Quick-Crit 2008-2009

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sever

No, his battleship isn't. Don't get me wrong, the model's not bad at all, the functionality of the design is simply horrible. If he would've taken an hour to look at actual photos and schematics before trying to model one, the current stage of his product would make sense. I can tell you straight off that none of the turret clusters are even close to being efficient, and the main cannon is just atrociously set up. Seriously, Disaster, take a bit of time to study what you are attempting to emulate - learn how things work, and why they are made that way. Talk to me about it if you need help.

---

Er, I don't think he's trying to emulate any specific battleship in particular :|
I like the design, it looks stylized without regard for practicality. My kind of thing. I make belt fed sniper rifles :downs:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SilentWindPL

Malloy's teleporter thing is pretty neat, just needs some more metallic look to the texture.

Disaster your battleship looks kind of goofy and cartoony, I don't like it very much it's just missing something..

Chains your hammer lacks dimension (I.E. It looks flat and boring.) and the color scheme is off. Theres also too many random brush strokes and the shading is done wrong.. or the attempt at it atleast.

---

You seem to mix up what Im doing here, Im doing a side reference for easy modeling, and front and a top and bottom, why would I make it an annoying angle for the modeler to do? Also painting for this does not require full details such as making it the engravings detailed, as you can tell theyre ingravings, and uh last time I checked paintings are made up of brush strokes. Maybe you should go look at some paintings, and zoom in on them, and youll see random lines, that from far away for things such as fire, clothes, alot of things. Also we already mentioned about color scheme, if you read my post and there was no need to state it again. Please by all means show us some of your recent work and if its better then mine with perspective, shading, dimension, not made out brush strokes, then Ill happily shut up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reaper Man

This whole "fancy camera" thing is a misconception. You don't need a fancy camera to take good photos. A fancy camera, like, say an SLR allows you to be more creative because of technical freedom, as well as producing higher quality images.

Check this guy out, these were taken with a cameraphone. Sure he'll never get good prints from them, but they sure look great online. http://flickr.com/photos/davidhelan/sets/1304592/


Your photos aren't bad, I like the waterfall one and the one of the wood beam.

---

Yeah I know what you mean about the camera, but I've used my friends nice SLR cameras and it definitely feels better. but im obsessed with high res. thats one thing i like about my camera its 12mp so the images are usually really sharp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conscars

Those two are my favourites, especially the first one.

---

Yeah those are two of my favorites too. Thanks for the compliments and crit guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corndogman939

Yeah I know what you mean about the camera, but I've used my friends nice SLR cameras and it definitely feels better. but im obsessed with high res. thats one thing i like about my camera its 12mp so the images are usually really sharp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conscars

Those two are my favourites, especially the first one.

---

Yeah those are two of my favorites too. Thanks for the compliments and crit guys.

---

Megapixels mean nothing. Once you have a camera that's over five megapixels, the others are pretty unnecessary, unless you plan on making really really large prints. 12mp ≠ sharpness, 12mp = higher pixel density = increased noise due to tiny point and shoot sensor (12mp on DSLR used to mean more noise, however, with current generations of DSLR, noise doesn't become a major issue until you start pushing your ISO past 3200 - Nikon D700/D3 are exceptions to this due to full frame sensors). Lens quality is way more important than sensor resolution.

http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/6...eacher1zj3.jpg
http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/4...eacher2gv5.jpg

Haven't started the hair properly yet, and I've gotta hit the team up for the correct shade of everything (not sure on the colour of the leathers). He's sposed to be a kind of "god bless satan!" nutcase cold wierdo preacher, so he's gotta look seedy. He also houses the 2 revolvers I showed in my gallery thread. I also haven't done the gun holsters either yet, not sure if the team wants them ornamented to represent the guns, or just plain old leather or something.

Personally I think whoever on the team did the hi res for the normal map, didn't put much effort into the hair >_>

Looks awesome so far, though the back side looks kinda flat, unless that is going to be changed in game to make it move freely (at least I think that's for a game o.o)

He's very very flat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OmegaDragon

Looks awesome so far, though the back side looks kinda flat, unless that is going to be changed in game to make it move freely (at least I think that's for a game o.o)

---

Coat tails are handled by physics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ßðÐŻÍ££å

He's very very flat.

---

quote for emphasis.
e: skin is decent, but imo it doesn't make up for what is a very boring model. Maybe when he's moving, with the coat tails trailing behind him, but in the default biped working pose it's just... boring. Looks like, fuck how do you spell it, Gumby? Gumbi? He just has that artificial, smoothed-clay feel to him.

Actually the ambient occlusion made him look quite flat, cause it sort of softened the normal map a fair bit, but added a bit of realism to the lighting.

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/5...adelessoy9.jpg

Rendered the same scene, without the ambient occlusion and the textures.