Halo 4 Battle Rifle WIP
OLD Pics, if you interested in seeing more, I post a blog style thread on Polycount.com for this BR.
Click links to expand (Warning: Huge)
Expand
Expand
Expand
Expand
Printable View
Halo 4 Battle Rifle WIP
OLD Pics, if you interested in seeing more, I post a blog style thread on Polycount.com for this BR.
Click links to expand (Warning: Huge)
Expand
Expand
Expand
Expand
You made that?
Ehhh. It's okay I guess. Judging by the wire frame it's very messy. And a lot of things didn't stay close to the actual halo 4 battle rifle. The grip looks difficult to hold. Over all I think you could use a look back at the original and fix some stuff up.
It's a subdivision surface model, it's topology does not matter as long as the surface is smooth and free of artifacts. You wouldn't put this model in any game, it's over 3 million polygons. I am going to bake a normals map from it though after I make a low poly model, maybe let the community use it.
As for the innacuracies, can you name a few you see specifically? It's hard to make a good model when you don't get any accurate modeling sheets, or even a good 360 degree view. I could only go off of a few press shots and some video frames from the vidoc.
Lol
You must be new here so I'll go easy on you. Yes. I'm quite aware of how a high poly model works. Are you aware of how baking normals and making a low poly works? Here's my Halo 4 Battle Rifle:
From what I can see on my phone. Your grip has some major awkward shapes to it. Your scope doesn't follow the design very well at all. Your stock has some seriously odd shapes as compared to the original and is over all far too fat. Your bolt is far too small. How do you expect anyone to be able to pull that back? Your ammo counter is too square. Those are just a few to start.
There are a lot of renders of the H4 BR out there. Google is your friend. Also it may come as a shock. But it does matter how you have the pollys set up on the model. Subdivided or not. It's much easier to work with a mesh if you keep things clean. No one wants to see a messy wire frame. And there's certainly no point in wasting time doing it the wrong way.
BobII puts it exactly right. Topology DOES matter, especially when it comes down to normals and (correct me if I'm wrong, still learning) creating a nice Unwrap. As BobII said too, you have a lot of wrong proportions. It's not a bad model per say, but it's not that accurate for what you're referencing.
I see no issue with his wireframe, it'll bake fine unless you're retarded at making the lowpoly. Nice work on both of you guy's models.
@Mech, @Amit, Thanks for the kind words.
@DarkHalo, If you are making a High Poly for a normals map, you are most likely not going to unwrap it. Only the low poly model gets unwrapped. As mech said, there is nothing wrong with the wireframe.
On a side note, Even most movie assets that are kept at that density these days don't get unwrapped most of the time, but rather projected and blended UVs.
As for topology, N-Gons are a tool, not an exception to some fictional 'strictly quads only' rule. The low poly needs more stringent topology considerations, that's true.
Yes I am, and if you don't mind, I would like to offer some crits on your model.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobtheGreatII
You didn't mention whether your goal was to bake a normals map from your model, but in it's current state I wouldn't recommend it, as your edges are way too thin.
They will show up as only a few pixels in width even on the highest resolution textures, and will become pixel soup at any stage lower in the mip-chain. In general, thicker edges also just read better in CG.
Here is an in depth explanation.
Also, some of the shapes on your barrel and on various bevels throughout your model would be better suited for normals if they contained less right angles.
Explanation
There are certain features which I decided to exaggerate for the sake of making a more intersting model. The goal wasn't to completely recreate the BR.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobtheGreatII
As for propotortions, thank you for the crits, some of the proportions on my model (a WIP, BTW) do come off as awkward. I am still working on the stock. (I am close to finishing my High Poly model :iamafag:)
Here is a better look at the Grip from an earlier stage of the model:
There is no need to be condescending.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobtheGreatII
For this model, I am practicing modeling without the use of floaters, and as such, the topology will be messy, but the model is more accurate as a result, I will get less projection skewing and the AO will bake more accurately. In the end, no one will see the topology, especially through the bake on a low poly.
oh wow.
this should be good.
That's the first I've seen of the H4 Battle Rifle. Is it really that ugly?
See above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Computron
:allears:
As Bungie would say:
http://i.imgur.com/Bd0xO.gif
Well that pretty much sums up the maturity I figured you had.
By comparison his edges are much nicer, bob. Yours are definitely tight. You don't want realistic look edges on a high poly model because it will create aliasing in your normal map that AA will not fix. The proper procedure for a high poly model is to have softer (or wider, as racer points out) edges. For arguments sake here he seems to know what he's doing. Overall I really don't like the design of this new BR in the first place. With the design aside, the modeling looks fine and I'm interested in seeing how the bake and texture some out.
In terms of floaters they definitely save time and are a common practice however, no one says you have to use them and it's definitely good practice to learn how to model a high poly without floaters. Especially since you have no time constraints on a personal project
Thanks Penguin, if you interested in seeing more, I post a blog style thread on Polycount.com for this BR.Quote:
Originally Posted by PenGuin1362
There is nothing wrong with Computron's mesh. It's very well done.
Looks like the guys on poly count also think your edges are too loose.
^^Quote:
Originally Posted by Pooky
Also edges look fine to me too.
model looks fine and this guy's got talent you need to smoke a bowl bob
:gnu:
They do lean on the softer end, but they'll still catch light better than if they were too tightQuote:
Originally Posted by BobtheGreatII
Never did I say the guy didn't have talent. It's not like some average Joe can model stuff. Just trying to help a guy out. I don't have to be nice in order to get a point across.
Man, that gnu looks so chill...
it's not necessary, but you'll receive a much more respectful response that way.. it's just interesting how polycount, a community bursting at the seams with professionals has no problem with having a much friendlier, less competetive tone, while still managing to give valid feedback about mistakes, whereas Modacity and the entire halo modding community in general is the polar opposite.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobtheGreatII
so many nasty art snobs out there who feed off of delicious internet drama to help them feel better about themselves!
but what do I know I'll never be a professional artist in the industry. my opinions are invalid ;}
Lol. I think modacity rubs off on you. We're all a bit hostile.
You dont have to be a good artist to observe the truth. Not only do they give good feedback, but the community actually gets shit done. Real artists are the ones that show respect for new people and makes them feel comfortable. I know some people on here that are great artist, but most are just full of talk and show 100 percent negative tone in their comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by t3h m00kz
So I lined it up with a screenshot from the Vidoc and did my best to match the FOV and perspective:
Those environments (thought they are WIP) lack inspiration and originality. :(
Have you seen the Vidoc? Warhouse looks pretty cool outside of this screen. They got a huge under-construction mech in the map and (from their description) a gorgeous space skybox, the map is next to a gas giant and an asteroid field. (they haven't shown screens of this yet)
What are some other cool space maps similar to this? I loved Orbital in Halo 3.
It's not a space map, but Warehouse looks a shitton like Countdown aesthetically.
It's warhouse.
Countdown is all made of concrete, I would say it looks more like Condemned, or Anchor 9. I was thinking more along the lines of other games, not halo though.
< mfw people think they know the entirety of the map from a couple of quick clips
I honestly can't tell the difference between a halo 4 map and an ut3 map
this is not a good thing.
too bad ut3 was fucking amazing
Yeah, both UT3 and Halo are awesome, so why is it a problem if one resembles the other (even if that resemblance is debatable at best).
Also, judging the look of the H4 maps from what has been released so far is completely ridiculous in the first place xP The instant skepticism vibe I get from this forum worries me sometimes.
I'm not reading this entire thread, but I saw a comment about how tight your edges are. And to be fair, your edges are WAY too "slack". There is too tight, and there is too slack. And I see your also on modacity ay as well as 405th :P Hey again lol.
I'm sure I told you that on 405th though, about your edges? There are inaccuracies but tbf slight changes dont matter too much. I too modelled mine (which im going to post in a min) was modelled from screencaps from the video, but then I later got linked to some renders that where leaked which simply saved time as they where much clearer.
Im not from the 405th. :-P
Can you post the leaked renders? I don't think there are leaked one, there were really high res ones posted to the xbox press site (5160x3840 res!)
here comes the threat-ender:
i'd say this is the best one i've seen posted on modacity to date.
there's still stuff that can be done better, but only if i wanted to be a complete anal perfectionist about it.
too bad the design is still retarded.
and as you all know, my (and snaf's) word on this stuff is final.
also, this belongs in teh studio.
I may be wrong, but aren't you the one that uses chamfer instead of turbosmooth to make your high polys? My apologies if I'm mistaken, but if you are, you must be joking if you think you know enough to help this guy out--if anything he should be trying to help you.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobtheGreatII
Computron, personally I'd only listen to neuro or snaf when it comes to modeling and asking for crit around here. Most everyone else on this site that have even a modicum of talent are pretentious as fuck and don't really know what they're doing.
No. I stopped using chamfers forever ago dude. Since working with the CMT stuff I haven't used anything like that. But thanks for being an ass lol. I use nurbs for everything. The problem I was having before was that I was using chamfer and then smoothing. Instead of using edge loops because I wasn't sure how to go about it to be honest. But I had to look around. But I finally got it down. So since the dropped scorpion model I was doing I think I've been doing okay. At least the CMT stuff has come out nicely.
I'm sorry I seemed to offend so many of you. Can we move on?
My mistake, I mean 343 forum. My username on there is "martynball".Quote:
Originally Posted by Computron
And here:
Also, not from the 343 forum.
Those are the screens I was talking about, they aren't leaked though. Here are Higher res official ones, located under artwork. (warning 50mb each)
I have only posted this work on polycount, neogaf and here.
Thanks for the kind words.Quote:
Originally Posted by neuro
I don't post on Modacity much, and if you look at this thread, its pretty evident why.
A lot of sentences written to disclaim previous pretentiousness. Very few sentences with legitimate criticism.
You can slowly see this thread devolve.
Why does anyone here talk as though they are the "final word" on anything?
It seems to me that if its necessary to disclaim every other sentence, there is a problem with the community.
I think YOUR work looks awesome Nuero, but what is the purpose of saying anything like that on any subjective matter? Let words stand on their own merit.
Now i'm :smith:.
I think it looks great (as a Halo 4 BR can), but I can hardly model a box.
The vets here have spent the better part of 10 years modding this engine, they know what needs to be done and how it needs to be done. So that kinda goes to their heads, which is unfortunate because this is probably the only modding community I know of where potential new talent is greeted with hostility instead of (legitimate) critique and advice.
You should probably spend more time modeling less terrible source material though. Or at least take some artistic liberties and fix the dumb grip. Alos move the scope forward about 3 notches on the "rail" so it's in the "correct" position for best eye relief.
Maybe its the fact that I worked on the BR for a few days, but I like the design.
I'm not really all that gun literate, so the ergonomics don't really make themselves evident as they do with other people that are bothered by them.
There is still room for improvement though. :downs:
I have to spoke to you somewhere and seen a thread, other than Polycount, must of been neogaf :S
Anyway, looking back at your wireframe your topology does look rather messy and actually rather awkward. The topology CAN sometimes affect the model, not by causing errors but due to how TurboSmooth sub divides the polygons.
Also, at the argument about who should have the final say, I will just let you know that neuro is a 3d artist for a living... nuff said.
And Computron, look at my wireframe. It's nice and neat (To a point) and makes sense. But I will say I really do like your grip, really nice.
Not the point, I said I liked his work, he sounds reasonable. I don't want this to be misconstrued.
Saying your "word is final" is just not constructive for a subjective matter or conducive to good discussion.
Just like t3h m00kz was saying when he was comparing this forum to polycount. The whole mood is different.
You got some clean wires.
I understand what n-gons can do to your model, but as previously said, I incorporated a lot of shapes and (what would normally be accomplished through floaters) straight into the mesh for practice. N-gons can be a nice tool as well.
This whole area would be pretty hard to incorporate with clean topo, which I presume is why you decided to float it:
Here's mine:
Concept:
I could spend more time and get it perfect, but in the end, that's what n-gons are for. As long as you got no artifacts or smoothing errors.
You got a nice model, can you post a non wireframe, lit version?
You've got talent. I see a lot of Halo weapons, but I barely see any Mass Effect weapons. Try taking a crack at those, the Mattock rifle and Eviscerator shotgun immediately come to mind for me.
I never mentioned n-gons. They are fine in some cases, zBrush doesn't like them really. But the area you pointed out is pretty simple to add into the mesh with clean topology, I just couldnt be bothered :P As how ive done the bake will come out more or less the same.
I'd love to see some Mass Effect style weapons for CE, especially if you could somehow combine them with the backpack weapons mod and make "expanding" and "collapsing" animations for the weapons when switching.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeKup
because otherwise every thread continues to devolve into a pissing contest where people go 'hurr no i stopped using chamfers long ago' like it matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Computron
especially when hunter opens his trap, you should stop reading.
someone's gotta keep these fucks in line.
but who keeps you in line? :aaaaa:
Probably the game studio he works for.
Whatever happened to snaf anyways
He got married and had a few little snafs with artistic disaster.Quote:
Originally Posted by t3h m00kz
I doubt she could handle is dick. Me yes, her? God no.
Ontopic: I'd actually like to see you model the M-29 Incisor sniper rifle as well, visually its one of my favorite weapons from mass effect.
meQuote:
Originally Posted by Donut
he's my bitch
I personally can't stand the look of the majority of the Mass Effect weapons/vehicles :/Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeKup
@Teek.
That's why it's called "breaking her in".
this also.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainbow Dash
You guys are strange.... :raise:
You don't know the half of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Computron
Be wary of posting your work on this forum sir, bad things are bound to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Computron
Welcome to Modacity. If its any consolation, I'm looking forward to more of what you can do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Computron
Honestly...RUN BEFORE THEY TAKE YO-Quote:
Originally Posted by Computron
YOU CAN'T SAY CANDLEJACK OR HE'LL COME TAKE YOU AWA-
Just a warning: there's a ghost haunting these threads. :ghost:Quote:
Originally Posted by Computron
I got some more time to work on it and got a low poly with a quick and dirty test bake with some shitty auto-unwrapped UVs, lots of ray misses and interpenetration to sort out, later.
Obviously, nowhere near the final bake. :p
I got my boy Xoliul shadin' da pixels, with qualified normals in max 2012.
It's missing certain assymetrical elements, and for whatever reason some of the elements shade darker than the rest. This will most likely all be fixed after I get a proper set of UVs on this puppy. :)
This will all be sorted out later this week, I got more finals. :(
Butt-Maddle Rifle
Nice!
shiiiitttttttt you need to put MOAR polies in your round parts.
we don't want to see no cylinder-edges! it's supposed to be RROUNNDDDDD
this is 2012, not 3 years ago.
put some polies into that fucker!!!
ESPECIALLY in the scope-area, considering that shit'll be RIGHT IN YOUR FACE!
your 8-sided barrel fills me with polyrage
Yup, already did.
Also, if I was to release this low poly for use in Halo 1/2 for PC, what polycount should I stay around? Any hard limit I should know about?
not really a hard limit.
if you're going for halo1, i'd say stick around 3-4000, and nobody gives a fuck about halo2 anyway so why bother.
there's no normalmap support out of the box for halo CE, you're going to want to use OpenSauce to add normalmap support to it if you're going for that direction.
in which case, you might as well bump up the polycount, since with OS you can remove (or bump up) the limit for maximum # of triangles to be able to be rendered at any point by the engine.
Well, most members (pun intended) have been around in one way or another (again, pun intended) since 2004-6. So yes, we are weird, but its mostly just from over familiarity with the other users (once again, pun intended).Quote:
Originally Posted by Computron
Hmmm, not sure what to think about Max 2013 yet, but i'm not really happy with it so far. The Nitrous IBL (and shader support) was not what I had hoped for, and there are hardly any modeling additions. :smith:
I wonder what Luxology has been up to for the past decade? *checks out modo*
I should have some time to get back to work on the low poly model this weekend though (haven't touched it since the last update)...
One day we should all rename ourselves as something different and take no signatures and try interacting. That would be interesting.
BR looks nice. The viewport rendering looks rather nice, I might have a look at max2013
You think so?
Here's a better shot:
I like it! Lots of detail, yet, not so chaotic.
More test bakes, stock has Temporary UVs:
Imported into Crysis 2:
Question. Are any of the Halo Game Renderer's Synced to any Baker for a normal map tangent basis or do you guys just split your UVs/smoothing groups/add supporting geo?
That... looks amazing. 2.4 Million tris...
How many can Halo render on the screen at max? Maybe 60,000? :/
I don't think you understand the concept behind High-poly to normal map workflow.
That's the triangles in the 3ds Max scene. (I.E the high-poly version)
The Low poly Br is around 7000 with a normals map. (The one that goes in the game)
The low poly will retain most of the detail of the low poly at a much lower performance cost.
You got some nasty non planars fucking up your normal.
On the stock? Yeah, those are temporary UVs/smoothing groups. Still test baking.
hoaerse shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by mech
non-planar faces havent got a damn thing to do with it, whoever started that bandwagon needs to get shit.
the reason he gets fucked shading, is because he's got very sharp smoothing angles (which happens when you try to smooth stuff like a 90-degree angle)
first you have to keep in mind that smoothing is a mathematical operation, and your normalmap only has a range of about 128 pixels (one way) you'll always get some smoothing-bleeding on extreme smoothing angles.
then in addition to that, when you bake stuff, it uses a specific algorithm, to bake vectors.
when your engine reverses that process, it needs to follow the same algorithm (what computron mentioned with synched)
this has to do with the way your 3d application/engine calculates vertex normals.
if they're even SLIGHTLY off, you'll get normal-bleeding.
UDK allows you to get around this by allowing importing vertexnormals from FBX-format (Assuming you export with explicit normals) and your normalmaps will display perfectly.
because it used MAX-baked normalmaps, on MAX-based vertexnormals.
i know that BRINK for example was synched to Maya-baked normalmaps, so all we had to do was bake our stuff in maya, and it'd all work perfectly fine without normal-bleeding.
as a general rule-of-thumb.
split your smoothinggroups for 90-degree angles.
split your UV's for any smoothing-breaks.
those 2 guidelines WILL fix 90% of your average normalmapping issues.
edit: you can also download the 3-point-shader for max, which has a quality-normal modifyer, which will synch your mesh' vertexnormals to the vertexnormals the shader is based on, and give you 'correct' normalmap display. (no silly bleeding) and you can get away with far sharper smoothing crap. (because the normalmap will compensate CORRECTLY)
(but will not get rid of pixel-artifacts i mentioned before)
back to the whole """"non-planar"""" issue because people just LOVE throwing that term around.
the ONLY reason these are considered unpreferential. is that your exporter might not triangulate them the same way your bake-app does, resulting in just plain wrong bakes.
so whne you've got your final cage set up and make your final bake, triangulate your mesh.
in general you would already do this for curved surfaces where you have an intended curvature (like the grip in this place)
Oh I see. 7000 should be good for going in-game for CE.Quote:
Originally Posted by Computron
Yup, Neuro is right. Most of those problems are because the Shitty Auto unwrapped UVs and smoothing groups I had when I took those shots. As I mentioned earlier, I was using Xoliul 2.0 Shader with qualified normals (and also tried 3-point), and it still gave me those shading errors from most angles, so having a synced renderer doesn't solve everything, but helps tremendously.
I put some more time in and got all my seams in the right spots (Green lines are the seams):
These type of hard surface assets end up having a ton of UV Islands and are a pain in the ass to unwrap. And the concept artist put a lot of concave 90 degree features in the gun which only exacerbates the problem. I still gotta go back and fix the ray misses and re-pack the UVs to make them more efficient.
Man, I've probably spent a good 3/4 of a workweek on it at this point. Gotta get faster :saddowns:.
The Battle Rifle looks sweet though. :iamafag:
Nuero, did I read correctly, you worked on the Brink Guns? How long would one spend on one of these assets up to the texturing stage?
I asked earlier, but Neuro, do you know if Halo's renderers are synced to any bakers?
nah, i did environment stuff.
and for the 3point shader, you need to also apply the quality normals modifier to your mesh.
as for the last question, i don't know, if you dont know, avoid harsh smoothing, and try to have your normalmap as flat as possible, and you generally speaking won't have any issues
The quality normals modifier didn't make much of a difference since I already had qualified normals turned on in Max 2012's .ini.
The version of the BR I have now shades perfectly in Nitrous Viewport, so it should shade just as well in any engine.
Do you got a portfolio site I can look at your Brink environment work? I loved the art in that game.
i haven't actually got a website with my stuff up at the moment, but you can see some of the stuff i did for crysis2 here
http://www.forgestd.com
Got back to this model and put a little time into texturing it today, got the base layers in place.
I am a real noob at texturing, but it is already baked out (Final!) and looks sick without textures.
This is what I got so far, with a shader doing most of the work through my Diffuse, Spec, Gloss, Normal and Glow maps.
Got my boy Xoliul (2) shadin' the pixels. I wonder what kind of shaders the Halo 1 engine supports? I know Halo 2 is pretty locked down from experience.
It would interest you greatly to play with Open Sauce for all of your shader needs. It's what allowed us to use normal maps on weapons for CMT. By default Halo CE doesn't support this.
Yeah Halo's shader options are pretty limited by modern standards; what you can do:
-Cubemap reflections
-Self-illumination
-Tag-controlled color swapping
--(those three are controlled with a thing called a "multipurpose map," which is another texture whose blue channel scales reflection intensity, green channel scales self-illumination, and alpha channel indicates what bits of the texture can change color via tag)
-Detail textures
-A bit of trickery with transparent shaders (scrolling, scaling by weapon function, etc.)
With Open Sauce, you'll get honest-to-goodness Phong lighting, normal map support (w/ up to 2 detail normalmaps!), and specular map support (to take advantage of said Phong lighting), so if you're already using those in the texture that'd be the way to go
Whoops, I forgot. I'll get onto it!Quote:
Originally Posted by neuro
I'm actually starting to like the Halo 4 BR the more I see your renders.
Haha, yea. The Halo 4 BR is burned into my retinas at this point.
I can hardly look at the Reach Weapons now, they all look as if the geometric details that should be in the normals map are painted directly in the diffuse.
And the Halo 3 weapons are just last gen. I am really looking forward to the Hard Surface modeling they got in Halo 4.
They even showed some pros modeling in modo in one of their vidocs, so it looks like their going out of their way to get some quality stuff.
