|
I dont know, this still looks like it's going along the paths of 'tack as much junk on there as possible' and it just looks silly. Also maybe timgs next time?
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 05:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:06 |
|
|
I think that if you're going to put spines on the wings, their profile needs be to significantly reduced, and streamlined into the style you've already established. Maybe make them really small at the front of the ship, and then get larger as they work their way back. Maybe sweep them towards the back of the ship, instead of sticking out perpendicularly. I think it's a good idea if you were to pause and do some quick silhouette variations. That way you can do some experimenting with the basic shape of the ship without having to commit to it fully. If you want it to look new without looking cheap, you'll have to address the glossiness of your spec map. Right now, your specular is really hot and tight. Look at metal objects around you, especially vehicles. Metals, especially when used for industrial purposes, tend to have a lower gloss factor. The specular band as a result from ambient light tends to be pretty wide, even if the metal has been polished. For something like a spaceship, you'll definitely want a specular with a low gloss factor. Also take a look at the brightness of your spec: it's hitting full bright (white), and has no color to it. You don't want a metal spec hitting that hot; that's what makes it look like plastic. Instead, decrease your spec power so that you are able to still see the diffuse information under the spec. Combine this with the aformentioned decreased gloss value, and I think you'll get some good results.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 05:39
|
|
|
You could also watch both of these: Robot design/modeling: Should be somewhat relevant. http://www.thegnomonworkshop.com/store/product/540/Robot-Design-with-Josh-Nizzi Shading and texturing on hard surface objects: (this will be much more useful for you) http://www.thegnomonworkshop.com/store/product/542/Hard-Surface-Shading-and-Texturing
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 10:40
|
|
|
ResonanceCascade posted:3 buildings, textured with normal maps and stuff. And for character modelling a 6k tris model. Doc is still teaching? wow. I had him the inaugural year they started the game design and animation degrees (old!) 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 12:52
|
|
|
Fuzzy Modem posted:No one seems to like the feathers. I'm hoping they look more like teeth now, or a serrated edge. They look like... erm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butt_plug
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 16:02
|
|
|
BigKOfJustice posted:They look like... erm. I'm hearing rumours that CORE shut down...
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 20:53
|
|
|
Ratmann posted:I'm hearing rumours that CORE shut down... This is flying around Twitter, too. I knew they weren't doing so hot, but drat. The project my studio is working on is shutting down, so all but a few employees are staying after next Friday -- about half a dozen were in talks to move to CORE. Huh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 21:30
|
|
|
CORE is the guys who used to do the Tomb Raider games before Eidos told them to get hosed, gave the IP to Crystal Dynamics, and then they got bought by Rebellion, right? or is CORE some movie thing and what I'm thinking of is like CORE SECONDWORD that I can't recall?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 22:25
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:CORE is the guys who used to do the Tomb Raider games before Eidos told them to get hosed, gave the IP to Crystal Dynamics, and then they got bought by Rebellion, right? http://www.coredp.com/ VFX for Splice, Tudors, Silent Hill, Harold & Kumar, Lucky Number Slevin and more, as well as a bunch of cartoon stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 23:08
|
|
|
Travakian posted:http://www.coredp.com/ And Disney Feature Animation's The Wild and a few vfx films [Spawn, Blade 2, Xmen, etc]. During the Disney project they were the largest animation studio in Canada when I used to work there [had 2 floors at the coredp office where imax is now, plus 5 floors of an 100+ year old brewery in downtown Toronto]. 140 people got laid off today, and their paychecks on friday apparently bounced. Going to put on my Core hockey jersey and pour out a 40 for my homies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 00:46
|
|
|
I LOVE this industry!
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 00:48
|
|
|
My first run cycle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYmBFB_Yfzw (Rig at http://www.johndoublestein.com/)
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 05:02
|
|
|
Hot_Carl! posted:My first run cycle: I'd double or triple the run speed, it's too slow. There's some sort of odd pop between the cycle loop. I'd try to key out the ik snapping of the legs when you get the timing nailed down. If it's just a rig test it's fine, but if you want to make something interesting for a run cycle, I'd brake it up, kill the cycle part and only use it as a starting point. Have a character run, then dodge some obstacles, then jump over something then recover and run, grab a rope and swing, etc.  Big K of Justice fucked around with this message at 07:35 on Mar 16, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 07:31
|
|
|
BigKOfJustice posted:And Disney Feature Animation's The Wild and a few vfx films [Spawn, Blade 2, Xmen, etc]. Man that's so dodgy and you hear about this kind of stuff all the time. Is our industry ever going to get to become more stable or atleast responsible to employees?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 08:25
|
|
|
BigKOfJustice posted:I'd double or triple the run speed, it's too slow. There's some sort of odd pop between the cycle loop. I'd try to key out the ik snapping of the legs when you get the timing nailed down. If it's just a rig test it's fine, but if you want to make something interesting for a run cycle, I'd brake it up, kill the cycle part and only use it as a starting point. Thanks for the feedback! Yeah, it looks best at about +50% speed (double looks a little goofy). And this is just a first run cycle, so I'll get to doing more interesting stuff eventually.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 09:18
|
|
|
You'll often find when starting out with animation your stuff will be floaty and much slower than it should be. It seems to be a very common thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 09:49
|
|
|
Looks like someone didn't use reference, or a quicktime. If people who've been animating for 30 years still use references and quicktime then I'm pretty sure it's in the realm of a new animator to do so. I'm just half-joking, but seriously: use reference, use quicktime. Every time an animation is posted in youtube or vimeo, is an animation that is too hard to critique.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 10:09
|
|
|
tuna posted:Looks like someone didn't use reference, or a quicktime. He's right. Quicktime allows frame by frame analysis with arrow keys. Few codecs offer that. Also, running should be series of jumps, much in the same way walk cycles are a series of falls. Your cycle was choppy and may be missing a frame. Animation is hard. Character animation is harder.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 11:50
|
|
|
OK, I made this one a while ago, what do you think? Click here for the full 640x480 image.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 12:41
|
|
|
brian encino man posted:Man that's so dodgy and you hear about this kind of stuff all the time. Is our industry ever going to get to become more stable or atleast responsible to employees? Nah. As long as you are part of the client -> vendor relationship, it's generally a race to the bottom. That's why you don't see hardly any studio owned animation/visual effects studios anymore. The money side is in production, you just farm the work out to vendors. Most vfx/animation studios keep their books hidden, the norm is you are barely breaking even, or worse, using your current jobs money to pay for the last job [robbing peter to pay paul]. I've seen some companies go month to month for a year without its employees knowing that things were about to collapse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2010 18:14
|
|
|
sigma 6 posted:He's right. Quicktime allows frame by frame analysis with arrow keys. Few codecs offer that. Also, running should be series of jumps, much in the same way walk cycles are a series of falls. Your cycle was choppy and may be missing a frame. Thats cool! Is there a good place to find quicktime movies of people's animation? As far as using a reference, I was more using this run cycle to try to figure out weight distributions and stuff logically on my own. For more involved shots I'll definitely use Anyway, here's a quicktime of the run cycle: http://www.sunpowernatural.com/andyrunsmooth.mov (domain is my own website)
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 02:40
|
|
|
Part of what I'm seeing is that he's almost bracing for impact before his foot hits the ground each and every time. Watch his body. For at least two frames previous to the foot touching the ground, his lead leg and arms come to a complete standstill. In a real run, your limbs are in near-constant motion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 04:45
|
|
|
Hazed_blue has a good animation eye. Your body definitely needs to hit after the leg does then send the impact up the spine and finally head. Overlap the arms more. Check your curves also, there might be some stray flat tangents in between transitions somewhere. It's looking better! check this one out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsRfrTJX4mY
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 06:32
|
|
|
Hot_Carl! posted:Thats cool! He's kind of skiing, like whoosh, pause, whoosh, pause. Where as it should be a more cyclical motion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 10:28
|
|
|
Argh, what in the gently caress.  Got a copy of Max 2010 to use at work after being stuck in 8 for over 3 years, but now I'm more frustrated than happy. Is it just me, or did viewport mouse navigation turn to crap? I'm finding that when I use the MMB in conjunction with Alt and Ctrl that the program randomly decides to not acknowledge the key that I'm holding down. Other times I'm using Alt + MMB to move the viewport, and the viewport jumps far away from my selected object, and again, at random.In Max 8, I would hold the MMB and move my mouse, then hold Alt to rotate slightly, then release Alt, then hold it, release, etc, in a circle and side strafing combination. I could do these endlessly without problems. With Max 2010, moving the viewport with the MMB and then depressing Alt will do one of three things. It will either A) pause for a split second, and then rotate, B) make the view jump somewhere else in 3D space, or C) halt your viewport camera completely. It seems to have something to do with hitting Alt in succession, because I see the program highlighting the "Edit" pulldown when this happens. Max 8 seems to ignore the pulldown menu when navigating the viewport with Alt, which makes for a much smoother experience. Anyone else run into this, or perhaps know of a fix? I know it's a small thing, but it's irritating the hell out of me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 18:02
|
|
|
Retexturing... just the fuselage thus far... wip.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 18:10
|
|
|
Fuzzy Modem posted:Retexturing... just the fuselage thus far... wip. Could I ask for viewport screengrabs without the lighting, some wireframe shots and samples of your texture sheets? That might help get you more pointed advice when you strip away the renders and the layers of presentation and just leave the barebones model + texture. This is also just my preference but I'm finding the feather things are putting a little too much detail on the outer edges of the model, attracting attention away from the model itself. Maybe get rid of those and focus the detail on the centre mass of the model and leave broader shapes along the outside? I realise it might be a lot of work to re-do, but it's just a thought. EDIT: VV Yes, the silhouette, my thoughts exactly. GeeCee fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Mar 17, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 19:23
|
|
|
I still don't like the Butt plugs lining the ship, it makes it look too busy, especially when you reduce the design to a silhouette. Are you going to put something on the end of the lower fin? The sharp tip just jutting out looks .. odd/unfinished.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 19:25
|
|
|
As others said, it looks way too busy and it's still a bunch of stuff thrown onto it, and some of those plugs have little tabs sticking out of them as well. It's just messy and ugh at this point. The first version you posted looked coherent and had a solid idea, i.e. streamlined and pointy. The texture does look better in this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 00:08
|
|
|
A couple of months ago I had to urgently put together some lifestyle shots for a range of storage cubes, had about two days to put it all together. I'm still very new to this 3D thing, so I wanted to get your opinions: Click here for the full 1500x1125 image.  Click here for the full 1500x1125 image.  Click here for the full 1500x1125 image.  Click here for the full 1500x1125 image.  Click here for the full 1500x1125 image. And I understand that those metal clips are too bright and show up white in some cases, but that's how they do it in real life - honest, and unfortunately I didn't have time to correct them a bit more. Also the composition is a little bit weird, but that's because I needed extra room to crop as required by the space I had. For example the sun glare on the floor was cropped out, as well as that weird corner you can see on the closeup with the black cubes. The image with the wine bottles is bare because on the package it was cropped almost right to the bottles themselves so you'd never see other items anyway. I left many of the elements untextured on purpose, especially on those large white cubes. I had a composition with various colourful clutter items like books and pictures but it kind of took away from the picture. Finally, the flowers are low poly because they were a free model I found and felt that it was way past my abilities to put together my own in the timeframe I had. Thankfully because the images themselves appeared fairly small you can't really tell they are that blocky on the actual box.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 01:36
|
|
|
-A n i m 8- posted:Hazed_blue has a good animation eye. Your body definitely needs to hit after the leg does then send the impact up the spine and finally head. Overlap the arms more. Check your curves also, there might be some stray flat tangents in between transitions somewhere. It's looking better! Where can I find decent quicktime movies of run cycles? It'd be cool if I could look at a run like that frame by frame.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 02:14
|
|
|
Tweaked.     Just for you Aliginge:   I'd be happy to use thumbs, and I notice that images are automatically thumbed in quotes, so I'm guessing there is a way to change my images to thumbs easily? Poking around... I'm satisfied with the feathers/teeth now. Back to re-texturing...
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 08:42
|
|
|
Hey guys, got a little question for ya. At the moment when I do a print screen out of Maya It's coming into Photo shop a lot darker and kind of a light purple. It was fine up until a month or so ago. Anyone know what's causing this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2010 01:32
|
|
|
Photoshop is applying its colour profiles to the image I assume. Does this happen just with renders or everything pasted into photoshop?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2010 10:58
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:It doesn't handle shaders or animation and all of their art looks like it heavily relies on instancing, indicating that maybe memory is a serious concern for the system. Well, just doing some quick calculations, say you have a 1024x1024x1024 box (And assume the box is empty, because we only need to see the outside). If we've got 12 bytes per point (3 floats), then that means that the box would weigh in at 75.5 megabytes. That's for a box that would take up 432 bytes using polygons. It's basically just a very fast voxel-esque renderer. It's impressive, sure, but we haven't been using voxels for a long time now, for some very good reasons. Also I love how they keep touting that it's 'completely unlimited'. Just like I can just make my game with a single gigantic texture so detailed you'd never see the texels!  Providing they're not just pulling a fast one with the tech, then we'll probably see it implemented in a limited scope in the near future. It'd be fantastic for procedural terrain and voluminous objects like smoke, clouds and trees. Also, it'd be very easy to render out the point-cloud stuff first and then just throw the polygonal stuff on top, so it wouldn't be an all-or-nothing deal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2010 16:43
|
|
|
Started on a new project today, the plan is for an upset kid on their first day of school, just having fun sculpting and trying stuff out at the moment. The plan is to do the whole character, school uniform, big-rear end school backpack. Sculpt is still coming together, it's a good challenge modeling a young child, I haven't tried to before.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2010 00:16
|
|
|
quick question: when exporting a .fbx from mudbox 2010, how big should the file size be for a 2 million polygon figure? For some reason I think the current 11 GB file that won't open in 3ds max is a bit extreme.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2010 02:28
|
|
|
You're exporting straight from mudbox at the highest detail level and not using any sort of displacements or whatever?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2010 02:51
|
|
|
SynthOrange posted:You're exporting straight from mudbox at the highest detail level and not using any sort of displacements or whatever? at the moment, yes. Mainly because I forgot I didn't want to do that. I exported normal and displacement maps way before I finished my texturing and that crap so I forgot. Either way, the final file was 36GB  edit: And now it won't export a lower res fbx. mudbox has been giving me a massive amount of various errors. All the way from "not enough memory errors" when I have plenty of memory free to not exporting an AO map because "my graphics card may not support it" even though reloading the file and retying usually works. Same problems with bump maps and gloss layers. I've also had a bunch of lighting problems where everything thing goes black and the only way to fix it is turn on and off each paint layer one by one. This program is like a bitchy little child that needs to be tricked into doing something. But I still like it. edit2: anyway, here's what I've been working on. It's my first mudbox sculpt and it's mostly me learning the tools and such. It's also the first time I've actually modeled something organic.  Click here for the full 800x760 image.  Click here for the full 800x760 image.  Click here for the full 800x760 image.  Click here for the full 800x760 image. Any thoughts you have would be nice. Nondescript Van fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Mar 20, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2010 03:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:06 |
|
|
Haven't done any modeling in a while so I decided to start a new one today. Still need to add details and finish the top of the Mauser. It's supposed to be a lazer sight on the side, but i'm not sure if the design really conveys that.  
le capitan fucked around with this message at 07:59 on Mar 21, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2010 07:56
|
|