Accuracy International - AS50

MR_Verkerk

Hey guys, I started this piece about 2 weeks ago and was hoping for some helpfull feedback

The scene obviously is part of epic's UDK foliage showcase map which I used to showcase my model as it fits in quite nicely. (thank you epic!)

The model specs:
Low: 9500 Polygons
High: 2.500.000 Polygons (used for normalsmap)
1024x1024 Diffuse
1024x1024 Normals
512x512 Specular





What do you guys think?

I will post a wireframe, the high res mesh and the textures when I get home after work.

c0ldhands

Looks good dude, still the metal looks too matte, you need more specular love in there. More bruises and or scratches and the metalic part need to stick out more. Also, the scope does not have a real reflection shader its just texture, amirite?

MR_Verkerk

Yeah I might trow in some scratches although I liked it clean, as if just out of the box:)

The scope is actually a SceneCaptureActor with a low field of view that renders to a texture that I use in the material so whenever I move the scope around you see the close up from what the rifle is looking at.

aivanov

From what it looks like, you modeled out the ridges on the back of the stock for the low poly - I can't think of why you wouldn't simply include the ridges in the normal map and cut down on the polycount even more - neither the first person player (or third person) is probably ever going to see it - and if the weapon is simply on the ground, the camera is never going to be close enough to see them either.

MR_Verkerk

Well thats easy:) It's because I liked those ridges. I modeled this piece with the intention to be a portfolio piece, rather than a true game asset. If it would have been intended for actual game use I can point out a whole lot more thats not suitable for such an asset at the moment.

Obviously you can argue that a portfolio piece should be created with the intent to be "game ready". But that simply never was my intention . That aside your comment did made me think about the subject and I understand better now that if im creating such a piece, I might as well just make it into an actual game asset. However there is still to argue whether a more detailed version of a weapon in a game cant just be placed in a level as decoration, seperating itself from the similair "usable" weapon?

aivanov

I'm glad that you took it into consideration; and I do agree with you that there can be cases of more finely-detailed decorative assets. Even then, I'd still argue that I wouldn't model the ridges in and rather spend the extra polygon budget on areas that take up more visual real-estate on the model and thus are more likely to be noticed - but that's purely personal preference speaking.

That said, the model is very nice.

Snader

What's more important than the polycount, is that you're rendering without anti-aliasing. Many games do this, so that's not the issue - but by having details modeled in rather than mapped in, you get a lot more aliasing jaggedness. There are some other points on the model that (seem to) have this as well, such as the scope dials and the rails.

So in this case, adding more polygons actually caused this to look worse in many angles. A quick fix for this would be to render out a double resolution shot and then resize in PS, but you'll want to keep this in mind for future (in-game) projects.

MR_Verkerk

hmm, good point.

I re-uploaded the screenshots but now with FXAA5 enabled in the post process chain

keep on going with the feedback I'm really enjoying it so far!

Racer445

i can't crit the texture because i can't see it through the fancy scene shadows. if you want texture crits a simple 3 light setup on a gray background will suffice.

roosterMAP

I agree, I cant really see any texture. The model and bake are very clean, but I think you should spend some time making a strong diffuse and specular. It would take your model a long way.

Andreas

aivanov wrote: »

From what it looks like, you modeled out the ridges on the back of the stock for the low poly - I can't think of why you wouldn't simply include the ridges in the normal map

You answered your own question. You can see the difference, without even seeing wires. So surely its worth it? Some guns in Killzone reach 14K.

Nice asset, and nice idea on the presentation!

MR_Verkerk

The textures:



model previewer UDK



High poly:



Low poly with normals map:



Low poly with wireframe and normals

MR_Verkerk

Updated my last post with some proper renders, rather then max screengrabs

Racer445

like many hard surface textures, the biggest problem right now is that you don't have any basic materials down, making the whole thing look like the same exact gray. study reference obsessively and plot the materials down using only flat colors on all your texture maps before adding any wear. so, take a step back and make some edits; they're your underlying materials, your base for everything... they should read well before doing anything else.

hard surface materials can be very complex, so it's even more important that you plot them out first. is it bare metal? paint over bare metal? clearcoat over paint over bare metal? you can't add wear properly until you figure these sorts of things out.

here's what i mean by defining materials with just flat colors first. notice how the materials read well enough without any kind of added wear:

Pedro Amorim

oh god. you modeled the grooves at the end of the stock :S

Racer445

just noticed that wtf

MR_Verkerk

Racer445 thanks for the feedback:) I think you have a fair point. What I used to get the materials was going to my reference images and make a few tiling textures of clean parts that defined different materials. but as the image was slightly grainy plus the fact that I might have gone to easy on defining the difference doesnt help


About modeling in the grooves; its because you can still see through it from certain angles. It was never my intention to create a usable game asset. if I would have then I would have modeled a lot of the parts seperately so they can be animated. Initially I was thinking about putting those in the normals map but as they add to the silhouette I chose not to.

gateian

I like the gun, it's a great job.

My only crit is about the original renders. There is alot of dark on the gun and you can't really see any of the details on the gun, except for on the top. It's better in some of your later screenshots. I wanna see all that detailed lovely-ness

sltrOlsson

Yeah, there is alot missing regarding material definition. Looks more like a plastic toy i'm afraid.

The lowpoly looks great except for the grooves. C'mon, you can't justify that. It's such a small detail taking up like a third of the tris count, kinda. No offence, but yeah, it gotta go

Do you make use of a gloss map?

jeremiah_bigley

MR_Verkerk wrote: »

It was never my intention to create a usable game asset.

This confuses me. You made a lowpoly and cast normals... so if you are not trying to create a useable game asset then what is it?

What they guys are saying is that (and this is even if it is useable or not) your normal map should carry those grooves fine. That is an extreme amount of geometry for nothing. And the reason their reaction is so strong is because if your entire lowpoly was done perfect... then that sort of kills it.

MR_Verkerk

I understand that , not calling it a usable game asset might have been put in the wrong way. I want it to be a game asset, just not one that is usable as a weapon (no animations ect) but I like to see it more as a weapon that could be placed in say, a weaponshop. Being able to walk around it and see it more as a landmark object than an actual "usable" piece.

But looking at the amount of feedback im getting regarding those groves I am considering making a second low poly mesh that only uses that detail in the normalsmap when I get back from vacation. Need to make amendments to the base materials anyway

Again, im loving all the feedback, thanks guys!

sltrOlsson :Im not using a gloss map, do you think its worth it? I never actually made a gloss map before. So i'll look into it

sltrOlsson

MR_Verkerk wrote: »

I understand that , not calling it a usable game asset might have been put in the wrong way. I want it to be a game asset, just not one that is usable as a weapon (no animations ect) but I like to see it more as a weapon that could be placed in say, a weaponshop. Being able to walk around it and see it more as a landmark object than an actual "usable" piece.

But looking at the amount of feedback im getting regarding those groves I am considering making a second low poly mesh that only uses that detail in the normalsmap when I get back from vacation. Need to make amendments to the base materials anyway

Again, im loving all the feedback, thanks guys!

sltrOlsson :Im not using a gloss map, do you think its worth it? I never actually made a gloss map before. So i'll look into it

Well, i think gloss is one fucking underestimated shader function, pardon my french. It really makes your materials pop and convince.

Cojax

This looks great, but this seems way to expensive to me. Whats the tri / tex size for unreals in-view weapons?