wanting wireframes from modern games

Bad topography will be known during animations. That is why wireframes are important in these normal mapped days.

I think model making HAS changed when normal mapping came, no more polygonal surcafe detail, the models are almost completely smooth now, unless there is like extruding elements in the normal map, but even then there is way less definition to the model.

Like I said, there is more importance put in to the functionality of the model than how the model itself looks without normal map and texture, modellers are now spending more time tweaking their model to get the normal map on it's surface to look as good as possible, and ofcourse they can spend few more polygond on the joints to make the animation smoother.

But like I said, that is just my opinion, and my point of view to all this.

People are discovering new things eevery day. FOrinstance edge looping fo better animation. I never new that. Its sweet and I'd definatley go through what it takes to implement it cause its worth it in every aspect.

I read in some awesome magazine though that was refering tobump mapping. Geometry should not be sacrificed for bump mapping. When something calls for geometry, model it. Dont' rely on bump maps to do the work for you. Same goes for normal mapping as far as I'm concerned. If something is worth modeling, than fucking model it!!!! However keep in mind the strengths (along with weaknesses) of normal mapping causeit can help you define the sillaughette (worst speling ever) of a model so it doesn't have so many polygonal edges. U3 models look sweeeeet with lighting, but silaugoute the model and suddenly its charm is not swag.

Quote from von*ferret

People are discovering new things eevery day. FOrinstance edge looping fo better animation. I never new that. Its sweet and I'd definatley go through what it takes to implement it cause its worth it in every aspect.

Yeah, edge loop is pretty sweet, seen some Steven Stahlbergs models with that.

Quote from von*ferret

I read in some awesome magazine though that was refering tobump mapping. Geometry should not be sacrificed for bump mapping. When something calls for geometry, model it. Dont' rely on bump maps to do the work for you. Same goes for normal mapping as far as I'm concerned. If something is worth modeling, than fucking model it!!!! However keep in mind the strengths (along with weaknesses) of normal mapping causeit can help you define the sillaughette (worst speling ever) of a model so it doesn't have so many polygonal edges. U3 models look sweeeeet with lighting, but silaugoute the model and suddenly its charm is not swag.

I agree, form defining aspects of the model should always be modelled and not left for some materials like bumps and normals, but polygons should be used to smoothen the form, angular parts in any normal mapped model will jump out too well. Model has always been like a canvas for painter, for the texture artist, mainly it's purpose to me is to make the texture (and what ever you add to it) look good, and not the other way around, you do the model to compliment the texture and not make the texture work around the models small details. But ofcourse, not all see things like I do, and I appreciate it, that is actually the way I like it, the situation where we all can learn from others experience and not have to try everything out ourselfs.