PDA

View Full Version : [WIP] Fast scope rendering...



Caboos001
March 2nd, 2007, 01:14 PM
Hey, totally new to the whole modeling thing and am trying my hand at weapons mods with a friend. Seeing as how there seems to be an abundance of talented modelers here I thought I might post this quick model I made of a sniper scope for opinions and suggestions to thing I could improve on. I know it has way too much detail for the Halo engine but again this is just a basic layout of an idea and has plenty of room for change. Try not to pay attention to the long bar like thing on the bottom of the scope.

the pics are a little big so i'll just post the links:


http://img477.imageshack.us/img477/7564/scope1du1.jpg

http://img345.imageshack.us/img345/1644/scope2uy5.jpg

http://img345.imageshack.us/img345/3991/scope3vb0.jpg

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/7718/scope4hd9.jpg

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/2064/scope5db1.jpg

PenGuin1362
March 2nd, 2007, 02:26 PM
not too bad

Sunray
March 2nd, 2007, 02:56 PM
Very good. I approve. The model is very nice. What is it going on?

Caboos001
March 2nd, 2007, 03:02 PM
I’m not entirely sure if I want to put forth the extra effort to create a totally custom sniper rifle, or stick it on an existing ripped model.

PenGuin1362
March 2nd, 2007, 03:22 PM
custom is your friend caboose....custom is your friend

p.s. snaf get online >_>

Caboos001
March 2nd, 2007, 03:29 PM
all you did was smash primitives together. that's not modeling.

Yay someone figured it out! Apart from stating the obvious would you have any real suggestions?

Hunter
March 2nd, 2007, 03:40 PM
my suggestion for snaf is stop being so mean. i think it looks awsome and would help you to make it into a weapon. u got to do the modeling and textureing though lol.

Caboos001
March 2nd, 2007, 03:54 PM
my suggestion for snaf is stop being so mean. i think it looks awsome and would help you to make it into a weapon. u got to do the modeling and textureing though lol.


I dont really see it as being rude, he gave his suggestion and it is true that I just basically smashed some cylinders together lol. But in reality what is a scope other than a cylinder with lenses? As for modeling I dont think we are using the same definition, I am using the word modeling in the context of, a three-dimensional representation of a person or of a proposed structure (the scope), typically a smaller scale than the original.
I would love help in making this a weapon if I do get around to modeling and texturing

WhLh m
March 2nd, 2007, 06:24 PM
my suggestion for snaf is stop being so mean. i think it looks awsome and would help you to make it into a weapon. u got to do the modeling and textureing though lol.It's how Snaf is, you can either accept what he says, or ignore what he says and stop complaining. He has several years of training and school of concept/modeling in his belt, he knows he is talking about.

Aside that, the model is ok. Though I can barely tell what the features are on it. You need to make the features (knobs, screws, etc.) more distinct from the rest of the scope (mainly the metal body/ies).

Leiukemia
March 2nd, 2007, 09:11 PM
Do it again in gmax and with lower polies/less primitives mashed together.

Phopojijo
March 2nd, 2007, 11:48 PM
all you did was smash primitives together. that's not modeling.... yes it is o.o

WhLh m
March 2nd, 2007, 11:49 PM
... yes it is o.oI knew someone was going to come back with that eventually. :p It is modeling, but bad modeling.

Phopojijo
March 2nd, 2007, 11:53 PM
I knew someone was going to come back with that eventually. :p It is modeling, but bad modeling.
No its not.

Whatever method yields the best results with the least amount of effort for the modeler in question is the best method. If he doesn't know how to do cylindrical deforms, plane modeling, or box modeling (God help him for the last two on a scope though...) but he can do booleans well... power to him.

Sure it'll suck when it gets converted to Polygons from NURBs, but if he gets go at what he does... and he makes great objects in his own style... how is it bad?

Technically building bipeds in sections then joining them is all I do when I make bipeds. Sure I stay in polygons... but whatever gets the job done.

Truth be told I think this method's one of the harder methods, and I STARTED in Rhino... but yea, try.

mR_r0b0to
March 2nd, 2007, 11:59 PM
from the looks of your wireframes (and you're using rhino), you're not using an editable mesh/poly.

that's never going ingame (i think) because its so high poly. get gmax or 3ds max and learn to model with them, instead of rhino.

Phopojijo
March 3rd, 2007, 12:10 AM
from the looks of your wireframes (and you're using rhino), you're not using an editable mesh/poly.

that's never going ingame (i think) because its so high poly. get gmax or 3ds max and learn to model with them, instead of rhino.He's not, he's using Rhino which is practically ONLY Nurbs-based. Its exporter is pretty decent at getting fairly low polycounts though. It even smooths the meshes on export. He'll probably need to tweak though once it goes to polygons.

mR_r0b0to
March 3rd, 2007, 12:12 AM
lol, im not familiar with Rhino.. soo heh.

Caboos001
March 3rd, 2007, 01:23 AM
No its not.

Whatever method yields the best results with the least amount of effort for the modeler in question is the best method.

Whatever method yields the best results with the least amount of effort for the modeler in question is the best method.quote]

This is exactly what I was thinking when I was smashing cylinders together lol.
“Hey this looks kind of neat, and I hardly have to do anything!”

Phopojijo
March 3rd, 2007, 03:09 PM
Forgot to mention. You're ultimately going to need to split/combine them all together.

You won't cause an error per say -- if you have faces contained in other faces... that's a source for a LOT of extra triangles.

Example: If I have a crate in a crate in a crate in a crate... and I cannot open said crates (its halo, you can't) There's no reason to have anything but the outside crate.

Likewise -- if I have a box with a cone poking out... I don't want to keep the part of the box's wall thats inside the cone, nor do I want to keep the part of the cone that's inside the box. (bad example, that one would actually create more geometry... but you understand what I mean)

rossmum
March 4th, 2007, 04:31 AM
my suggestion for snaf is stop being so mean. i think it looks awsome and would help you to make it into a weapon. u got to do the modeling and textureing though lol.
No. Just no. If you require a full fucking explanation (which I have to give far too often), then I will comply... but I won't be entirely happy about it. Just stay out of it until you actually learn about constructive crit, for the good of this community and those in it.

As for the scope... the overall shape is rather suited to sci-fi style weapons, but you'll need a less constricting program and a new method of modeling (not to mention less detail) if you hope to get it ingame.

Con
March 4th, 2007, 09:07 PM
Wow, I'm surprised to see someone who uses Rhino. I used to have Rhino as a sort of introduction to modeling, many years ago. If you want to put that scope ingame, it's gonna have to be in polygons, not NURBS. I also agree with snaf, some primitives with a boolean here and there isn't gonna cut it.

Leiukemia
March 4th, 2007, 09:46 PM
Whatever method yields the best results with the least amount of effort for the modeler in question is the best method.quote]


Yeah, except yours isn't yeilding the best results. Sure it's all fine and good to use whatever modelling style to get good results. But to put it simply, your method is NOT getting good results. It's too blatently obvious that it's a bunch of peices mashed together. Learn to use a better program without a bunch of primitives that look like you've barely even modelled.

Phopojijo
March 5th, 2007, 12:37 AM
Yeah, except yours isn't yeilding the best results. Sure it's all fine and good to use whatever modelling style to get good results. But to put it simply, your method is NOT getting good results. It's too blatently obvious that it's a bunch of peices mashed together. Learn to use a better program without a bunch of primitives that look like you've barely even modelled.You quoted the wrong person... that was my post. He just had a glitch quoting me using the forums.

I don't know... I see that model and I used Rhino many many times before.

Its completely possible to make a really really decent scope using the NURBs mesh he created with the nonvisible faces culled.

Hate to say this, but from what I've seen around the forums is that most people cannot visualize what geometry will look like with proper textures. Remember: No-one sees wireframe. Sometimes the most proper wireframe for a task could end up looking like the most ugly one. Many people add too much detail in the geometry... textures is where all the life gets added. You only need a good enough mesh to not distort on animation, and provide an accurate representation of the silhoutte of an object.

I *really* need to make a compare/contrast video of this.

Leiukemia
March 5th, 2007, 12:52 AM
You quoted the wrong person... that was my post. He just had a glitch quoting me using the forums.

I don't know... I see that model and I used Rhino many many times before.

Its completely possible to make a really really decent scope using the NURBs mesh he created with the nonvisible faces culled.

Hate to say this, but from what I've seen around the forums is that most people cannot visualize what geometry will look like with proper textures. Remember: No-one sees wireframe. Sometimes the most proper wireframe for a task could end up looking like the most ugly one. Many people add too much detail in the geometry... textures is where all the life gets added. You only need a good enough mesh to not distort on animation, and provide an accurate representation of the silhoutte of an object.

I *really* need to make a compare/contrast video of this.

Alright, I didn't see that was your quote. And yes I'm sure it is possible to make a decent model with nurbs. He jsut hasn't done so, and I think he would get better results with a differant method.
I don't think you know what you're talking about with the wireframe. If you have a messy mesh on your end product, it means it was messy the whole way through. If you keep it clean, it makes everything easier to change and improve as you model. Wasted polies also come from an imperfect mesh. Smoothing groups can be better applied on a clean model as well. If you keep it clean all the way through, you'll end up with a better end product.

Reaper Man
March 5th, 2007, 06:30 AM
Ooh, NURBS, awesome. I haven't touched NURBS geometry in a while.

Phopojijo
March 5th, 2007, 11:00 PM
Of course it is. This is NOT an example of such. of course, with proper textures, it's much easier to accomplish if it's a continuous mesh, rather than things placed through each other, and you know that.Yes... but using Rhino the easiest method to make a continuous mesh is to start of exactly as he did... then delete the intercepts.

Used Rhino for 3 years... thats how you do anything with that program.