Most Efficient Way to Render Ready Game Models
polycounter lvl 3
Hey,
Game-Ready models are very low poly. Which makes them very hard to look good for portfolio renders. I generally spend extra time to re-bevel and subdivide the low poly version to make it look better. But i already have a high poly at hand.
- Is there a workflow where i can efficiently turn my model into high poly without messing up textures that i have set up for lower polygon counts?
---OR
-Is there a workflow which covers you for both game ready models but also you can increase the quality when you want for rendering?
Game-Ready models are very low poly. Which makes them very hard to look good for portfolio renders. I generally spend extra time to re-bevel and subdivide the low poly version to make it look better. But i already have a high poly at hand.
- Is there a workflow where i can efficiently turn my model into high poly without messing up textures that i have set up for lower polygon counts?
---OR
-Is there a workflow which covers you for both game ready models but also you can increase the quality when you want for rendering?
Replies
My final textures fits perfectly to the final low poly model but it is a low poly model and doesn't look very impressive. And my textures do not fit to my high poly model, because unwrapping high poly and trying to keep all the seams while lowering polycount isn't efficient. So i don't do that. Therefore I am searching if is there a method of modelling, or usage of modifiers or some sort of technique out there that i am not aware of that would allow me to somehow: have my low poly final model - textures perfectly fit and at the same time use the same textures on a higher quality model without wasting so much time like, recreating high poly from the low poly.
This makes no sense ... Please show what you mean by providing examples. IMHO it sounds like you are unknowingly shooting yourself in the foot here, as no one looking to hire a game modeler would be interested in seeing such tweaked models.
There is no "most efficient way" to show game models. You just ... show them
The whole point of baking from a high poly is so your low poly looks more detailed than it is.
Its generally ok to have higher poly counts in portfolio content than you would in a final optimized game.
Throw a good lighting on it, maybe add some basic animations and render out a turntable.
Isn't this exactly "the problem" also in other areas (even other "industries") ? "The industry" does not define clear standards (and also the management fires everyone doing the real work).. So not only the newbies does not know what to put into their portfolio but also the people who hire can not even judge what is "good" ( i remember the recruiter for programmers who noticed that something is off when in an interview someone asked if he can google it
I mean over several years their are these "buzzwords": next generation, high poly, hyper realistic, "game ready".. even the game engines are "more advanced" but then also less optimized ( see this video mentioned here https://polycount.com/discussion/comment/2803823/#Comment_2803823 for example ).
..then again, like in the mobile phone game area: "low poly" artists are needed.. meanwhile this is mid-poly and according to from some years ago that's even high poly..
I just remember "the first" (?) video about Unreal-5.. showing a three (!) million vertices/faces (?) statue for two and a half seconds and more than half is in the darknes/shadow..
..so maybe "studios" should publish simple test scenes with additional info about how these should perform on different hardware so newbies can "include" their models into it (with multiple instance or some other assets to fullfill the min/max polygon count).. so any applicant can test for her/himself if this even is fullfilling the minimum requirements. And also the recruiter can "see" this in some video.. even requesting more videos and id the got iinto "the finals" even the model itself ???
Like in every other area: a newcomer might know some techniques to do some things but simply does not have the experience to produce "profesional" results fitting any for her/him unkown workflow.. and assuming that some "cheap freshman" can replace a experienced veteran is simply.. but i'm surely preaching to the converted
So.. back to the topic:
Isn't "the best" (as asked in several other questions) or here "the most effective" way to do things totally dependent on the context ? (Also in general: always !!).. what is (especially in what year or even month of..):
* game ready
* low poly
* optimized (for what engine, what hardware minimum/recommended, display resolution, internet connection )
* according to what other "tasks" in a game (number of polygons, effects, "intelligence" of NPC's)
* 3D modeling app or/versus use of marketplace assets
* general "density" of faces per cubic meter
* style
..so "the answer" is highly dependent on the information given by the question.
( Sometimes it's sad to see people fighting some topics when you can see that they properly come from or work in "different areas" of any area. Be it 3D (monile game, PC game, console game, 3D visualization, archivis, VFX in TV/cinema/commercials..) or even some others/general. And that's also often only because of missing context.. ever heard something like: "we use XYZ for years and didn't have any problem", "we just tried ABC for 6 month and ditched it" ?
But this here might be just an old man babbling..
a portfolio piece is there to demonstrate a few things
1: that you can make a nice looking model and textures (ie. be good at art)
2: that you are capable of deliberately arranging your UVs (as in not spamming an autounwrap button)
3: that you are capable of deliberately building a model with readable and efficient topology (efficient does not mean cheap, it means no waste)
The person (assuming they are not bad at their job*) reviewing your portfolio piece is looking to see whether you have the tools to build things that match "any" pipeline, they're not weighing up that piece against a specific platform or game.
* plenty of people are bad at their jobs
Its true, UE5 game-ready and UE4 game-ready are different things. To my mind however, a lot of points you raised about shifting and unclear industry standards are things that get addressed during an art test and/or interview. If you're making a UE5 game, it doesn't matter how many polys you can handle on a 5090 GPU, it matters how many polys your target hardware can handle, how complex your materials are and how much time is budgeted for an asset, among other factors.
So, while the targets might seem ever shifting and changing from an outsider perspective, on a project basis they're fairly fixed (in my experience).
Of course if someone already is "in the business" then (s)he knows what the actual numbers should be for some low or high poly model also in context of the whole scene. So (even in general) just assuming that one should know about it is simply hindering a smooth sequence of operations.
When seeing all this advertising (even in other areas) about what skill level you need "to get onto the next level".. ( same vague term
But this got off-topic and doesn't answer the OP's question..
But then again: if the some education possibilities "produce" questionable skilled "workers" then shouldn't "the industry" think about some standards ?
Maybe too much offtopic.. but sometimes i got the impression that some hobbiest can do better than some profesionals/ payed workers.. that may sound harsher than i meant this .. only som times. IDK
But as someone mention before: there is sooo much to learn here
Sadly people also un-learnt to seach for all this knowledge and and only ask questions and now even ask artificial mumbojumbo-generators and even tell : "But XYZ said..."
But this properly is off topic now