Jump to content

The 3D Thread


suzakuseven
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, SuperCapes said:

I think understanding limitations is super important to show in portfolio work, especially when trying to break into the industry. Many of my more veteran friends in the industry really show break downs of their personal work still to this day, and regardless of what things like Nanite may promise, the cheaper the geometry the better. 

 

Also, simplifying something down allows more versatility to deal with feedback and so on. 

 

Best way I describe why not everything has to be cinematic quality, is to use player camera as a point of reference. Build metrics around those sort of size guides, and build models and textures with that in mind. 

I used to review 3D artist's CVs back in the day, when I was a Creative Manager. I loved getting low-poly work, because if it was done well you'd know they'd probably knock it out of the park with a higher budget. Someone - back then - making a good-looking character in 1,000 polygons or fewer really knew their stuff. Also probably has confidence in their abilities, and good judgment. "THIS is what I have chosen to represent me" is what I'd take from it. 500 polygons used really bloody well impressed me far more than 10,000 used to create something just about adequate that would see some other CMs get them in for an interview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MarkN said:

I used to review 3D artist's CVs back in the day, when I was a Creative Manager. I loved getting low-poly work, because if it was done well you'd know they'd probably knock it out of the park with a higher budget. Someone - back then - making a good-looking character in 1,000 polygons or fewer really knew their stuff. Also probably has confidence in their abilities, and good judgment. "THIS is what I have chosen to represent me" is what I'd take from it. 500 polygons used really bloody well impressed me far more than 10,000 used to create something just about adequate that would see some other CMs get them in for an interview.

 

Absolutely! 

 

I learnt 3D from another artist on the job, and honestly it was a phenomenal experience. Will be forever grateful for his wisdom. Absolute monster of an artist, who could make 4 cubes two cylinders and a sphere look game ready. 

 

It was funny, because as a Technical Artist with no 3D knowledge my gaps were painful, and whenever I went to seniors, they would scream murder it would take years to learn, and every vert needs to be perfect. The guy who taught me said I can make you a prop artist in a couple of months, so long as you listen and ask the right questions. He also taught me some fundamental techniques which are often skipped these days, like baking maps in max. Gave me a great understanding to why and what, rather than just pressing a button in substance and living with the result. 

 

Shape and form, silhouette and functionality. The details are just nice little extras when you nail those things! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Seems ok so far, I'm trying to do this without sculpting as I don't have the time at the moment to teach myself retopology and the models I'm getting out of Blender with the sculpting tools and inbuilt retopology option are really poorly optimised

 

w23.thumb.png.982a0bb97feb7b4a7f4be2edcbbfe07e.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Yeah, I'm sure one day there will be automated retopology tools that are good but it's similar to auto UV tools where if you have very specific needs for optimization it's less faff just to do it manually. Thankfully these  methods have improved, also found out it's really nice in Maya compared to 3DSmax. Will never retopo in Max ever again, awful.

 

Anyway, finished a prop piece recently. Wanted to refamiliarize myself with baking again, so built a low/high poly. Generally pleased but it was a stark reminder of the complexities that come with baking, with making low/high work together (i.e normals, uv splits etc). 

 

More renders; https://www.artstation.com/artwork/4XDYWL

 

image.thumb.png.54192491e9a4636e6013f1e42750db4e.png 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/12/2022 at 00:26, Broker said:

God damn making well optimised character models for games is tough

 

wmp.thumb.png.bf642c81e9c255d8490eedef6abcb912.png

 

Have you tried doing it in way fewer polygons? I mean, seriously try doing it in 1, 000. (Or 500 if you want a proper challenge.) It'll give you an appreciation for which angles really matter, how to best use every polygon etc. It's also so much quicker to iterate, because if you screw up, you're having to correct far less - you'll spend less time trying to work out which set of vertices to toy with next because there just won't be that many.

 

(Then again I hate modelling at the poly count you're using, and much prefer far lower.)

 

It's like me learning to draw again in the illustration thread - I'm just concentrating on knocking out rough sketches until I get my eye back in. (My latest sketch I'm really pleased with, but has boxes for fists, because it's not worth me drawing the fingers just yet. I need to get the basics right first. Try maybe making a character for Resident Evil or one of the other early 3D games. If you can get those good you can always loop cut the hell out of it, to refine it further, but if you can do it low, you can probably do it high (I used to set tasks for 3d artists applications when I worked in the games industry - I'd always give them a low poly character challenge. I had their CV - I could see their portfolio of what they could do when they had "all of the polygons" they wanted. I wanted to know what they could do when they didn't. I think I hired good people in the main. I also loved gettting a CV with low poly artwork on it - someone who was confident enough to do this (and did it well obvs.) was almost certainly worth consideration.))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Capwn said:

Yeah, I'm sure one day there will be automated retopology tools that are good but it's similar to auto UV tools where if you have very specific needs for optimization it's less faff just to do it manually. Thankfully these  methods have improved, also found out it's really nice in Maya compared to 3DSmax. Will never retopo in Max ever again, awful.

 

Anyway, finished a prop piece recently. Wanted to refamiliarize myself with baking again, so built a low/high poly. Generally pleased but it was a stark reminder of the complexities that come with baking, with making low/high work together (i.e normals, uv splits etc). 

 

More renders; https://www.artstation.com/artwork/4XDYWL

 

image.thumb.png.54192491e9a4636e6013f1e42750db4e.png 

That's very nice. So many lovely details (something that I'd struggle with). One tiny critique - the metalwork holding the screw thread thingy all have the same pattern of chipped paint. I feel so mean pointing it out, but it probably just needs a few X and Y flips (or both) on the UVs (or the model itself).

 

Actually one other thing I'd add, and this is me being a massive pedant, and possibly overthinking things. I'm assuming the orange wheel pushes the chrome bolts out and draws them back in again. If this thing has been used frequently the bolts would likely be polished clean near the rings they pass through, so no tarnishing there for however far they move. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MarkN Not quite sure what you're referring to regarding the bolts near the rings? As for the repeating paint chipping, yeah I was trying to optimize my UVS which meant some UVs needed to overlap. Looking back at it now, I shouldn't have done it with those elements in particular as it's quite obvious. It's a tricky one, it's so easy to avoid by just giving everything unique UVs and I see a lot of less experienced artists do this in their portfolios. The results are better but it's not very realistic in regards to game development where you have to save space. When it comes to my portfolio I should adapt that mentality more, rather than my gut instinct which is to show optimized UVs and smaller/less texture maps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Capwn said:

@MarkN Not quite sure what you're referring to regarding the bolts near the rings? As for the repeating paint chipping, yeah I was trying to optimize my UVS which meant some UVs needed to overlap. Looking back at it now, I shouldn't have done it with those elements in particular as it's quite obvious. It's a tricky one, it's so easy to avoid by just giving everything unique UVs and I see a lot of less experienced artists do this in their portfolios. The results are better but it's not very realistic in regards to game development where you have to save space. When it comes to my portfolio I should adapt that mentality more, rather than my gut instinct which is to show optimized UVs and smaller/less texture maps.

 

These chrome(ish) bolts here.

__________________________8.png.09c5d791808e97cdb8e08b4597f9f9ab.png

 This is an awful rush job just to show what I mean, but here we go:

 

__________________________9.png.b63fb7ba0ea1e2c4a07eba91f892c5f4.png

 

Ignore me if this isn't how it works, or if it doesn't move that often (the distress elsewhere suggests it does, mind), but bits that are moving tend to be clean and shiny, and bits that aren't tend to get skanky and rusty. If these bolts slide left and right, the bits that pass through the red rings would be receiving constant friction, whereas the bits that don't wouldn't. The bits that get rubbed would be be shinier.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That explains it perfectly and it makes sense. I made the whole bar (cylinder) the same but yes there would be a difference where it’s mostly contacting the bracket. I don’t think those areas would be clean/polished though? They would be scratched and worn down?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Capwn said:

That explains it perfectly and it makes sense. I made the whole bar (cylinder) the same but yes there would be a difference where it’s mostly contacting the bracket. I don’t think those areas would be clean/polished though? They would be scratched and worn down?

I think the inside of the ring would be kept oiled to keep things moving smoothly. Edit: If it was scratching on contact that would be poor design. The reason pistons are made of chrome is because it's as smooth as fuck, so glides easily, I think. I genuinely don't know - I'm working on instinct here.

 

Working parts are kept in working condition, non-working parts aren't. If it doesn't need to be maintained it isn't. That's why I love the wear-and-tear on the rest of your image. That will definitely have occurred during use. But to keep that thing working (asuming the bars move), I think the bars would have clean patches on them. They'd have had the odd squirt of WD40 on the rings IMO. The rest of those bars can corrode to hell, but the bits that slide through those rings would be clean (IMO). (I put WD40 on the lock on the front door of the shared house I live in when it started jamming even though that's my landlord's job - I wanted the lock to work, so didn't wait).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.