != art style. Certainly if some shapes are exaggerated to be more interesting, or to read better/bake better, those are good things to do, however the excuse that doing something poorly is a "stylistic" choice is just that, an excuse.
Frell: Just to be clear, this isn't an attack on your work by any means, I just do not think the apologetic apathetic sort of response to critique is productive for anyone.
As far as specifically wrong with the rail, its too narrow, the angles are wrong, and well its too hard to tell because the image is small but proportionally its just not correct. There are millions of refs for these types of rails and they all follow the same spec.
you can go to HK's own website and see different stocks rails etc...things to get right though are the main parts of the 416...
the trigger group eject ports etc, everything else can be 'accessorized' so to speak...
http://www.hkparts.net/shop/pc/HK-416-22LR-Umarex-Rifle-20-Round-14p1744.htm
"meh whatever, its close enough" isn't really way to go, but if he can fix rail and gas block, then I don't see any major problems,(haven't seen 1p tho) if he's going for "generic" hk416, not dead accurate 416.
You can imagine whatever in "art style", not wanting your weapon to look like everybody's else Hk416 is one of those things.
If he wanted to make dead accurate hk416 model then there's obviously a lot of work to do, but "generic" Hk416 is much closer to his concept it seems.
Just saw the rail post, will fix
A good rule of thumb I have is that if the edges are so sharp that they are obviously aliasing in the viewport from a reasonable distance, go in and soften them up. A clear example is the cylindrical floater you got at the back of the buttstock. Try too zoom out more and view the entire thing at once, as its easy to make everything really sharp when you're zoomed in too far, and this is bad for readability/scale, and wont bake very well on the final normals.
That last screengrab is much better, its a lot easier to pick out the flaws now. I think you have a lot more to work on here but i'll wait for another update before going more in depth.
But why assume he wants to make a "generic"(poorly done) model? I mean, it isn't productive for him to do that, and its not really productive to encourage that he does it either. The games industry is highly competitive, I don't see the point in encouraging people to make sub-par assets.
Again, with something so common, he needs to really kick ass at it to stand out. So, you can help him by giving quality crits, or you can do him a dis-service, and say "whatever, good enough". If you'd rather do the latter, its better not to post, because all you end up doing is belittling the people who put in effort to help him improve.
You can do in depth now EQ
I might have some time to do a proper paintover later tonight, please post a large side view(straight on side view, doesnt have to be ortho but just straight on) the next time you update. To make it easy for me to make notes.
Im going around softening now, I also fixed the rails
I should just start over dammit
Even when I look at the side view right next to the actual gun I only notice the main stuff like the cylinder on the upper receiver needing to be wider
Now im scratching my head wondering how much of this is critical and how much is gun geek nit pick details lol
If EQ has time for a paintover that will pretty much spell what is important to fix vs various details from spending way too much time looking at that particular gun
Edit: Like I said before, I've spent way too long looking at this particular gun. It's the only gun I could do that kind of breakdown on. I just don't have the experience to break down truly important details vs over detail so I just gave it all and figured other guys would just grill the list down to what was truly important vs over analyzing details.
I didn't look at the refs yet so I'd probably be able to pick a few thing as well, but damn, is all of this really necessary? I'm all for reference usage (I wrote a big fat article about it), but it just seems to go so over the top with guns? I'm trying to see the similarities with cars, as I'm into those, but most of the time the generic "okayish" car has problems that are visible from a mile off. Even I won't bitch about the exact chamfer value of the underside of the bumper, so to say. For guns it seems like you need to zoom in on every single detail, and peer over 'em for hours on end to compile such a list...
Makes me scared but curious at the same time to get crits on that VZ61 I made last year...
heres some fixes
Id have to agree with ya Xoliul, ya there are areas that are off some more than others. However in a first person mode 90% of this gun wont even be seen. When I look at it I can tell its an HK, can't point it right down to the HK 416 because its taking aspects of more than one HK.
never made a gun before, anyone recomend a good gun tutorial? dont mine what kind of gun, handgun, machine gun, sniper. google isnt being helpful and im sure there are some good tutorials out there
I tried to focus on stuff that looks wrong at first glance, and basic proportional issues instead of "move this 2mm to the left" sort of stuff. As well as a focus on how things will look in FPV, because honestly, the asset as is looks worst when in FPV currently. This is due in large part to some missing details, poor proportions(in the concept the bits line up real well, but its real messy in the model, near where the butt-stock connects to the gun itself), and some poor modeling technique(the buttstock itself has some really questionable geometry, resulting in a faceted look).
Now, even if 90% of that is ignored, the #1 AA++++ thing you must do is focus on this area:
Right now it is totally off, and it is right up close in first person. This should be the most interesting, most awesomely modeled section of the gun. This is my biggest piece advice here, really dig into this area.
/goes back to making paintovers correcting anatomical proportions by measures of centimetres
Not being familiar with or a fan of the 416 at all, I can't crit accuracy much more than general appearances, However, this,
+1
not sure exactly what you've done but it looks like you should start again basing it on a cylinder with way more sides
That's all I can think of at the moment but really, Guns are just basic hard surface modeling. The most difficult part is figuring out what to model as separate parts (stock from grip from upper receiver, etc.) so that you're not going insane with edge loops all over the place.
P.S. the "such great, fun shapes" I really had no clue how to do. I've never modeled anything like an m4/m16 etc for this reason. Im still trying to shape it up as much as I can
Some of this hits a clash of references, like the trigger guard and gas block (the thing in front of the RIS?) And the charging handle. Some references I see have an ugly look, so when I see others without them I go without them.
To add to this, the CG Tuts MAC10 is mostly done with no subD techniques. The only component of the gun that I recall using subD is the grip.
Then, draw the edge-flow in photoshop. This will let you quickly experiment with edge flow, then when you have something that looks like it would hold up in the model, go ahead and model it. Complex shapes are about 90% planning, 10% modeling. I dont have any "tips" to model complex stuff, other than come up with a good plan before you attack it.
Also, never EVER be afraid to say: "This edgeflow is shit and not working" and just remodel it entirely. A lot of times it is much faster to just admit you modeled something without enough proper planing, and remodel the damn thing now that you know better. I do this quite often.
Also, once I get the gun fairly accurate to a point where its looking good should I add back the iron sites (but keep the eotech, usually both are there incase one fails) and add a simple grenade launcher or flashlight? This will probably be the last gun I model after I fix up a few old ones and re texture them and I want this one to be the beast on my portfolio and then ill move onto vehicles and other hard surface for a bit.
http://www.pixagogo.com/Photos/Albums/Photo.aspx?id=S4vFqsld!bQi!f9yg9-UvVU6yEMLo82VVmiB5QhdWNMuC3H!W-!HzT-!DRQDPcJqJV
That may help to get your head around the shapes
Btw, good job with the gun quality is really good and it looks like a gun you would see in call of duty.
Dont soo much attention to all the commentarys from gun fanatics, i am one myself but if you are not making the gun for a demostration for gun fans or something like that then i would just go the low poly and texture phase