Started my next project

WayneAdams · Oct 2006

Not much to crit yet...just a tase of things to come.

IceWolve · Oct 2006

You need to use lots more references...

There are tons of pictures of this weapons from just about all angles, even the iron sights.

I see no excuse to model it wrong unless you intended it to be that way imo.

WayneAdams · Oct 2006

I have lots of reference. Maybe you can tell me how I'm wrong. I sure appreciate it. I'd be ashamed to model this weapon incorrectly after having used one for six years in my previous military career.

Thanks in advance.

JKMakowka · Oct 2006

Lol, weapon nerds catfight, gogogo!!!

Looks good anyways, but that gotta be the most often modeled weapon ever

And the G36 is better anyways *flame*

EarthQuake · Oct 2006

Are you serious about the military thing?

Your main errors are the shape of the handle/rear sight housing and there shouldnt be any bevel there, how the lower receiver wraps around the upper is wrong, that is definately not a flat shape there. The shape of the pistol grip is a little wrong if you're modeling the standard issue grip, unless its a custom grip then maybe you have ref for that. The collapsable buttstock is completely wrong, you're missing peices that should be there and you have extra parts that are not. A lot of the errors you have are from simply tracing a side profile reference and not actually paying attention to the shapes that make up the silhouette..... Theres more stuff too if you actually take the time to collect some reference from various angles(very easy to find). Hope this helps.

[edit] Also the mag is also wrong, theres no details that protrude from it, the details are all indented(except the little bit that latches onto the mag catch). And it isnt simple a curve, its actually more like 2 straight sections with a curve inbetween, but you have to look closely to see that.

WayneAdams · Oct 2006

Yeah, I'm serious. I was a 95B in the army for six years. The thing about the whole m4/m16 m203 kit thing is that there are seriously so many variations on the attachements and stock grips and shit, I have a picture that I used for blocking out the shape, and some large size pictures of stuff like the magazine well, and the bolt housing and stock and the like. And I'm still adding to the geos..I didn't know if you guys thought I was done with it or not, but I am still in the geo phase. I'm also planning on removable sights and shit for a m203. Thanks so far guys, and Earthquake, you made me and my buddies laugh with the 4 year old playing with the magazine.

Mark Dygert · Oct 2006

I gave up on doing real world weapons as the weapon nerds are too much too take. You're off to a good start, keep at it! It sounds like you have a hint of weapon dork in your blood so you should fair pretty well.

WayneAdams · Oct 2006

^HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Weapon dork in my blood...that's funny

Okt · Oct 2006

[ QUOTE ]
I gave up on doing real world weapons as the weapon nerds are too much too take. You're off to a good start, keep at it! It sounds like you have a hint of weapon dork in your blood so you should fair pretty well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can still remember gawking at your loaded M4, until I got my hands on the mesh.

The rifle is looking pretty well, although some parts of the mesh could be reworked to help the model flow a little more. I realize that you are still in the beginning stage so that will come with the tweaking. Great start!

EarthQuake · Oct 2006

I really dont see why some people have such harsh opinions towards people who care about modeling weapons accurately, esp. when there are massive amounts of readily available reference for them. I mean if someone comes here and models a character with inacurate anotomy they're going to get called out, someone models a car wrong its the same. Attempt to model a famous building and get the details completely wrong..... Its all the same, and shruging off modeling with accuracy because its just a gun is nothing but lazy.

Mark Dygert · Oct 2006

[ QUOTE ]
I can still remember gawking at your loaded M4, until I got my hands on the mesh.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, we don't talk about that mess. What a hidious mess that model and texture where. Needless to say I have learned much since. I really should try my hand at weapon modeling again.

EQ, where I mostly get fustrated with weapon dorks is that they crit models by looking at them from the side. However most weapons are viewed in the first person as if you are holding them. Because of the perspective you sometimes have to change things around so the tip of the gun doesn't look like the tip of a pencil instead of a barrel.

I'm sure this model looks great from the side, and I bet if you compaired it to actual ref it would be spot on, too bad the barrel narrows down to a point because of the perspective. To compensate for this you have to give up some reality...

EarthQuake · Oct 2006

Heh, or get the programmers on your team to do custom fov on your FPV guns so they dont look like shit.

IceWolve · Oct 2006

If you have more than a side reference, then i suggest you use them and compare them to yours.

The way yours is now, the bullet wont even make it from the mag to the barrel. Lots of things wrong, mostly with the reciever stock.

http://members.shaw.ca/stan420/Pictures/cam4metalbody/CA-body-2.jpg

these might be airsoft models, but they ARE accurate with the real ones that fire real bullets.

http://www.airsoftretreat.com/gallery/data/591/3.jpg
http://www.airsoftretreat.com/gallery/data/591/5.jpg
http://www.airsoftretreat.com/gallery/data/591/14.jpg
http://www.airsoftretreat.com/gallery/data/591/15.jpg
http://www.airsoftretreat.com/gallery/data/591/18.jpg

http://www.pyramydair.com/site/manuals/marui-m4a1-carbine/sight2.jpg
http://www.pyramydair.com/site/manuals/marui-m4a1-carbine/sight3.jpg
http://www.pyramydair.com/site/manuals/marui-m4a1-carbine/sight4.jpg
http://www.pyramydair.com/site/manuals/marui-m4a1-carbine/chandle.jpg
http://www.pyramydair.com/site/manuals/marui-m4a1-carbine/movable1.jpg
http://www.pyramydair.com/site/manuals/marui-m4a1-carbine/movable2.jpg

here too:
http://www.modelguns.co.uk/m4a1_carbines.htm

malcolm · Oct 2006

Is that screenshot of call of duty from the ps1?

dejawolf · Oct 2006

nice, i never thought i'd actually find some useful military reference on polycount!

WayneAdams · Oct 2006

some updates

Thanks for those schematics on the read sight apeture, Ice. I'll be paying closer attention to those details from now on

Joao Sapiro · Oct 2006

the images are kinda hard to see , give another material to the weapon as its very hard at least for me to see detail.

WayneAdams · Oct 2006

changed the mat, adjusted a skylight a lil...hope that helps.

EarthQuake · Oct 2006

Nearly everything i mentioned is still wrong

EarthQuake · Oct 2006

Not my model, but hopefully some helpful ref.
http://johnyontehspot.com/pix/m4shit.jpg

yeluis · Oct 2006

[ QUOTE ]
Not my model, but hopefully some helpful ref.
http://johnyontehspot.com/pix/m4shit.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

is that even the same gun? i dont know much bout guns so im wondering cause if its the same then wayne your model is totally off (asuming the other one is entirely correct)

EarthQuake · Oct 2006

Its an M4 as apposed to an m16, but the parts are interchangeable. Mainly the upper/lower reciever(mins the cary handle, not in that model tho that is wrong too, wrong curve) and the buttstock are what is wrong with his model.

[Edit] Also the charging handle.

IceWolve · Oct 2006

Its the same thing, the only difference between the one eq posted and the one the guy is modeling is the one eq posted has a removeable carrying handle and its foregrip has the sopmod attachment.

Which btw, your model is looking more acurate, but the carrying handle/rearsite, should look and be more of one piece with the receiver, not thinner. It only looks narrow in some images i posted because in those images it has a removeable carrying handle, in which the area it attaches to is slightly wider, but the upper piece itself is the same width.

WayneAdams · Oct 2006

some updates.
I know some of you might think a low light reticle on a shotgun may seem like a waste, but the ref I'm using had one on there, and I thought it looked pretty neat.

I also decided, that aside from the m4 and m4/203 I'd do a tactical snub nosed version. Low light sight on that one is still very much blocky, and not really ready for a crit. Everything else tho is fair game.

WayneAdams · Oct 2006

Oh. EQ, I haven't forgotten your words of wisdom. Don't want you to think I'm blowing you off. I am working on trying to correct some of those items you mentioned.

Thegodzero · Oct 2006

why the hell is there a scope on that shotgun!?

WayneAdams · Oct 2006

Yeah, so..Like I said it was in the ref, and it's not a scope. It's a low light sight, that enables the user to see the forward sights better in darker environments, however I realize the purpose of a shotgun...point and click. But Seriously...my main goal over doing something right, is doing something that looks cool, and well...I like how it looks in the reference.

And in case you were refering to the cylindrical object resting on top of the barrel forwards of the low light sight, that's a flashlight.

If only Doom 3 had shipped with those bad boys.

Started my next project

Replies