The random model thread!

    Here is what I ended up with after following along with 3dbuzz's SOCOM pistol tutorial.

    When I came to the end of it, I realized that we weren't priming the model for game use. Would definitely have to trim down a bit on the tri-count, which rests around 29,900 =0 I kind of want to move on to something else, but what would it take for this to take to the next level? Go super high-poly? Or trim the fat and work on textures? Hmm.

    [Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/9m1iT.jpg]

    [Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/IBsQP.jpg]

    Composition blockout. Still racking my brain on how to balance the lower left corner with all that geometry in the upper right. The painting I'm using as my reference has all of these donkeys and stuff leading the eye back to the main area of focus, as well as balancing out the overall composition, but I don't want to model donkeys

    [Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/cNasE.jpg]

    Bit early for much feedback maybe but its based on this bit of concept art http://goo.gl/rX4p3. Going a bit more Fantasy with the setting rather than post apocalyptic, think shadow of the colossus or last guardian maybe.

    [attachment=0]FantasyCourtyardEnvironment_21_06_2012_Screenshot1.jpg[/attachment]

    Quote from knj

    sarge nice concept dude, but it lacks of the selling point for me at this moment

    let me be clear I didn't do the concept lol just one I picked out (wish I could draw half that good ha).

    I don't really agree with that an environment piece has to have a totally rad focus/selling point or so. If you look at big games today I feel like that is one of the problems where every room has to have this huge epic shit going on.

    There's two problems with this IMO:

    - You won't be able to finish up what you started and you end up with some half assed crappy thing that is neither epic and especially doesn't even have an even quality.

    - You succeed to do this and the epicness take out each other and you end up with no more "WOW" effect than if it would have been a generic corridor shooter.

    To me it's all about contrast and gradients between awesome super awesome stuff and "regular" stuff. I wouldn't want to use regular or generic really, but without those (that I think should build up the bulk of any game really) the epic stuff doesn't mean anything TBH.

    So to actually get to the point of what you can do a scene that is considered "generic" from that perspective and instead execute it awesomely in a fairly short amount of time and even preferably be able to record a video and walk around in your scene and show that it has a consistent quality, that is to me way more interesting than being able to make a one or two screenshot environment that looks good, but as soon as you rotate your camera 10 degrees it's crap. I think it's moved way too much in that direction where people are getting told they should only build up their environment for 1 or two camera angles... While that is not what you would have in a good game (with the exception of a very few).

    I'd extend on that concept and try to build a whole interesting world out of that (doesn't mean it has to be a square mile of content).

    The better your "generic" stuff is, the better 90%+ of your game will play and look Make the generic stuff not feel generic and you're there.

    Anyway.. rant mode off

    Hmmm, you've given me something to think about, Philip.

    I've only attempted a few environments (think I pussed out on all of them) and when I first tried them, they were areas you could walk around in and look at from any angle. I started looking at what others were doing (guys who were in the industry) and they all, or nearly all, seemed to be doing these camera based pieces. I personally didn't understand why, other than maybe it was easier. After a couple more failed attempts at doing the walkable pieces, I figured the camera based ones were simply quicker (and perhaps simpler?) to do and if it was getting people in, why not just do what's quicker.

    Maybe that's not the right mentality? I don't know, I certainly enjoyed trying to make a piece you could "play" a lot more than trying to stick to the camera angle thing, but the biggest killer for me is I just have terrible ideas for what might look cool.

    Perhaps I should just have a go at it again anyways.

    Quote from Bunglo

    Hmmm, you've given me something to think about, Philip.I've only attempted a few environments (think I pussed out on all of them) and when I first tried them, they were areas you could walk around in and look at from any angle. I started looking at what others were doing (guys who were in the industry) and they all, or nearly all, seemed to be doing these camera based pieces. I personally didn't understand why, other than maybe it was easier. After a couple more failed attempts at doing the walkable pieces, I figured the camera based ones were simply quicker (and perhaps simpler?) to do and if it was getting people in, why not just do what's quicker.

    Maybe that's not the right mentality? I don't know, I certainly enjoyed trying to make a piece you could "play" a lot more than trying to stick to the camera angle thing, but the biggest killer for me is I just have terrible ideas for what might look cool.

    Perhaps I should just have a go at it again anyways.

    Just make game environments! Good looking environments rendered in real-time engines are one thing, and videogame environments are another. Even if you are making an environment just for eye candy, try to imagine how it could be used in a game and build some simple gameplay spaces around that (different levels, stairs, cover pieces etc).

    A production artist is a lot more useful than someone who knows only how to make cool shit but knows nothing about smart texture reuse, modularity, optimization etc...

    Quote from Zombie

    To even have 12k draws you'd need 12k unique meshes or 12k unique textures.

    imaghine having 12k tetxures, haha even the thought of it makes me sweat

    I will admit it could be better. Everything I do I look at the next day and say oh damn it could be better...but must ship submit it sometime.

    "Optimized" is relative. TF2 is known for having (or have had) weapons that are shall we say...excessive. The number of vertices per triangle is lower than several in-game weapons with fewer triangles. Of course triangle count is not the best measure. Split vertices are better measure. My understanding is that indices are best measure because that is an actual measure of the number of elements in the triangle lists sent to the renderer for all drawcalls associated with the model. There is also phong, so that is multiple fills and my understanding is that is where the higher number of the draw count comes from. Most verts in the model are overlapping in UV. My understanding is that these verts are batched. I do now know how that affects the counts displayed or actual in game performance. Of course all engines are different with slightly different terminology:

    The two numbers shown are taken from the TF2 model browser and are lower than comparable weapons. This has a 50% efficient LOD. There are weapons in the game that are comparable in their stats but with NO LOD. There are no weapons in the game with an LOD less than 50% efficiency.

    If my understanding is wrong please enlighten me.

    It could definitely be better and I may go back and optimize further. I would also like to darken the metal slightly.

    That's all well and good but I think you're reading your statistics incorrectly, or they're giving you the wrong numbers.

    To have 12,000 draws is amazing. I don't even think Crysis on maximum settings has that many draws, no matter how complex your shaders are.

    To have that on one weapon would make TF2 run at 20fps, it's insane

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!

Register Yourself Login