... yes it is o.oQuote:
Originally Posted by SnaFuBAR
Printable View
... yes it is o.oQuote:
Originally Posted by SnaFuBAR
I knew someone was going to come back with that eventually. :p It is modeling, but bad modeling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phopojijo
No its not.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhÎþLå§h ÐÆmØÑ
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mR_r0b0to
lol, im not familiar with Rhino.. soo heh.
Whatever method yields the best results with the least amount of effort for the modeler in question is the best method.quote]Quote:
Originally Posted by Phopojijo
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!”
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)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TLSHunter
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.
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.