|
I'm going to reiterate what some have already touched on, but slim down your body of work to just your best images and throw them up on behance/artstation/a simple squarespace site. I know how to do web design but my own site is still a squarespace because it's painful and unnecessary to reinvent the wheel for a portfolio site that won't really do anything better or different than what those industry standard sites already do. If you are wanting to get some archviz work either freelancing or going in-house at an arch firm I would recommend doing 1 or 2 images of something more architecturally interesting or significant. This will standout far more than a car dealership/chain restaurant image. Pick a nice building or two and do your own images of it. Take your time, pull up as many references as you can, and just go slow till your happy. (Just whatever you do don't do images of the Barcelona Pavilion because everyone has done it already.) I wanted to share a two quick images I did for fun a few months back. I mentioned some time ago that I get bored quickly on personal 3D work and wanted to explore a more loose aesthetic. These final products are not renderings at all but are purely photoshop/photobashing, hope that's alright!  
SpoonsForThought fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Jan 18, 2019 |
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 02:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 00:35 |
|
|
 i decided to give another try at remaking blood gulch from halo now that i know substance designer/painter. here's my first attempt at a chunky sandstone cliff material in designer.  I'm also planning on using the substance material to generate procedural base meshes for sculpting using modifiers in 3ds max. Kanine fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Jan 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 19:39
|
|
|
Finally re-upped our marvelous designer subscription... The stitching & quad mesh tools are incredible, and something that was already incredibly fast & stable somehow got quicker & more stable. What a wonderful piece of software.  edit: 
cubicle gangster fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Jan 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 21:17
|
|
|
cubicle gangster posted:Finally re-upped our marvelous designer subscription... It's also currently half off for a personal perpetual license right now, and 1/3rd off for an annual subscription paid up front.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
  Had to change some of the materials on the scarab for the wings to show up but here is more progress. Other entries here. https://www.artstation.com/search?q=PetContest2018 sigma 6 fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Jan 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2019 10:22
|
|
|
Adobe acquires Allegorithmic: https://news.adobe.com/press-release/creative-cloud/adobe-acquires-allegorithmic-leader-3d-editing-and-authoring-gaming As someone who uses Adobe products on a regular basis, this doesn’t fill me with hope. You can say goodbye to their standalone licenses, for one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 15:52
|
|
|
raging bullwinkle posted:Adobe acquires Allegorithmic: Man that is bad news. I mean good for the founders I guess, but goddamn. edit: On a selfish note, if this means my company paid CC license will now get Substance... I'll be excited. Sorry guys  .
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 15:56
|
|
|
That check must've been so big it broke the table it was signed on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
Kanine posted:I've definitely cut down my usage of Adobe products by a massive margin using Substance Designer/Painter. Well that aged very quickly And goddamnit, Allegorithmic's licensing was very refreshingly simple and affordable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 18:07
|
|
|
Now that I think of it, it's kinda suspicious that they raised the subscription price on the CC suite just a few days ago. They probably wanted to have the adobe subscribers subsidize their purchase of Allegorythmic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 18:34
|
|
|
Well... crap haha I was just about to purchase the steam version to learn it. Are there any alternatives to Substance? If they don’t go to subscription I guess I’ll still buy it. Actually I should probably buy it since Steam licenses never expire
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 18:45
|
|
|
Comfy Fleece Sweater posted:Well... crap haha I've been burned with substance back when I was a hobbyist. They would often wait for a big release before dropping important and useful nodes yearly and making us pay for the upgrade. For a company I guess it's fine but it's been frustrating as I've had to buy and rebuy the program around three times now. My advice would be to simply obtain a licence for free somehow or get your job to pay for a licence. It's a great program, but they don't care about giving beginners a preferential price for entry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:50
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:Well that aged very quickly raging bullwinkle posted:Adobe acquires Allegorithmic: GOD DAMMIT
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 20:42
|
|
|
And here I was just looking into getting into Substance. This makes me reconsider. On the other hand, I'm currently using Quixel who themselves are doing suspect things (and also recently showed that they can accidentally and presumably deliberately disable their software remotely) and which is literally a Photoshop plugin. The stuff going on with Quixel sounds really bad, by the way. They had a website problem which somehow completely disabled Quixel Suite. They eventually fixed that, but at the same time, they removed all mention of the product or the license you own from their website and account system. Their shop still sells it though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 21:56
|
|
|
 I bought this William Vaughan book for use with Modo but after reviewing it for a few weeks, I think it would be really helpful for anyone into modeling regardless of software. Invaluable info for me http://pushingpoints.com/v2/the-pushing-points-topology-workbook/ He also released an intro to Modo book recently and it’s helping me improve with some good shortcuts, in case anyone’s interested. http://pushingpoints.com/v2/the-pushing-points-modo-essentials-book/ I’m a fan of his teaching style, just no nonsense. Oh and I’ve also been listening to some Steven Pressfield audiobooks (Do the work and Turning Pro). Very inspiring stuff for anyone doing this for the love of the art. It’s weird that I gave up on 3D for so long. I guess I had to work to survive, but I never stopped thinking about it, every time I’d see any CG in movies or games I’d be like “man that’s cool, wish I could do that.” I’m just glad to be getting into it again and honestly my life feels happier now, it’s a fulfilling hobby.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
raging bullwinkle posted:Adobe acquires Allegorithmic: Oh jesus this is loving bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 22:34
|
|
|
raging bullwinkle posted:Adobe acquires Allegorithmic: Who knows, maybe this means Substance will get added to CC for fre-- pfhahaha, yeah, no. I eagerly await the 30usd/mo subscription for Substance Painter&Designer, and then an additional 20usd/mo per workstation that wants to use substance materials in Unreal, or any other engine. Also probably some royalties for any game, movie, etc shipped with it, just to be sure that they've covered all the bases- Also 3rd party programs not being allowed to accept substance materials from 'older' versions of the program, ie the permanent license ones.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 22:57
|
|
|
Work situation: Yay everyone gets updated Substance Personal use situation: AAAAAAAa
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 23:35
|
|
|
I need someone to explain this to me because I'm not sure how to solve it.  The handle on this thing has a squared-off gem socket / protrusion.  I'm trying to do something similar with open subdivision in 3d Studio Max.  I was just roughing the shape out, but the edge creasing is not working as I want it to and I'm not sure how to make it contour correctly.    Specifically, these edges are bulging outwards. I can set a lower crease value, but then I lose the squared-off shape of it. I've tried putting loops in all sorts of arrangements around this perimeter but I'm just not having any success. How should I approach modeling this correctly?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 00:32
|
|
|
That bulge is probably because you've got a star point in the corner with about 5 edges coming off it. Try grab the entire protrusion and put one more ring around it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 00:38
|
|
|
Synthbuttrange posted:That bulge is probably because you've got a star point in the corner with about 5 edges coming off it. Try grab the entire protrusion and put one more ring around it? Not certain I understand, but -   So, actually, pretty certain I don't understand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 00:45
|
|
|
The low res is what I meant so you got that correct but oh god what the hell is going on with your subdivision.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 00:53
|
|
|
Synthbuttrange posted:Work situation: Yay everyone gets updated Substance The reaction at work was pretty wild, nearly every artist that uses Substance was morose, like they got a whiff of a bad breakup coming down the line but won't let go. Whole day on Slack was constant "omg did you all see the news, adobe bought Allegorithmic, fuuuuuuuck!" I'm not exactly pleased with it, myself. My main concern is adobe seeing Painter as a photoshop competitor, and this reeks of them deciding "painter has hurt photoshop too much, we need that money". They don't have the best track record with support either (I mean neither does allego lol), so I can't see that getting better either. I have the skills to learn Mari if needed, and I can still shade in photoshop/blender/whatever else, but I really like the substance suite
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 13:54
|
|
|
I'm still taking a "wait and see" stance. Adobe could have bought Quixel for NDO and DDO, which are already built on top of Photoshop. That would have been a pretty easy play. That said, here are a few more things to consider: - Adobe has been a major investor in Allegorithmic for the past few years. If they wanted to negatively affect the company or the business, there are a hundred, easier, ways that could have done it that didn't involve giving Allegorithmic a giant pile of money. - Sebastian Deguy, founder of Allegorithmic, will be joining Adobe as Vice President, 3D & Immersive at Adobe. Considering the current state of 3D at Adobe, he compared this to when Pixar was acquired by Disney. An acquisition that ultimately made both companies better. You can read more of his thoughts on the acquisition here: https://medium.com/@sebastien.deguy/https-medium-com-sebastien-deguy-my-peter-jackson-moment-7dd64ba1d1f1 - I would love to see a lot of the deep technology in Photoshop integrated in to Painter. Photoshop brushes alone would nice, but all the content-aware stuff that is in there would be great, too. Adobe probably has more people working on machine-learning, AI, and image analysis than Allegorithmic has employees. The possibilities are pretty exciting! - Adobe's track record is, surprisingly enough, pretty good when it comes to acquiring companies. "Catch and kill" isn't anything that they've really done, unlike some companies (stares at Softimage crying quietly in Autodesk's basement). - The biggest concern for most people is probably just pricing model. Sebastian has said that the SaaS (monthly payment as opposed to perpetual license) is a model that works really well for them. Obviously, Adobe shares similar thoughts. Is likely that the "one price and you own it forever" offering is gone for good. A bit of a shame, but as long as the monthly cost is still affordable, I think the many positives outweigh it (monthly payments are tax deductable right away, you can cancel if money is tight, much lower up-front cost which is better for indies, students, etc.). I do think there is cause for concern, especially with regards to pricing, but I think overall it is going to lead to a better package of products for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 14:51
|
|
|
If any of this ever leads to After Effects having a legitimate 3D space, then I'll suck everyone at Adobe off forever. That's the only big ask I have of *any* Adobe product. Just give AE a real usable 3D workspace. It's utter garbage at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 15:51
|
|
|
itll never have it, the best they'll ever do is fracture it like they have now with one classic render engine and another one where half the poo poo doesnt work like... they cant figure out adding a stroke to a 3d element. I've given up hope of ever getting after effects upgraded with anything other than "hey we bought this plugin company, now its a default plugin!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 15:57
|
|
|
bring back old gbs posted:itll never have it, the best they'll ever do is fracture it like they have now with one classic render engine and another one where half the poo poo doesnt work The thing that kills me is that there isn't any sense of any real 3D environment on anything that's not in the resolution gate. It all becomes some stupid loving event horizon the second you get off comp. It just makes it hard to remain grounded with any sort of orientation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 16:00
|
|
|
Gearman posted:- The biggest concern for most people is probably just pricing model. Sebastian has said that the SaaS (monthly payment as opposed to perpetual license) is a model that works really well for them. Obviously, Adobe shares similar thoughts. Is likely that the "one price and you own it forever" offering is gone for good. A bit of a shame, but as long as the monthly cost is still affordable, I think the many positives outweigh it (monthly payments are tax deductable right away, you can cancel if money is tight, much lower up-front cost which is better for indies, students, etc.). Perhaps now would be a good time to buy a perpetual license for as long as they exist, but I'm not sure if I should trust them not to pull tricks with existing licenses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 17:52
|
|
|
Elukka posted:Perhaps now would be a good time to buy a perpetual license for as long as they exist, but I'm not sure if I should trust them not to pull tricks with existing licenses. floofyscorp fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Jan 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
After some looking around, I think I’ll switch my learning path to Mari, it’s free for personal/educational use anyway, it was just buried under the popularity of Substance https://www.foundry.com/products/mari/non-commercial Reading the twitter reactions, people who are invested in Substance aren’t happy at all, but there’s alternatives
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 18:29
|
|
|
Anyone here using djv viewer on windows 10? Fully loaded sequences in ram are playing back at 5fps at best, and it takes some scrubbing and clicking around to actually get something to play. it's completely broken. Anything we have to set to get it to work properly?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 19:40
|
|
|
Comfy Fleece Sweater posted:After some looking around, I think I’ll switch my learning path to Mari, it’s free for personal/educational use anyway, it was just buried under the popularity of Substance Mari's not exactly "buried". It's pretty much the industry standard for film vfx.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 19:53
|
|
|
EoinCannon posted:Mari's not exactly "buried". It's pretty much the industry standard for film vfx. Yeah that’s what I’ve been told but try looking for newbie texturing tutorials on YouTube and assorted tutorial sites and it’s all Substance, at least for game dev. I even found a tutorial for using substance in Modo on the official Steam page, while Mari just discontinued their steam version, and they’re both Foundry softwares. Looks like Substance is king for game dev ? Edit: I watched an intro to Substance tutorial and it’s super easy to use. Integration into Modo is also ridiculously easy, just load the sbs file and mess with settings if you want, took me like 10 minutes from installing the substance plugin to having a substance on a model in a scene Ehh I’ll still start with Mari and maybe later try Substance https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB0wXHrWAmCwWfVVurGIQO_tMVWCFhnqE Comfy Fleece Sweater fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Jan 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 20:03
|
|
|
Comfy Fleece Sweater posted:Looks like Substance is king for game dev ? I don't work in games but that's my understanding. For ages it didn't have UDIM support so it wasn't viable for vfx assets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 20:14
|
|
|
Going to make a bold prediction: a month from now everyone will have forgotten about the news and will still be using painter and designer. Six months from now, they will still be using painter and designer. Three years from now, they'll still be using painter and designer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 22:41
|
|
|
Gearman posted:Going to make a bold prediction: a month from now everyone will have forgotten about the news and will still be using painter and designer. Six months from now, they will still be using painter and designer. Three years from now, they'll still be using painter and designer. Nothing bold about that!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 23:05
|
|
|
EoinCannon posted:I don't work in games but that's my understanding. I just looked up when it got UDIM support (June 2016), and I realize how much we lucked out with our adoption of it. Right as MHC s2 finished we started prepro for s3, and I got to R&D the hell out of UDIM support in Painter and Blender. At first we had a little trouble figuring out best use case and optimal workflows, but by midpoint of production we had it down pretty good. If it had come later, the shading process would've been unbearable. IIRC one of the ships has something like 70+ UDIM tiles, Rest have between 10 and 40. Imagine having to hook up around 800 individual image map nodes for a single scenes worth of assets....
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 01:29
|
|
|
Goons, quick question. How do you price out your modeling work? https://sketchfab.com/models/bb9fa6112ae0468d980fdb4a8fd95927 I had to make this based on this reference image, which wasn't great because of the perspective. Would have been quicker if I had proper side views:  I did this thing in about 20 hours of work, the time of which included carving it up into 3D printable parts. I did it as part of a job application test with a potential employer. They want to know what I'd charge for it. I am hesitant to throw the 20 hours number out there because I don't want them to respond with something like 'oh, well, we've got a guy who can do this in 5' kind of thing, but I also don't want to under-quote the cost of it because I feel like I'd be screwing myself over if I told them I did it in a third of the time it actually took when time came to do the job they'd be hiring me for. I guess a better question is - how long would this kind of model typically take to whip up?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 18:39
|
|
|
Be realistic about it, the last thing you want is to undervalue your work, as employers need the real time to bill properly. 20 doesn't seem unreasonable for modeling an asset based on reference for 3D printing - while it's not a super complex mesh, that's sort of irrelevant with 3D printing, as it has different concerns than in-box modeling that you need to work around. I had the same issue as you at first, where I was too concerned that I wasn't working fast enough/might lose work to other artists. But after doing this for a while, I've realized asset time is a total crapshoot, because there are always unforeseen issues. And the fastest artists are usually the sloppiest - their work may look incredible and you're like "how did you do that in 5 hours", but then you get the mesh and it's geo and UVs are garbage, it's using nonsense for shading that only looks good at a certain angle, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 00:35 |
|
|
I appreciate that perspective. I'm definitely worried about striking that right balance of 'not to slow as to be unhireable but not too fast as to be unrealistic'. I was thinking of saying 10-15 hours, because I think if I did this as a day job, it'd take me two days of sitting down and working on it, whereas I did this in between my 9-to-5 over the last 4 days. If you think 20 hours isn't unrealistic, I think that helps me have at least some footing to work from.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 21:07
|
|