Make sure you read over the Quick-Crit rules posted in the 2008-2009 thread.
Post your current works in progress that may not warrant their own thread but you want crit on anyway.
Printable View
Make sure you read over the Quick-Crit rules posted in the 2008-2009 thread.
Post your current works in progress that may not warrant their own thread but you want crit on anyway.
working on material and posing. Material needs alot more work as of right now.
Your doing the hand grip wrong, it shouldn't be like that, really weird and the ODST could take off his helmet. And yeah your mats need some work.
hmmm....How would you do the hand grip. Also I forgot about the helm part. /facepalm.
So I looked back at the Quick Crit thread of 2010, and I noticed that on the first page I actually attempted to start concept art.
Last night I decided that I will yet again try to make a scene. I'm currently using a technique that a guy once had on YouTube. Basically you're supposed to block out the scene with the color scheme you wish, then go back and keep adding detail until you feel as though its realistic enough or it had the outcome you want.
So far I have been doing the bottom part of the scene. I want to make it have a scifi theme to it in the upper part of the concept.
1 hour and something of work:
http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/n...titled-1-5.png
I hope its not that bad, but crit would be appreciated.
Flesh it out a bit more. you're at that stage where I can't really crit anything yet... As I dont know what you're aiming for entirely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUgQgPfdwdM
timelapse of a little project i made over the course of a few days (~2 hour sessions) mostly to show a friend how to go about 'realistic' texturing (since all he knew was TF2 stuff EH SELENTIC?).
figured i might as well crop all the captured footage into a timelapse for people to watch.
thoughts appreciated. I'm going to try to change the smoke to a grayish tint instead of black unless people thing otherwise. there is also a light that is having a tough time showing up that appears near the fire, so I have to work on getting that to constantly display.
http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/957/goodheadi.jpg
first go at human faces. going to try and do more ethnicities, and dreading an asian face due to their epicanthic fold. that complicates my mesh.
bad bad snaf!
Starting to learn how to use Trackview in Sandbox2.
If anyone can find some good videos showing fighter tricks such as air shows and what not that would be appreciated as I've never really been too interested in air shows before.
Animation is a little jittery but with some more work this should work out pretty well.
Location of the animation may change so I wouldn't be too concerned about how the animation splices through the valley.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C64LuPl4wE
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/7067/head1e.jpg
meh, getting closer.
http://oi51.tinypic.com/jrr7f9.jpg
These regions dont look right to me. It seems to me that the eye lid areas should flow more seamlessly into the temple
Hard to tell from this angle, but the face also looks somewhat flat.
smooth out the area where the nose starts. the change from forehead to nose should be more gradual. also, the cheek bones are a tad high. and the cheeks are sunken. thats whyh you've getting those sharp and slightly feminine features bellow the nose.
face is anything but flat, and in fact follows the outline of my face very closely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
change from the forehead to the nose is perfectly fine and is actually a trace of my own. however, from under the eyes to the nose was unfit, as well as above the nostrils. Cheekbones aren't high, and, according to the zygomatic bone/arch on anatomy charts, they're in line. i'll take another look at the sunken cheeks and see if it's too much, but i feel like they're helping to define the cheekbones without the 3/4 profile becoming caricature.Quote:
Originally Posted by roosterMAP
also, i went ahead and smoothed out the transition from the eyes to the temples. no more goggle look.
Like I said, hard to tell at that angle, even with the wire-mesh laid over.
snaf thats a terrible piece of modelling and you know it
Oh god, the ears.
Fucking around with a design for a hallway.
Y/n?!??!?!?
http://www.majhost.com/gallery/renta...odels/zor3.jpg
Or maybe something like this instead?
The transitions within the red, circled, areas seems a bit off to me. Especially along the wall where the curvature strikes a direct flat top. On the main-middle part of the ceiling, it seems that that material doesn't necessarily fit in such a direct cut in from the bridging areas connecting it to the side walls. Maybe bevel or inset it a little bit so it adds a border along the sides, but not at the ends. The UV's at the very end of the hallway, where the wall meets the door, are strange. I'm guessing that's because you just created those faces/polygons.
The areas in the very top left of your picture is just a perspective thing. It actually looks like this. I'll see what I can do with the area where the curved walls hit the ceiling though, thanks.
Curved walls? Forerunner? Looks very strange, see below.
I was thinking something like that, but a lot thicker and also extending to the ground. Also keep the ramped base like you had here:Quote:
Originally Posted by rentafence
Quote:
Originally Posted by rentafence
The "hitler" section of the upper lip seems like it should be a bit wider.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnaFuBAR
Planning on adding brow wrinkles or will that be in the bumps/normals? assuming you're going to do bumps/normals
It looks pretty spot on. For your next attempt snaf I strongly suggest jumping into zbrush. It will make the whole work flow like 10,000 times easier, truly a remarkable program. Then from there you can take the mesh into 3D Coat and bring the head down to a mid poly level. Awesome sub-d job though
I've got Mudbox, so I'll attempt that firstly. Other than that, I've gotten the base for the helmet done, and I'll probably rework the topology of the skull to have the edges flowing towards the ear, rather than wrapping around the head. I was also considering retopo after sculpt with the graphite tools.
http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/9442/3head.jpg
oh god snaf, that face >_<
regular fire seems like it needs more "oomph" to it. The burst fire seems good though.
Yeah, pistol slides whip back so fast you almost don't even see it. Almost, though. You can see it, just not so clearly.
Actually I always slow down the cycling in my animations a little bit. I like it to be very visible
Also depends upon the pistol. 1911 actions are much slower than beretta 92's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
True. But it also depends on what manufacture of 1911 you are using. Some have lighter slides and/or heavier recoil springs. It's quite variable. I just feel like that animation was too slow even for a 1911.
Having fired a 1911 myself, the slide is still a lot faster than in that video. Pistols should recoil with a quick, jerk-snap motion in the hand, as well. By no means should it be a smooth motion. Recoil needs to be a visceral experience for the player, it makes shooting more fun. Bad company 2 is a great example of this.
Jesus christ guys. I told you I slow it down intentionally.
And ExAm, there is so much more to the "experience" than animation. If you looked at bad company 2's pistol firing animation, the recoil is extremely light. Its the sound, camera wobbling, particles, and environmental effects that make the "experience". I cannot capture all of that with animation alone.
I also don't understand why gaming companies don't add random movement to the shooting (moving the arm up / down / left /right)...or even better to every animation. Imagine a fighting game where all animations look unique :D
Sure, but the slide pops back into place at the right speed. I'm not saying it should be heavy, it should just be quick.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICEE
It might be interesting if done via overlay, but when firing in fully automatic you are essentially repeating one animation over and over in quick succession (usually), or in the case of your idea it would be multiple animations. Therefore it could come out with some jerky results if animation A following animation B is the "opposite" of its predecessor. If that makes any sense. Basically it could be done, possibly should be done, but it seems like most devs don't want to bother with making it seamless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrickssj6
^ Bad Company and Bad Company 2 try to mask this with their animations as they seem lively and jumpy I've noticed. Still their animations are crisp and well done.
Screen shake is an inexpensive way to provide the illusion of randomized firing animations. It works. While I do appreciate the finer details of a game more than most, that is one of those things where I honestly don't care. I'm too busy shooting, admiring the lighting, or being dead.
I have to agree. FP animations are only a small fraction of the whole experience.
To me, FP Animations are a big big part of the game because you see them all the time. I'm not going to be bothered by one textural error or something because it's in only one area. The animations are in front of me all. the. time. If they aren't good then my experience actually suffers because it just becomes boring when my gun doesn't even look like it's shooting or reloading, or like they were made by someone who isn't even a professional to a point there's clipping and other obvious errors.
The main point is that it's all personal preference though.
Oh I'm not saying they can look like crap. I agree that if the animation is terrible, then the experience is ruined. However, with one or two good firing animations you can create a good experience and make it even better with inexpensive solutions such as screen shake. Just changing the perspective at which you view an animation slightly can alter how the whole thing looks. It works.
I know all too well how screen shaking makes animations "look" better but they really aren't. All the time on Youtube I see inexperienced CS:S animators posting animations, and then making the camera go wild to a point that people comment "OMG THIS IS SO COOOL AND AWESOME GOOD JOB" when in reality it's easy to see through the tricks and notice the animation is really bad.
It really shouldn't be a tool that animators should fall back on, but rather a nifty little trick to make a good animation even better as you've said.
at the same time though, theres a big difference between the screen shake that is emulated by the animator, and the shake that is set up automatically by the game. When done right, it can really look good. Most animators on the youtubes just dont do it well.
Critique please:
The pose looks a bit stiff, and it's not a terribly interesting perspective, but I can't see any gigantic flaws. Though there is something about the camera left arm that's bugging me.
I see what you are saying. I think the left forearm might be a bit longer than the right forearm; it's hard to tell at that angle. It's the subtle things that are really hard to execute and I'm trying to work on that.
Anybody else have anything to critique on it? Seriously trying to improve my drawing ability here. It's been kind of stagnant for over a year and a half now.
I think the foreshortening on the right forearm needs a bit of love. Otherwise, great.
High poly sherman tank for a project. There's a few issue that were pointed out to me, like the weird lines created by the lighting. Also i need to make the coaxial machine guns high poly, right they're just place holders and totally forgot to finish them.
http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/6...ntleftpres.jpg
http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/6619/shermanback.jpg
http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/4382/shermanpres.jpg
Holy hell
Bang up job right there.
It looks awesome Penguin. What course are you doing? Because on haloripsmaps you said it's for your course.
I might as well post mine up as my assignment seems to be the same as Penguin's for my course lol. I'm doing the T-28 Heavy Tank. Mainly because it's HUGE and beasty looking :P
Here is a image of the actual tank first:
http://www.johnsmilitaryhistory.com/t28c.jpg
And render, will get more when finished. It's getting there now.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../17/T-28-1.jpg
http://www.the-blueprints.com/bluepr...tank-33210.jpg
I believe the title "Fortress Buster" is applicable here. Well done so far.
Great job on the tanks guys. :)
I really am liking it so far. Btw, what schools are you guys doing this for? :o
While on the subject of tanks/mobile armor/ etc. Someone should model a Stryker APC with the M1128 Mobile Gun System:
http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en...s/262_a317.jpg
It's like the Mako from Mass Effect, only scarier.
hunter, pay attention to the radii and construction of the objects on the rear. you have them totally wrong. it's easy to slap similar shapes on something, but that's not impressive. getting the details right is what counts.
radii?
I did have all of the suspension in originally, but lecturer's said i should take it out as tbh it isnt seen unless of course, the ingame asset took damage and lost the detachable treads.
I'm studying at Staffordshire University.
I will take your advice into account for next model thanks Snaf :) Ive gotta get it done and get the lowpoly done ect and stuff, and still have another 2 modules to start lol. It's only INTRO to 3D Modelling, so at the moment this flys through.
The PP2000 I did got 100/100 for the model and overall I got 95.85% for that module. :P
jesus fucking christ
make a leopard 2a7 and i'll suck your cock
e: just realized you were making it for a class, shouldn't have asked
Look at the angles of the detail. Yours is consistent in the back almost at a parallel to the y axis while the actual is actually not. The radii of the gear box(?) (looks like it but not sure. It could just be where the engine axial.) is not the right size. Some holes seem too small. Length proportion seems off on some parts. The rear of the thread guard is not a 90 degree angle. looks more like 45, 45, 90 triangle is cut out at the end. (just to further elab on snaf's pay closer attention to details.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter
Alright cheers, will do next time. Abit late now as time is getting short.
Just afew more images, more or less finished.
http://i.imgur.com/bk5Zy.jpgp
This bit was rather awkward to make, has got a weird shape, lecturer was struggling to get it looking right. I managed to do it though:
http://i.imgur.com/rNREf.jpg
And this isn't 100% but it will be fine:
http://i.imgur.com/1drII.jpg
They are just some random closeups I did, enjoying the viewport AO and Shadows :P This module is only an Intro to 3D Modelling still, smoothey are expecting box's with error's everywhere so not worrying. Main marks come from the lowpoly, bake and textures. And finally in UT3. :)
I rather like the outcome of the tank though, just needs sex renders when it's done.
Man, I need to get some modeling done. :/
Defo, do it :)Quote:
Originally Posted by BobtheGreatII
Just found this thread with that tank you wanted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boba
http://eat3d.com/forum/art-gallery/3d-models
Also, just two more views of it:
http://i.imgur.com/fallV.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/98gtA.jpg
Again with what snaf said, you have a lot of details which look like they were all just slapped together and don't fully represent the shape or function of what they're really for. And rethink your method for those bolts on the side, that's a rather deep hole for a normal in the first place, there's a better way to go about doing that. Granted there isn't time to finish before the end of the assignment however these are things you'll need to fix for future work
Okay cheers. 90% of the attachments are welded on lol. And the bolts are rather deep on side as I just emphasised the depth to get a decent normal from them :PQuote:
Originally Posted by PenGuin1362
Oh dang! Hunters cranking something out! I need to upgrade my computer more so it can handle tri's/poly's like yours.
Been working on a scene for a while and a texture. I'm really wanting some crit on the texture. I thought I was getting somewhere, but I'm not sure yet. I followed Timothee's A Look at Hard Surface Texturing for Videogames. As for the alley, I feel there is something missing as of now. If someone would like to contribute, I'd be happy with that as well.
First is the scene. It's like alley like scene.
Attachment 1990
Attachment 1991
Then here's the texture I've made.
Attachment 1992
Attachment 1993
working on this:
after a few hours, i'm on this:
idk, it seems a bit off to me in places, but at the same time, the concept isn't really perspective-correct (the front is completely out of whack)
anyone shed some light on this shit?
things i'm aware of is the piece at the back above the wing is extended a little too far, and the 2 front panels dont flow properly.
Personally, I think that the concept is displaying a vehicle that is low and sleek. You're model though seems to give the feeling that it is more bulky and "tall" looking.
http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/n...reslimo1-1.png
Oh and for the dark blue comment, I meant to show that the vent that is casing those things should be much lower.
Btw, I like it so far. :)
Keep showing progress for this, because most people don't around here. :p
neuro, your making it so it will look beast either way :P
Been working on unwrapping a model I've been working on and I've hit a snag, according to the UV editor everything looks fine but when I try to eport a template or render to texture there's some pretty bad UV's with some stretched verts.
http://i54.tinypic.com/rbgtpe.png
sounds like you've got a selection on your mesh under your unwrap UVW, which makes only the selection show up.
make sure you're not in any subselection mode (vert/face/edge/etc) under your unwrap.
@Neuro, I've double checked that and the error still pops up for what ever reason.
On something different I'm trying to get some texture masking going so I can layer different materials on a model.
The issue is if I use a layer mask, the motion blur applied to the texture below ends up affecting the layer mask itself.
I've uploaded a video to show what I mean.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPmoicIATwM
I'm sure it's probably something stupidly simple going wrong but I barely know my way around Photoshop.
Click and drag the mask to another layer, apply the filter, and move it back.
Life drawing assignment, photo replication
http://i.imgur.com/xGZX1.jpg
Convincing enough?
The contour lines are a bit too evident in places they shouldn't be due to lighting/shadow, and the anatomy where the posterior and the leg meet is a bit funny. The shadow on her right foot almost makes it look like it's facing the wrong way - I think it's a bit too large, should be more light where the top is; the curvature of it where it transitions to her shin also seems to throw it off. Not sure how to fix it without experimenting.
Generally it's pretty good. I don't have the reference photo to compare to, so I'm just going off of what I know of anatomy.
I checked the stuff you said, and it's all exactly how it is in the photo, except for the lines. I put them there to differentiate it from the background in places where anything else just muddled together into an indistinguishable mess. They aren't anywhere inside the figure at all.
Like I said, I don't have the reference. It just looks funny to me; maybe she just has a funny figure, maybe it's the angle; nobody is perfect.
As for the lines: if you can't see them in the picture but can still make out what is what, then it's a tonality thing. You should aim to replicate the effect without using the contour lines. If the tonality is applied accurately, the viewer will understand what he is looking at. If it looks like a blob, that's usually because there isn't enough contrast where there is a tonal difference. I'm not saying you did a bad job, it's actually much cleaner than anything I've put up anywhere (18x24 is not easy to scan), but you shouldn't have to rely on the contour line as a crutch. I especially like what you did with the shadow on her shin and on her left thigh, though.
We're all always learning. That's what assignments are for. Blend the contour lines in a bit more and they become more believable. Eventually they disappear altogether. Ultimately, one starts a drawing by making a very rough, light outline and then straight-up applying tone down, removing excess, that way there are no contour lines at all.
It was a quick, last minute choice to define the outsides a bit more. Looks perfectly fine in normal light, but my cellcam makes it way too obvious.
little late obviously
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3332789/Amnesia/Obs/Pillar.png
Those legs, they have no definition sel. And its back, needs more than just a curved line. If you want to keep doing fur art like this, at least get used to human anatomy and then adding fur to it.
Edit: And the left foot is kind of angled awkward if she's meant to be walking.
she?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwood
lol
also no, he's not walking, what is definition
Wait, that's a he? really? reaaaaally now? If you're serious then you'll want to use more defined and sharper edges. when draweringering your porn.
you do realize I'm drawing retarded
can you please explain what you're telling me to do in terms I would understand
what does defined mean, and why would I want to use sharper edges
The face is too round is basically what he's saying. The body is definitely male, as it lacks hips of any kind. It also has a very flat back.
hold on let me reference myselfQuote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
I have hips
and a dick
am I a herm
Change the eyes and the face. Should be more rough, sharper edges. Edit: When drawing fur-men use more angles. Exaggerate them. And, make the arms a bit more defined. Also, if you're awkward with drawing hands, make the fingers, and the palm-area match- fingers are the same length as the palm. Draw a LOT of hands until you feel less awkward with them, because I know that the way you're drawing them now, there's no way you don't feel awkward.
Here's bake and diffuse of the tank. Tri count came to 13720
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/7372/m4sfl.jpg
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/7608/m4stop.jpg
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/2687/m4sbr.jpg
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/2753/m4snormals.jpg
Now you are being unreasonable. I would have said it was male even if it had hips, so long as they weren't typical female-width. Go read some anatomy books or get out.Quote:
Originally Posted by NVOUS
oh don't worry I'm way ahead of you lol
neat tank penguin, aside from the baking errors on the front side things, and most of the body looking like it's made out of that ridiculously bumpy material that plastic kiddie pools are made of. Also the texture is pretty boring, surely you can bend realism a bit and use more than 2 colours?
yeah I hate the way the cast metal look came out. I took it into zbrush (as I should have from the start) and started to make a texture that makes more sense rather than, as my professor put it, an orange peal look. I'm still working on the diffuse, got some good crit the other day on ways to make it better, I'll see how it goes.
fix your bake errors
aside from the one on the tread guard is anyone noticing them anywhere else?
thats what i could make out, the rest could be idden due to compression, or they cn even be CAUSED by compression, idk.
regardles, fix em.
I think a few of those you're noticing to be actual details. the thing in front of the hatch is a detail as are those lines on the turret (except for the area around the hole, that's another error). The others one you pointed out I now notice as well. Thanks. Will post updated renders with more diffuse and normal work soon. more crit the better.
Aside from the things on the side which I can't make out, everything he circled looks like a bake error to me.
yes. thank you for reiterating what i already know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PenGuin1362
np uqt : )Quote:
Originally Posted by PenGuin1362
