3D Artists Group
Arts & Literature
Are you a 3D artist? Are you looking for some inspiration? Do you just want to collaborate or know who your fellow ModDB artists are? Doesn't matter what application you use or how you do it... if you're a modeller, animator, skinner or looking at getting started with 3D, then this is the group for you!
Thompson
(view original)
Post a comment
Description
all ready for texturin'!
Model for a third person game, had fun with this gun, I tried to model it when I just started modeling and now I came back and tore it's shit up. at least to me I did :P
Textured version is on my profiel if you're interested.
looking nice and clean , texture´s also fine
Fantastic work man.
bravo
thank you guys
hell of a lot of wasted polies on that was, especially running through the middle of the gun
looks good though, not a fan of the handle but rest is good
Only necessary polygons are there. I dare you to find one edge taken out that would not result in an ngon or a triangle. You're simply wrong.
Actually, he's right. :) and triangles are fine!
In low polygon models where you're not subdividing and wont deform under animation, you don't strictly need edge loops in there. You can remove the centre seam along the top, and most of the ones on the sides of the metal top section.
I'm at work at the moment, and busy tonight, but if you're not sure how I mean I can put an example up tomorrow :).
M@ty, I could leave triangles, but I choose not to. I have bad experiences with them especially with baking. Everything edge loop there and every formation is for the detail I want it to have. It's a quality of standard I hold myself too.
In simplest terms, I could make a sphere with 8 segments, or 800 segments, but I will make the sphere with the segments that fits the reference and fits a poly range. I could take out a lot of edge loops but end up losing much detail that I don't want to lose and only gain a meaningless small amount processing power back in return.
oh and btw, the center seam is needed to stop the ejection port.
I think what M@ty is getting at is that if you removed the horizontal loops in question, there wouldn't be a change in visual quality at all (so there's no need to change the standard you hold yourself to). If you had a bad experience with triangles on hard-surfaces in the past, work out what went wrong as otherwise you're turning a simple 2-triangle plane (possibly 4 triangle if the extra edge is to mirror the texture) into a 24 triangle plane. These extra faces would stack throughout the model to add hundreds of triangles which add nothing to the form/animation/uvs (and many faces they add are long and thin which can cause bottle necks by creating sub-pixel areas)
I've looked over my model. and It fits the reference and it doesn't have unneccessary polys. If I remove any edge loop, i lose detail and it on longer fits the ref.
If you're going to argue over a difference of 7 tris then I don't won't to argue with you. we're simply on difference pages. I don't care if an ngon or a tri is planar, or that it may not deform under animation. all my hard surface models are in quads, and I plan to keep it that way.
I understand you guys are just trying to help out, and thank you.
the center seem loop stops the ejection port. the side loops on the top, the ones on the sights? those are don't show up in the render but do give shape to the sight
Baking, whether with ngons, tris or quads doesn't change the output. The problems you had were likely smoothing group issues or duplicate faces or verts, or even normals issues.
I've been modelling for over 10 years - I've worked on all sorts of products from achitectural visualisation, through to low-poly and high-poly game art. So please take my advice, and Cryrid's too.
If you look at any low-poly game models, in particular, hard surface models, you will find triangles. Quads and edge loops only need to be maintained under two circumstances: subdividing and deformation (animation). If you can keep your assets as low on triangle count as possible, it will look favourably on you. Post this work on -any- 3D forums and you'll get similar feedback :).
7 tris may not appear to be a lot - but I could easily knock your model down by at least 200 tris without loss of detail. 200 is a lot.
Here's an exmaple of how I mean:
There's 100 triangle difference in that alone :).
Matts.omgmonkeylol.com
Ohhhh I see what you're saying. It never occurred to me like that. thank you! I'll try to redo this on my next model or this tommy before I do anything with it. thank you.
We're not talking about 7 tris, we're talking about several hundred on each side (I'd go as far to say M@ty's 200 guestimate is a very generous figure, I had it in my head that these edges contribute around 1/3 to the entire polygon count). Hundreds of tris which all run a risk of being sub-pixel due to their proportions and the intended use of the weapon.
Again, these are faces which add absolutely nothing to the model's shape, texture, or ability to deform during animation. Remove them and the detail remains the same. At first you were daring someone to find an edge that can be removed without creating a triangle (which totally are not evil). Now you're saying these edgeloops are vital to the detail, which simply isn't true. Their existence has have nothing to do with it fitting the reference as they're planar and don't contribute towards altering the form or silhouette. You would get no argument from me over an identical polygon count (or even a higher one) if those faces were from a bevel or put to actual use, but instead the only thing they add to the final model is 6-12x the triangles for every planar segment for no other reason then that you don't want to use a few triangles to begin with. Stranger still, you'd rather try and convince people that they're somehow necessary instead of spending the 90 seconds to dissolve them. No one is saying it's a bad model or anything, just that you could make it even better with a few seconds of cleanup.
cryrid, I'm meant no hostility in my responses I simply didn't understand. thank you very much for your insight.
It's cool, I figured there was probably just some miscommunication.
Ignore Wird, he's a whiny little B*%^*.
Lol, nah, seems pretty good to me.
lol you msn *****
lol what a coincidence im doing a thompson and ure model is helping me to work out the angles btw great model
you can probably redo a lot and keep it quads aswell, as a Quad which looks like a tri is still a quad, since it has 4 sides, getting my point?
and sorry for making such a huge discussion -__-' but it seems like it did you good in the end, I hope you will take it to heart =)
Good luck with future models, and good luck optimizing this model!
I personally WHILE MODELLING keep everytthing in quads, which then leaves me a lot of unnecessary geometry, which i then optimize away when i feel like.. iam done now, if you understand?
you are a great modeller, just optimizing issues here ;)
Awesome modeling here, glad these fellows helped you clean up some of the unneeded polygons!