Hello, I am learning to do high poly modeling and baking into a normal map for a low poly, and I was just looking for some crits of my first real attempt at it.
Bigger pics + wireframes might help get you crits. One thing I can see now is that your edges are too sharp; they might not transfer too well into the normal map for your lowpoly. Check out the polycount wiki normal map page for more info on this.
From a technical points its decent actually, edges are too sharp that the main thing, but by design its fundamentally flawed. The grip, the Magazine the barrel, its very unlogic and dosnt look aesthetic at all.
Recreate real life until you are really familiar with that. Get a real reference. Imaginary designs/characters are
the crown discipline - You cannot start by that without a really strong basis, I made that mistake at start aswell. Id really recommend working closely with references. That way you learn the fastest.
Edit: Wow, that concept...., pro teaching, ladies and gentlemen
Thanks for the crits I will work on it some more, but regarding the design I can understand what you are saying but I am making this for class and we were given a very specific gun that we had to make, and could not make any changes to it.
from what i can see, it looks like the main body of the gun is based of a thompson, but heavily modified. you might want to look at that for any references other than the concept art you are working from.
The scope is most probably mounted on picatinny rails; the little bugger a pretty ubiquitous these days. The rails would certainly continue under the mount, and the mount would be wider than the rails.
Although I must say that the design is a bit of a chimera; an automatic weapon with a scope and a very short suppressor is a very unusual concept.
The safety/selector switch is much too small, and the trigger guard is way too thick. This is probably closest to what you have, a late-war design with numerous simplifications:
Thanks for the crits I will work on it some more, but regarding the design I can understand what you are saying but I am making this for class and we were given a very specific gun that we had to make, and could not make any changes to it.
I am just looking for crits on the high poly, again I did not come up with the design and I am unable to change the look of the gun.
The concept isn't set in stone, if there is something incorrect in the concept I bring it up to my lead and typically just have to fix it myself. Let your instructor know, perhaps being a flexible artist is part of the test but I doubt it.
Hey ya'll.. I'm their instructor. This isn't a practice on design of the gun but more on if they can follow a concept provided by me. Its a modeling exercise, not a gun design project :P. They can't change anything, it is set in stone
were they given more than just the profile drawing? of so, then design has to be at least a part of it, considering that they're only seeing 2 axes of a 3 dimensional object, right? there are quite a few things that could be improved that mostly relate to the dimension not shown in that concept, so implementing them would not be changing the given design.
specifically, making the ridges on top into rails would make more sense, provide more visual interest, and not vary from the concept at all. offsetting the main drum of the magazine would provide more visual interest and also harken to IRL snail magazines from roughly the same time period as the Thompson itself:
which is honestly what i thought was going on in the concept, by how it's drawn.
final "dimensions" note would be that the receiver, stock, and pistol grip could probably be slimmed down, as there's no need for them to greatly exceed the width of the magazine and barrel (especially the barrel, since that's a cylinder so you can get its actual width based on that profile concept):
and on a non-design note, right now it looks like the foregrip is floating in the air, on the concept the metal "brackets" on its ends join into the actual barrel.
Replies
Recreate real life until you are really familiar with that. Get a real reference. Imaginary designs/characters are
the crown discipline - You cannot start by that without a really strong basis, I made that mistake at start aswell. Id really recommend working closely with references. That way you learn the fastest.
Edit: Wow, that concept...., pro teaching, ladies and gentlemen
Although I must say that the design is a bit of a chimera; an automatic weapon with a scope and a very short suppressor is a very unusual concept.
The concept isn't set in stone, if there is something incorrect in the concept I bring it up to my lead and typically just have to fix it myself. Let your instructor know, perhaps being a flexible artist is part of the test but I doubt it.
specifically, making the ridges on top into rails would make more sense, provide more visual interest, and not vary from the concept at all. offsetting the main drum of the magazine would provide more visual interest and also harken to IRL snail magazines from roughly the same time period as the Thompson itself:
which is honestly what i thought was going on in the concept, by how it's drawn.
final "dimensions" note would be that the receiver, stock, and pistol grip could probably be slimmed down, as there's no need for them to greatly exceed the width of the magazine and barrel (especially the barrel, since that's a cylinder so you can get its actual width based on that profile concept):
and on a non-design note, right now it looks like the foregrip is floating in the air, on the concept the metal "brackets" on its ends join into the actual barrel.