M26 Grenade

pinkbox

Hi guys this is my first piece of work on Polycount and really my first model with the intention of using high > low poly workflow.

So it isn't exactly super low poly because it'd be used in FPS view and as a portfolio piece. Really it was just a test piece before I take on a bigger project such as a full character with accessories.






Any crits, pointers or questions are welcomed before I move onto a more complex piece

Also advice on the best ways to show off work that I'd use towards my portfolio would be helpful

Thanks

ES_139

Tri count looks really high for a grenade even in fps.
good job texturing though, spec map could use a bit of work, perhaps post your maps too?

pinkbox

Yeh I think i could tweak the spec a bit to make the metal parts shine more. maybe just turn the spec up in marmoset or change my lighting.

I may more on a lower detail version to cut it down to 1000 tris. would that be a reasonable amount for a current fps model. i went and played some COD and really noticed you never actually get a good look at the grenade when thrown and held but some screen shots of crysis i think show a grenade held better :P

thanks

percydaman

I would make a low poly version with a more proper poly count. Part of a portfolio, is showing a perspective employer that your capable of creating assets useable in a production environment. Your asset isn't production ready due to high poly count. And its not like you used those unnecessary polys to real good use. A large portion are in the pull ring, which will never take up much in the way of pixels on the screen, even a fps. Just use high res textures for your porfolio. That said, I do like it.

odium

I think the polycounts fine. Sure theres a couple of tris you can shave off i na few areas, but if this was for a first person asset, its fine. Its not like you would see it with another weapon on screen, and it IS a pretty round object. I mean, I'm used to working with 12-16k budgets for FP weapon sets, that includes arms of course, but even then thats getting pretty normal these days. You shouldn't use more than you need of course, but these days a lot of engines are more fillrate/draw call bound than polycount bound, and FPS weapons should always have that extra mile.

Of course, if this was a world object or third person object, such as a thrown grenade or one a player holds in third person, it would be far too high in all aspects. But as a first person piece, I think its fine. Of course it always helps to know what the game demands of it. If it was for COD, for example, then it could be 12 polygons for all I care becuasei ts an offhand grenade, i.e. you press a key and he throws it, even if you have a weapon up. Its seen for such a short space of time it doesn't matter. But some games, Crysis etc, have on hand weapons where you hold them in the view. In these cases, its fine.

IMHO of course.

percydaman

We're talking about an asset that will probably always be mostly concealed by the hand of the person holding it. The actual pin portion of the safety pin was modeled. When is anybody ever going to see this? If an artist brought this to me, as a supervisor, I would likely reject it and show them areas that would easily go with less polys without sacrificing the overall quality of the asset. That would extend to me looking at portfolios of possible artists and their ability to work within industry wide accepted weapon poly constraints. That said, I like the asset. the art side of it is very well done. The textures are the right color/value. The textural details are subtle and work well.

odium

Doesn't that all depend on the weapons use, the animation set etc? Its all well and good saying its covered by a hand, but in this case, the body would be covered by the hand, the pin and ring would be fully visible and in the players view. It would create a nice dynamic to see the pin fire off when the ring is pulled.

As I said, polygons CAN be cut, for example the ring didn't have to be so detailed and could have been a solid contained mesh rather than the way it was done. But as a next gen asset, i.e. something you would be making now, rather than when the consoles first started, I can't see a problem. In a world where we have 30k polygon player models, 16k view weapon counts and multiple 2048x2048 texture sheets per instance, its not THAT big a deal. Also, as I said, depending on the engine, games are getting less and less polygon bound. I know our engine for example can have a LOT of polygons thrown at it and it doesn't budge. Its all circumstantial, and without a hard, actual target spec its made for, we are both correct in this case. Now if he said "Right, I made this to go along with a MW3 spec" then of course it would be 4x too high or what have you. But for somebody adding this to a portfolio NOW, just as we are starting to switch over to the NEXT next gen, it shows that hes able to model to a fine detail, keep it at a decent polygon count, and push the object as required.

Again, all IMHO, but you know, apples and oranges and all that

IsparticusI

if you do plan on bringing up the specular level, make sure to also get rid of your text in spec map. you dont want the letters creating more shine, when they wouldn't be in real life ya know?

for the most part, like the piece tho!

EarthQuake

This sort of asset would have a very low LOD for the world model(IE: when its thrown) for the view model, the tricount is perfectly acceptable. You're not going to have another weapon on screen, and the game will have a fixed budget for view weapons on screen at all times.

So what do you gain from halving the rendered triangles for a view weapon? Absolute nothing. There is no benefit. Its just optimizing for the sake of optimizing at the point, completely futile. This asset is already signficantly lower than other view weapons would be anyway.

What, you're going to gain 0.1 FPS, but only when you have the grenade selected?

ES_139

so 2.5 - 3k is acceptable for a grenade now?
.........fair enough!

sorry for the bad advice then i guess?

percydaman

If enough people disagree with me, then I'll go with the flow.

EarthQuake

Yeah it all depends on exactly how its going to be seen, if there will be a clearly visible animation where the pin is pulled etc, its an appropriate level of detail. If its only on the screen for 1/10th of a second, it could easily be lower. But again, even then it wouldn't actually affect performance.

Since he's making it for a portfolio, it should look good. Theres no reason to heavily optimize an asset let this if the main purpose is showing off a cool art asset.

Just for reference, we did some grenades for brink and they were all 2000 tris. Lods were much lower though of course.

Lonewolf

looks pretty cool
texture is pretty cool but maybe u should make the ring silver and add some scuffs?

Firebert

Would it be a good idea to make a couple of LODs for this piece in particular to demonstrate that the person that made it does not think a grenade should be 2.5K in all cases?
What I mean is that if you were just a dude that landed on this portfolio piece, a potential employer maybe, would you see the tri count as a lack of knowledge if it was not demonstrated that this was the view model and there were world models and LODs to go with it? This is a special asset in this scenario and could be taken both ways. A) Modeler thinks making a grenade at a 2.5k tri count is cool no mater where it is viewed -or- This must be a view model and surely he knows how to optimize for world model and LOD purposes.

This could apply to most any model anyone would make, but since it is so small, I could see it being taken differently. It is a grenade.

In regards to the model itself, it may be pretty sweet to show off the model with the pin being separate and the clip assembly being separate as for animation purposes. Granted, as seen in game, these little trinkets will take up a super small percentage of screen space when animated, and depending on the speed of the animation, would barely be seen (if at all). BUT, to separate it from the pack, as a portfolio piece, these would be nice adds.

EarthQuake

Honestly, LODs are something anyone can do, I dont think its necessary to show an LOD for every model in your portfolio, I don't see why a grenade is somehow different.

I don't think many people reviewing portfolios are stressing whether or not an artist can do lods. Its not like doing LODs is something you just automatically do either, you're either going to be told at your studio:

A. You need to do lods, at X, Y, Z tricounts
B. You need an lod at Z tricount
C. Our system has automatic LODS
D. You don't need to do an LOD.

This isn't a "skill" you need to demonstrate. Its just a matter of following the documented specs for your assets when you get the job, you can't really show this on a portfolio.

Again on the tricount, if you're making this as a portfolio peice, it make sense to have the mentality that it WOULD be seen. Sure in some games you'll only see it for 1/10th of a second, and you could get away with a primitive sphere or whatever there, but who wants to show off an ultra-optimized sphere? If you're going to go through the process of making an asset to put on your portfolio, it should be worth looking at. Some 300 triangle blocky grenade would certainly not be worth the effort for a portfolio.

pinkbox

Updated Textures slightly. Better or worse?



Thanks for all the feedback so far.

Really this has been a test from me to speed up and understand my workflow between high and low poly models for games. Next project is full character