Artists

If you hadn't said they were renders, I would never had noticed...

the phrase "git" springs to mind when I see his work. Still it gives us all somehting to aim at.

Ok, repaired Max, still not working anyone got any suggestions? I don't look forward to a full re-install...

Thanks in advance.

which version of max/ try reading manual~ help texts on how to use it.... not that intuitive

Thanks for the reply David but it's not an issue of being able to use it properly, it's an issue of it not working in the first place. When I click on the 'Render to Texture...' menu option it starts to load then spits up another dialog box telling me theres an 'Unknown system exception'. When I click Ok for that all thats left of the Render to texture dialog box is the general settings rollout. After clicking around on that for a while it usually crashes.

Was hoping someone else had come across this problem before.

I have the same problem, using max 5.1 servicepack 1.

macro script erro and then yur just left with the general settings??? dont suppose youv found a fix for it?

I haven't tried out this fix but I'm told that what's causing it is Win XP service pack 2, apparently if you uninstall that then it should work again.

Let me know if it does.

try this, its a reference thread from conceptart which has a lot of good varied links. hopefully you can find what your looking for

[url]http://www.conceptart.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=30[/url]

domai rocks. Its great have a break from porn and see photo's celibrating the beauty of a womens body.

We're still peaking at around 4k tri's for current gen stuff next gen could see up to 15k (Unreal 3 will be about 10k.) Don't look for a lot of multiplayer action at this level though.

Thats actually dependant on the engine of a particular game.

A sim wouldn't have a 4000 character for current generation technology and arcade fighting games are higher than that already.

WiffleCube: What are you looking at building the character for?

i think that for half-life 2 the main characters get about 7500 tris and and most others are around 3000 or so.

Malus: As a mob (mobile object) in a game i.e. generic monster/humanoid. i.e. they have to be rendered real-time,
not for cutscenes etc.

To elaborate further; I'm planning on writing a game a bit like a cross between System Shock 2, Fallout and Half-Life; so it would require quite a few mobs (maybe not quite as much as a shooter-fest).

Also, the engine will do backface culling and BSP so quite a lot of triangles won't even end up on the pipeline. Most games do this so
I don't know if this information is useful.

To elaborate even further, the target cards would be Geforce III/Radeon 9800

To elaborate to the extremum, it's not going to use a commercial engine; the engine is written from scratch. It's been a kind of
'world's strongest-man pull-a-truck-with-your-teeth' coding project
with lots of broken pencils and scrunched up paper.

The goal is to have something to show a good software company. In
terms of media I've done a few midis for the music which are at
the moment a bit ordinary. It's rapidly approaching the time where
mobs and interactive models should be introduced, hence the posting.

In that case since your writing the code shouldn't you be telling us how much you have to work with?

But for arguments sake, hypothetically, if you build an engine capable of today's FPS specs then you could, theoretically, push around models ranging from 2000 - 5000 tris easily depending on how many are on the screen.

Thanks.. I'll keep 2k triangles per mob @ 60FPS overall as an
estimate of upper bound i.e. code should not run slower than this.

It works very well ..for now.. but when other structures
have been added then that's where the delays will come in,
and so this benchmark is useful.

That way I'll know if the structures I'm using are good enough
or if they are pants and need to be redesigned.

2k per mob at 60FPS..2k per mob at 60FPS.. scribble scribble.

Neopaint was fantastic at the time. That was also because I went from MS Paint to it. It is still good for old style pixel art. If you can get the DOS version to run at all, it will run very slowly. There was a Windows version made too, but I just wasn't keen on that one (and I started using PS at that stage). Just keep in mind that it doesn't have layers or much else.

http://www.neosoftware.com/npw.html

I've had ProMotion linked from the 2d artists section for years now. [:)] http://www.cosmigo.com/promotion/index.php

I can dabble in C++, but my fun is in using paintbrushes and modelling to make things look fancy.
I do have a qualification in C++ Games Programming, but ill be the first to admit im no superstar.
Did it to gain a better understanding of the production pipelines, how to make code and art meet, and what required.

I found i learnt lightyears beyond what i ever could have, doing a straight 3d modelling diploma.

Thanks for the link to Pro Motion.. I've bought an e-mail copy.

Hazard: If you've got the basics of C++ then they can always be expanded upon;
If you can also bang out a good tune the you could do a one-man-band project :)
There are other things; Dynamic Types, cache optimisation, STL which are good to
know about. The degree also taught me the basics of dependencies like coupling,
connascence and cohesion (these are ways of designing code so that it's easy to
maintain etc.) but if you were employed for C++ you'd probably get those reinforced.
As it is, I can barely remember the different kinds of dependencies.

Funny thing is - ive been playing guitar since i was 4 odd years old, and been a DJ for a good 4 odd years doing night-work etc [:P] so your right, i could be a 1 man band. But i realised i could get so much more done with a few good friends [:)] especially those who will always be better than me at a paticular thing.

Well, can't argue with that. Although there are advertisements for jobs which require crossover skills e.g. 'programmer with a flare for graphics design/music'. Seems like they're trying to get a two-foo for their wage packet outlay. I'd like to create at least one single-person game as a personal goal. They did it in the 80s, even on the
Amiga, and computers aren't so different now.

It says it's a computer graphics portal, and it definately is that.. Design wise - it's very simple, but I reckon it needs a lot more personality.. I can see that it's setting up blogs and artist interviews which is definately good. I'm probably a bit underwhelmed though, since Sumea has had all that years ago. [;)].. The forum is ok, but I think there are so many better ones than that around these days. Forums are extremely important, in my personal opinion. If it looks like a glorified guestbook, then it makes your website feel a bit subpar.

The problem I think is that it's got some pretty stiff competition in its area of covering computer graphics. Compare related sites like www.cgworks.com or www.cgnetworks.com to see the difference. It's definately a hard area to stand out in, requiring a lot of work.

Ah.. What I really meant was the actual painting program you can download from there; it's called Pixel32.

Oh yes, trust me to miss the point completely.. [:D]

thats pretty cool, unfortunatly anything out of the cameras range (say indents behind something facing the camera) wont be added to your "3D scan." its still pretty amazing though

I haven't actually tried it myself, but it seemed like a good tool :)

quote:Originally posted by MoonUnit

thats pretty cool, unfortunatly anything out of the cameras range (say indents behind something facing the camera) wont be added to your "3D scan." its still pretty amazing though

quote:Originally posted by WiffleCube


I haven't actually tried it myself, but it seemed like a good tool :)

I don't know about that. I looks to me like you will be spending more time patching up what the photo didn't capture than actually making it yourself.

On the other hand, it might be really useful for creating a reference model to use as a I guide for your actual model.

if that triped u out try this

http://www.milkyparadise.com/Priscilla/crossed/04.jpg

ok go cross exed and then focus on the middle image that appears

ps sorry if this is against the rules it is the least reveling of all the photo's in the section :/

uhhh i dont get whats supposed to be happening, beyond eye strain that is

heh its like those 3d little images that have hidden things in them but u can see this clearly when it works

All I can see is a pair of perky uhhh, yes I'm sure you're right, never been much good with those stereographs.

quote:Originally posted by RasTuS

heh its like those 3d little images that have hidden things in them but u can see this clearly when it works

thats a pretty good price $495USD eventhough it is limited

Yep that's an amazing price.

It's actually not too limited and only lacks a few Essentials tools such as poly reduction (which isn't the best anyway), rigid body dynamics and hair/fur but it'll do practically anything required for game art.

Wow, that's awesome! I've always wondered when 3d application companies will bring out cut down versions of their programmes. This looks ideal for real time game modellers. Hurray for new pricing schemes! I remember a few years ago when Maya started dropping their software price, which caused the other companies to follow suit. Hopefully this will start a trend also!

Sure, there are personal learning editions, Gmax etc around, but they restrict you to their specific file format. I hope that Discreet follows suit and releases a cut down version of Max that has all the fancy polygon modelling and UV mapping/unwrapping tools.. That SOFTIMAGE|XSI v.4.0 Foundation would be ideal if it had that character rigging system in it too.

They hinted about 12 months ago that they'd be offering a product that would appeal to the game industry at very low cost, even the original price for Foundation of $US3000 was good, but this new pricing is insane :)

You might like to look check out the features pdf Souri (if you already haven't) to see if it has what you're looking for...
http://www.softimage.com/products/xsi/v4/features/XSI_v40_new_features…

Thats a crazy price for such a high level package. I just bought a plugin for lightwave that cost most than that! I would almost consider switching myself but my job requires I use my current package.

I'm seriously considering investing in a copy of this program, has anybody here got a copy? I've only ever used softimage for a short time and it seems ok, can anybody let me know the pros and cons? That price is just too damn good, I put it through a currency converter and it seems to be around $689 australian.
Since I'm here, do we have any z-brush users here? Thats another program I'm seriously tempted to get.

I have only heard positive things about xsi so far. Seems to have the animation as good as and if not better than maya, and modelling tools better than lightwave or max. Download xsi for half-life 2 and check it out. http://www.softimage.com/products/EXP/HL2/

yes I've actually given it a go and I really like it, Unless I can find a copy of max4 or 5 With character studio second hand for cheap, I'll get softimage instead. Anyone want to sell me there copy? Max would be easier since the AMP plugins are only written for max 4 and 5.

Another one already? Damn, well hopefully I'll be able to afford to buy this one, I guess I'll need to find a job

Did that guy say CS is going to revolutionise games? LOL...LOL...Heee...hhhaaaa, thats the funniest....LOL LOL...Complete human rig...LOL..Oh hes killing me.

Oooee, I'm crying.

I love modelling with Max, hell I learnt on Max, but they have a long road ahead of them before they win back some of those who jumped to Maya and Softimage etc, especially with regards to animation systems.

Max is still the best for poly pushing workflow in my books but since you can customise Maya to work just like it with Mel scripts they are losing hold of that too.

This better be an amazingly different version, not just addons, or they'll slip even further behind.

Meh!.... 7 already? 6 not good enough? seems like the last kicks of a dead man..
still be nice to see what they mean by 'integrated' character studio..
not that I'm a big fan of it...

I'll continue to use max exclusively for modelling.... can't beat the mesh and poly tools yet...

To the defense of Max (doesn't happen too often :) ), all the major graphical apps are starting to release upgrades every year. Even if the upgrades they have planned aren't really needed :/ Maya, XSI, Lightwave, Photoshop. It's a real pain in the arse, as it means that if you upgrade and you use any plugins, then you have to get those upgraded as well.

http://www.3dvf.com/modules/publish/_1231_1.html

The current Max 7 Feature list in more detail.

does it have sub division surfaces yet?

Do booleans work properly yet?

Stu

I have been betatesting this badboy, and its the best upgrade I have ever seen. Character artists should flock to this- its got the best polytools out (sorry but-screw hunting down and installing all those scripts for maya for a laugh, if I pay that sort of money I want out of the box juiciness) and the bomb of normal mapping tools (you can see the rays from the projected object AND project the uvs to the high res model). Also most of the tools I use all day are polished up and streamlined - you can see seams on UVunwrap, you can move mesh and the uvs stay put, you can airbrush on soft selections.... its just smart stuff. You can also make a hi res mesh skin to a low res mesh and get perfect deformation- I can skin a film res character and have all the muscles twitch morphing on a falloff curve in a day with this.

Now I hang out a lot with the Discreet guys I know, but this really is something to gawp at -If the competition started putting out releases this strong I would be tempted away. This is far removed from 6 which didnt really add much but vert paint to games guys like us.

(Booleans- get powerbooleans, its brilliant, outputting quad meshes from the operands (which means you can mesh smooth it))

Peter- subdivs? Max is full of them, whaddya talking about? Polymesh base smooth, turbosmooth, meshsmooth and selective subdivs. If you mean a new class of mesh that must be converted ala maya, then no-thank god.

So whats the price going to be then?

So to sum up we get:

- normal mapping tools, with max's history of large polycount slow down I'm wary.
- the already superior poly modelling is made even better.
- and of course the obligitory addition of things that were cool in Maya 6, visible UVunwrap seams, soft select airbrushing etc.
- and don't forget they intergrated Character Studio for some reason?!

Nice use of resources, make the things that already worked well better and leave the rest of Max's systems so behind the competition that people turn to Maya and Softimage in droves.

I hope I'm mistaken and Discreet have learnt some lessons but if not then Max 8 may as well be a poly modelling package and leave the rest out. Sigh [:(]

For a concept I try to get a pose that show the feeling of the character.

For a model sheet on the other hand I generally find the mid point of the limb extensions, basically the middle of its possible movement arc, this is going to be the best for modelling as it spreads the deformation over the mesh evenly.

Remember, a good modeller knows the limitations his/her model will have when it comes to animating it, stand up and act out your intended moves and see how and where your model will need to bend.

The less obvious and intrusive you make the flaws (all models have flaws, don't kid yourself [:P]) the better the model will deform for the animator using it, which is good because they will love you instead of hunting you down. lol

ive heard it argued that 45 is better because realisticly people barely hold out there arms at right angles to their torsos (but ofcourse you want some space for ease of use when modelling). Personally i find 90 easier but thats just me.

I model with the arm roughly at 45, but I draw the orthographic with them parallel to the characters torso with a little bend in the arm. I draw the ortho like this because if I drew the arms at 90 to the body they would be of little use to me in the side view. (I would need a top view to get the ?side? view of the arms)

Pantmonger

I thought the main reason for modelling the limbs as far away from the body as possible is to make rigging the mesh for animation easier. In my limited animation experience (mostly with character studio), if you have the limbs too close to the body (even with arms at 45), the limbs can end up grabbing verts from the body when you set up the envelope.

So that's 2 for 90 degrees and 1 for 45 i think malus is 45 degrees as well. It's just that Paul steed uses 45 degrees and that ben mathis guy uses 90, two of my favourite tutors :)

I use 45, as that is what I have only done, but it seems that 90 is easier to Model And Rig.

Ben Mathis, never heard of him, he have a Web Site?

Ben Mathis = poopinmymouth

www.poopinmymouth.com

45 and 90 are just numbers, you can't use them for every character, my god man! [:P]

People quote that as a guide so that you will have something to go on, yes it is too get the limbs as far away from the body as possible for rigging etc but mainly its for deformation during animation.

Wierd example but you'll get the point:
What if your character always animates with its arms forward? Don't ask me why but he does, how would modelling the arms out at 40 or 90 degrees to its side help? It wouldn't, the mesh would deform horribly hen pulled forward, you need to have the characters arms in there mid poses as per animations it will have.

I've been using 45, but i think i'll start using 90 degrees from now on. I think it prolly would be easier to model.

Bullet - As many of the members have said, the arms (and legs) are posed at a chosen angle due to the deformations that will be needed. If you find it easier to model the arms while they are at a 45 degree angle, but the deformations would look better at a more bent angle, then model the arm at 90 degrees, grab all the verts and rotate them. Tweak as needed. You don't have to start modelling something one set way and then stick to it. Go for what works best :)

What app are you using? There are heaps of lighting tutorials around, but it obviously depends on what app you want to do it in.
Here is a great general knowledge tute on lighting: [url]http://www.warpedspace.org/lightingT/part1.htm[/url]
Reading through that should reveal an answer (or at least improve you knowledge of lighting - very important)

A suppose a simple way would be to create a fog effect and throw some ray tracing directional lights into the scene. I haven?t tried it, so I'm not sure. But it sounds logical.

Good luck. Let us know how you go [:)]

Hey Naude.

Here is a pic of it's location. This was taken from Maya PLE, and it is the same in all versions. If you want to add it to your shelf. Hold down Ctrl+Alt while you select it from the main menu. It will just add it to the end of your currently viewed shelf.

[img]http://home.netspeed.com.au/mlanham/Tutes/Split_Vert.jpg[/img]

Thanx Aven. I finally found it. i don`t know how on earth i missed it tho *sigh*

hmmm.. check to see you have vertex lighting enabled in the static mesh window/tab, as default when you import them they have vertex lighting off... that should let the lighting be mapped correctly..

That didn't seem to work Me109. I couldn't actually find "vertex lighting" in the Static Mesh window. There was only "UseVertex colour", which is what I assume you meant, and selected it to "true". But if there is a "lighting" tab can you please explain to me where it is.

I had a look at the map "DM-TokaraForest" because it has static meshes with a similar structure to my roads. Basically straight sections and sections that curve up. The lighting is fine on these, and I can't work out why. I looked at these Static Meshes in the window and found that there "UseVertex colour" was set to "false" anyway.

I'm going to keep on trying stuff, but if you or anyone else could help it would be really appreciated.

just wondering if your static meshes are capped? or have poly at where the two segment are to meet?

Cheers Pants, downlaoding now.

yeah it's a cool little program, and much easier to make it look and act like paint than coral painter. Cool pic btw, you can see your style coming through the realism i think you where going for, I especially like the eyes there's alot of personality in them.

cheers, ive been using PS all the time.. :)

I tried it out this morning and last night, not to shabby. I like it! [:)], thanks for the link.

Wings 3D
http://www.wings3d.com/

Although not free, a cheap poly modeller is Silo
http://www.nevercenter.com/

if you can get your hands on combustion 2 that is an excellent compositing package. all you have to do is go into one of the particle librays and find gun fire fx (there are heaps) and you can tweak em if you dont like them. and all you do is stick in in over the top of your shot.

the interface is a little annoying at first but once you sort it out its all good.

oh and rendering ur movie as .TGA and sticking them in is the best way i thik to import your animation into there cause combustion hates almost every single kind of codec imaginable :P

I once did it with a simple fire effect: make a sphere helper and apply the fire effect under rendering -> effects. Then animate the scale of the sphere helper over a few frames, and play around with the fire setup until it looks right.

Hmm, not sure about the sparks though. I suppose a particle system of some sort would do it well enough.

thanks guys ill get my hands on combustion 2 and give that ago, also ill try out the helper sphere thing

thanks

http://www.csnation.net/morph/tut_muzzleflashesin3dsmax.php

here's a good tut for doing a muzzle flash in 3ds max. Yu can use an audio float instead of noise float to make the flashes match up with a soung effecr if you have it.

Stu

thanks stu, thats the kind of tut i was looking for and couldnt find, thanks heeps ill try it out soon, if anyone else has any tuts like that or even how to create good spark fx in max, (having trouble getting combustion 2 tho ive got combustion 1 atm) and yah also do you know if combustion 1 has the same particle fx and combustion 2. thanks

colm

Well what do you know, the way I did it was almost the exact same way as he did in the tute [:D] ? The only difference is using the combustion effect instead of fire, but the method is the same: make a sphere helper and apply an effect to it. Simple. Er, only he kind of said it in way more detail and then went on about connecting it to sound effects. But I still feel like I?ve achieved something non-amateurish! [:P]

i presume your talking Max here but its allways good to let people know before hand (and what ver).

I usually use a combination of planar, cylindrical, sphere & box. But basically the same process as what you said. Sometimes it pays to just use the flatten mapping function, and just weld the faces back together, you do get a really nice flat base to start with, especially for low poly characters, it works like a charm, you can get a sub 1500 tri character unwrapped and ready to paint in about 45 minutes.

You do get faster and faster at doing it, a 3000 - 5000 tri model depending on complexity usually takes around 3 - 4 hours for a good unwrap.

Using the Planar map method, how do you know which faces you have unwrapped and which you haven't? Also when you are doing the face, do you planar map the whole thing, or dou you do the nose seperatly and weld it one to the face.

erm im assuming from whats been said here that you can do large planar maps (me = maya user), and bullet asked how you know what youve unwrapped heres a handy hint:

before you start laying out your faces all nice and flat select all the faces on the entire object and do a big planar map of them (what youll get is a sort of orthographic view of your character in your UV edit window) which you can move off to the side. Then when you map out certain parts they will disapear from that large map. This also means if you have mapped out the arm and what to map out the hand for example, assuming the model is fairly simple you could just marquee select the hand from the large planar map you made at the start (because youve allready mapped the arm it wont be on the planar map anymore and thus its an easy marquee). Also if theres any floating faces on your original projection, you know youve missed something and you can check to see where they came from :D

i hope my jargon made sense there :P if not say so and ill try to provide some visual aid.

Bullet21 - Make a checkerboard material, and apply that to your model before you start, youll notice that the checkers are all screwed up when you first apply it, the goal of the unwrap is to get those checkers looking like checkers again.

I recall, I was going to write you a tut on this wasn't I ? [:I]

whilst on this topic... anyone know how to set the canvas ratio? It's always sqaure... which means if I use a 512x256 texture map, I need to squash my UV's into Max's square UV canvas, then export as a 2:1 ratio. Anyway to actually work on a canvas other than a square one?

Yeah hazard you were, get to work, it's not like you work for kalesceent studios and are so busy doing other stuff ;P

Using the unwrap modifier in Max I either just do planar maps or use the unwrap tool.
Maya has great uvw mapping, mmmm relax tool.

max 6 has relax UV's :)

personally i cant use relax UVs because if i do, i dont know whats going where when i take it into photoshop.

Max 6 has relax uv's?!! I didn't even check!!! lol
My work just sped up, yoink!

Another question, sorry about the flooding guys, but texturing is the part i'm having heaps of difficulty with. If i have a symmetrical model, is it possible to unwrap just one half and then mirror the texture to the other side as well, or is there some other way to half the work. Or do you simply have to unwrap it all?

UV mapping - at the moment I am using lightwave 7 to map objects, very easy and quick, when you get the hang of it, you are able to scew and magnify to your hearts content, which makes it easy to export to a map out of ratio, honestly i haven't used any other UV tools, but I found it easy to pick up and can be quite powerful.

quote:Originally posted by bullet21

If i have a symmetrical model, is it possible to unwrap just one half and then mirror the texture to the other side as well

The easiest way is to delete half the model, unwrap it... mirror it and weld it back as 1 piece. Max's "Copy/Paste" of UV's is atrocious, in my experience.

And yeh... does anyone know how to use a non-square canvas to unwrap the UV's on?

quote:Originally posted by Makk

I have been doing some UV mapping mapping recently and I am curious as to know what methods other people use.
At the moment I just use the Unwrap UV modifer, select a group of faces, planer map, adjust, select more faces, planer map, weld onto the previous set of faces, adjust, etc, etc
However this has proven to be painfully slow and boring. I cant imagine how long it would take to map a high 10k model using this method!!!
Does anyone use the UVW map modifer and use the gizmo for doing cyndrical mapping? Whats that like? Is it quicker/easier then planer mappping?
Any and all advice on dealing with UV mapping and would be great :)

I'm guessing you're using Max 4 or 4.2? Like J.I Styles mentioned somewhere else, there are plugins to get some of Max 5 unwrapping features in Max 4.2..

If you have time, you might want to check out the Max 6 30 day trial. Unwrapping has pretty much become an automatic procedure with a few mouse clicks and some value adjustments with Max, which is great!

Yeah, i found that plug in on the AIE website. You have to become a member which is free then, go to the plug ins section.

quote:whilst on this topic... anyone know how to set the canvas ratio? It's always sqaure... which means if I use a 512x256 texture map, I need to squash my UV's into Max's square UV canvas, then export as a 2:1 ratio. Anyway to actually work on a canvas other than a square one?

Click more options, and in bitmap options untick use custom bitmap size [;)]and there u go not square and all squished up now...yah

Has anyone know of a program called Depp UV, and know what it does, i just downloaded a video tutorial and the guy in it (ben Mathis) says it makes unwrapping a lot easier.

Sorry for the late reply, ISP problems. Yeah, Im stuck in the stone age with MAX 4.0.
Whats the plugin to get better mapping tools?
I hate trying to figure all the jumbled lines. I guess that comes with practice.
Might give that MAX6 30 day trial a go. Maybe even just for the sumea modeller challenge!!
Bullet I have edged faces on so it highlights the select faces in the viewport.

http://www.aie.vic.edu.au/3d_resources/plugin/unrapper.zip is the link for unrapper, it's makes things easier but still a pain in the anus.

Hey guys, have another question, when i run an STL check, with everything selected in the dialogue box it high lights a few edges, i tried all of the errors idividually but, the errors appear when i select open Edges. What's this mean and how can i fix it.

One piece of advice, never judge a piece of software by the gallery they pimp. I've never used blender, but why don't you give lightwave a try. It's a lot more industry standard than Blender and is cheaper than maya and max. You can download the discovery edition of the bigpond website, give it a whirl.

I used it for a while but for some reason i just didn't like it as much as max.

Another cheap 3d tool is Wings3d. Never used it before but apperantly its pretty good for low poly work.

I used wings, it's based of nendo/mirai the one that Bay Raitt(Kiwi guy who worked on Gollum) uses. I didn't like it cos it was heavily based on the right mouse button, i know it sounds stupid but to bring up any kind of menu you had to right click. It's free though.

Hello, Gmax anyone? It's max without the bells and whistles for hi poly work, animation etc.

He said he has tryed Gmax and didn't like it. Theres also a good program called Truespace which is cheap and effective. All this advice on ther software than blender probably means it aint that great ;P

Bullet- Bay Raitt isn't Kiwi, he just worked there for a few years, I saw a brief interview with him on The Two Towers Extended and I'm pretty sure he's Yank.

When did he say he's tried Gmax?

quote:someone told me to try gmax but i found it quite limited because of the export/import limitations.

That's where![:p]

and about bay raitt no being Kiwi, I stand corrected [:I][:o)]

hi again

i tried blender anyway. if you guys like to know the interface is weird and i didn't manage to do something right. i'll prbably ditch the package. but you guys should definetly take a look at the galleries, there is one screen of a castle that looks quite impressive.

thanks for the replies anyway, i'll try wings3D and truespace.

for Gmax, well, i thought about max being some kind of industry standard. maybe i'll work with after all, if i want to work with other artists some day. and i'll use another 3rd-party program to break the limitations upon gmax. like milkshape to convert all the files.

ciao ciao

My piece on this is extremely clean cut. Model sheets MUST be as accurate as possible, the reason simply being to eliminate all chance of error, especially so early on in the production line.

Any inconsistancies between front and side view reference images, encourages a 'guess' as to where something should be placed. If your just bumming around trying to build a model for the sake of it, then its not so crucial, but working with a big art team, and keeping a close reign and margins for error to a minimum, i believe its absolutely crucial to have the images as close as possible.

And if the model sheet is drawn up baring that reference images are needed in max / maya then its definately no trouble setting them up in max, Its more a case of setting a crop size in photoshop ( making sure that in encompasses both front and side views of your model ), then using that size to crop your front view, and then your side view. Measure that crop size in mm, and create 2 planes in max / maya matching the size.

If your model sheet has been drawn up well, there is almost no tweaking or mucking around at all.

Its relatively important to have them matching up, when i did my concept for my 3d model i made sure to rule lines accross to the side concept for important lines and curves like the knee and the top of the crotch etc. But if your not 100% acurate and these concepts are only for your own use then you have some room to breathe because when you make the 3D model you can adjust for that yourself.

I don't think it is quite as important as HazarD and MoonUnit do. Just realise that if the two planes are out and you try to model it exactly to the planes, you will have a crooked model. If the planes dont line up perfectly, work around it.

But if they aren't and you modify them in photoshop, as they did in the VTM wouldn't that modify the way the whole concept looked eg: making the face a bit longer.

um if u havent been using the side pic for rerance then its going to be difernt proportion to the front or top so u will never be able to get them to fit acurately .. u shold be drwing them up in the same file and useing crop like HazarD said. this is how u should be drwing them up it u want them to be acurate.. the ceter line is probly best on the front view , mine is on the side view because I drew it from the side 1st..some one mighth know the best way to go about this othaganla drawing or what ever its called ??bacicly the the 45 deg line give u 90 deg is pitty simple shit

[img]icon_paperclip.gif[/img] Download Attachment: [url="http://www.sumea.com.au/forum/attached/adie/200472081447_how-to-draw.jpg"]how-to-draw.jpg[/url]
47.8 KB

quote:Originally posted by adie
some one mighth know the best way to go about this othaganla drawing or what ever its called ??

Orthographic :)
for a 3D model you can get by with a front and side view i find, so you dont need to include a top and curve your lines with the 45 degree line to make sure they line up with the top view aswell. I just work by doing a front or side view (leaving some space beside it) then ruling lines across.

if your interested though the thing with the 35 degree line is aswell as having your front and side beside each other you do a top view above the front view and then rule all the lines accros from the top view till they encounter the 45 degree line (which extends from your front view) and then turn them on a right angle directly down to line up features from the top view AND the front view for your side (or vice versa)

erm... thats probably impossible to understand isnt it (wheres a whiteboard when you need one...)

moonunit what are u talking about?? he eh.... i know u just explaind how to do exactly the same thing and ive got In drawing dosent matter witch veiw u draw first.

So this is what i've gathered, Once i have an idea in my head, I just draw a front or side view of it first. Then i use a ruler and guidelines (for important areas) to transfer it to the second view as well. Then i scan it in and edit it in photoshop if necesary. Is that all i do. Also Is one a4 paper enough for both views.

depends on a few things, like how much detail you want in your orthographic views and what it is your actually drawing, personally i found that an A4 for was good enough for a front and side.

Another question, Then do you also do a seperate front and left view for the head and one for the body and head.

Yeh, as the VTM says, lining the concept up exactly removes unecessary guesswork you'd have to make to compensate matching errors when you're modelling. I think it's a good practise to do your concept on sheets of paper with lines so you can match it up there, rather than in photoshop later.

quote:Another question, Then do you also do a seperate front and left view for the head and one for the body and head

no u dont need a seperate one for the head ..sorry my pic has confused u i think ... if u use a seperate A4 page for each Veiw than it will make it a bit easyer to line things up. By laying them on top of each other and tracing.. just make shaw u put some cross keys to line them up together with.. its best if u use a needable eraser to stick it down so they dont mover or some masking tape will do. the biigger u draw the easy it will be to moddle, becaue u kinda loose shap when u draw small i find

Ok, i've got a head i drew into max, i've set it up all good. now i've got one more problem. When i put it on a plane, it is very pixelated and jagged. I use the same dimensions for the plane as the picture is which is 545 * 754

yeah its a bit small thats why.. I think?? .. dont realy know how u get it to dispaly not pixalated .. u could try changing stuff in customize menu/pereferaces/veiwports tab/configure driver.. or inverse the color in photoshop so its black Background and white lines .. this makes it more clear sometimes

I got it working, i just made it bigger and grayed it a bit with the brightness turned down. Tanx heaps Adie

I wish I could help, but fear not, Aven to the rescue...

[:D]

Already PMed earlier. Beat chya to it Hazard :D So Selwyn, if you haven't already, just check your PM Inbox.

It is really hard to tell these things by looking at a few screen caps, but it looks likt the normals on part of the mesh are flipped. Could be wrong :)

EDIT: Actually the chances of having the Normals facing the wrong way on just that part of the mesh and causing those artifacts is pretty doubtful. I'll just make sure it isn't the same problem Moony had. Is that texture a TGA? If so, try another format. Preferably something that doesn't have a built in alpha channel (ie: a non-32bit image).

Thanks for emailing me the file Selwyn :)

I have two pieces of bad news and one bit of good :)

I had a look at it and tried a few different things. Firstly, you may want to have a quick run over the mesh. There are a few internal faces and some of the verts need to be welded. That didn't seem to fix the problem though. Tried deleting some faces and making new ones. Didn't help. Tried changing the visibility flags so that it was only one sided. Helped a bit but still had some bad areas.

Then I tried a new Shader. I don't know why, but it hates that old Shader. Just apply a new one to that area of the mesh and re-apply the textures. Worked fine for me :) Just in case you don't know how to, select all the faces that make up that area. Right-Click on the faces and go to Materials > Assign New Material > Lambert (or whatever Shader type you want). Just reload all the texture nodes and you should be good to go. Another thing I noticed is that the Shaders had some of their attributes changed when they don't really need to be (Translucence Focus and so on). Unless you really need to, just keep them at their default settings :)

If you have any questions or anything, just ask.

For those folks who would like to know how this saga turned out, there is some very good news and some very bad. The good news is that I have overcome the disappearing problem I was having with the textures with the invaluable help of Aven.

Here is a view of the static mesh road in Unreal
http://www.deviantart.com/view/8740225/

The bad news, needs its context explained. The model was made as one quarter of the road and the multiplied around the central axis. I combined the four quarters and took a UV snapshot of each quarter and then placed the textures. I noticed that there were flickering lines inbetween the textures and concluded that this was because the UV?s weren?t lined up properly, which could be easily fixed later. In fact it seems to be due to the fact that I only combined the four quarters and didn?t merge them. So the flickering is the central edges sitting on top of eachother, where the seams of the textures also lay.

I tried merging all the edges and this has subsequently warped the textures, but seemed to fix the flickering. I think that I?m probably going to have to re do the UV?s, now that I have merged the edges.

Thanks again Aven

*sigh* isnt it fun when stuff like that happens :S
oh well its a learning process :P