[QUOTE=John117;38111256]Don't listen to know-it-all upstarts.[/QUOTE]
That can be hard when they present a ton of information which all makes sense, and then examples showing you how it looks better.
[QUOTE=- Livewire -;38113505]That can be hard when they present a ton of information which all makes sense, and then examples showing you how it looks better.[/QUOTE]
I'd rather listen to an industry leader in graphics and gaming than a random poster on a forum. Not to mention, this is becoming irrelevant as low poly limits increase therefore allowing for more geometry in your model. Also, quality over quantity.
[QUOTE=John117;38113898]I'd rather listen to an industry leader in graphics and gaming than a random poster on a forum. Not to mention, this is becoming irrelevant as low poly limits increase therefore allowing for more geometry in your model. Also, quality over quantity.[/QUOTE]
A random poster? Lol that's one of the devs who works at 3 Point Studios. He's worked on numerous AAA games, is a moderator on polycount, and is highly respected among the 3d community. IMO his knowledge of normal mapping is almost bar none among artists in the industry, and he's pretty much been the one leading any normal mapping talk on PC. Here's some of his work on Brink (which uses the same process for normal mapping that he outlined in the thread i posted): [url]http://www.polycount.com/forum/showthread.php?t=85669&page=2[/url]
He's hardly a random forum poster. You'd do better to actually read what he posted rather than blindly read a tutorial that doesn't cover normal mapping in depth. You do realize that even a large number of AAA studios do not know how to bake normal maps correctly? Using smoothing groups has a large number of advantages over not using them, and is extremely beneficial in cases where the tangent basis does not sync.
If anything, that crytek post only makes things worse for new artists trying to learn normal mapping, it's objectively worse advice to follow so you really shouldn't forsake it based on your misconceptions.
[QUOTE=John117;38111256]Read from the best of the industry:
[url]http://freesdk.crydev.net/display/SDKDOC3/Chamfering+Edges[/url]
Unified smoothing groups produces the best results.
"[I]In conclusion, it is best to use low poly meshes with unified smoothing groups, and then to chamfer edges and corners if they can be seen at extreme angles. However, it is not always necessary to chamfer low poly meshes. Using very simple meshes can produce surprisingly good results if they are carefully matched to the high poly mesh.[/I]"[/QUOTE]
crytek's documentation is about their polybump tool which has synced normals with CE3 - if you put those normals in any other engine it wouldn't look anywhere near that good. On the other hand, the method that dog-gy posted will look very good regardless of it having chamfered edges / having synced nornals / pretty much anything in any rendering engine ever
case in point, the method you're using makes stuff like this:
[URL=http://imgbox.com/acwicvWz][IMG]http://t.imgbox.com/acwicvWz.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
notice the shading errors on the flat parts of the cube? they wouldn't be there if you'd smoothed it (correctly)
Also, 3Point is the only studio whos members are attempting to improve how the industry bakes normal maps. You would be surprised at how many studios do not know how to bake a proper normal map and have broken tangents in their pipeline, but all their assets still make it through approval somehow.
This is because most artists still don't know the deeper technical aspects of normal maps.
As an example, here's a quote from another employee, perna [I]"One of our projects now uses a major game engine that renders broken tangents and the polycounts are an estimated 2 to 3 times higher than if we could use "Quality Mode" normals. That's ridiculous. We're still working to educate more companies on this, with no motivation other than it lets us produce better looking art for them using less polygons."[/I]
they created quality mode to address these problems in the 3ds max viewport shader they developed.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/Wzm3b.jpg[/img]
wip
This is probably my third or fourth model. I'm still learning.
[QUOTE=John117;38107209]It may be more about how you bake. Do you have smoothing groups before baking? Ideally your model should have just one smoothing group. Also, you may have to adjust your cage.
I made this model quickly to test out normal baking and the Xoliul shader. There's just a normal map applied. This mystery box has six seams- can you spot them?
[URL=http://imgbox.com/acwicvWz][IMG]http://t.imgbox.com/acwicvWz.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/QUOTE]
See this shitty looking part here? It's because you're not using smooth groups properly.
[img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/2004532/wowthatlookssogoodnot.jpg[/img]
Maybe if you had a completely rounded object with no hard edges, you could get away with a single smooth groups. But not on a box.
Alright, I'll try using this method on my battle rifle and see what kind of results I get. I've been using CryEngine for a while and never tried to see what my works looked like in other engines. Basically, I've found a method that works well and have been sticking to it.
[QUOTE=Juniez;38115041]crytek's documentation is about their polybump tool which has synced normals with CE3 - if you put those normals in any other engine it wouldn't look anywhere near that good. On the other hand, the method that dog-gy posted will look very good regardless of it having chamfered edges / having synced nornals / pretty much anything in any rendering engine ever
case in point, the method you're using makes stuff like this:
[URL=http://imgbox.com/acwicvWz][IMG]http://t.imgbox.com/acwicvWz.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
notice the shading errors on the flat parts of the cube? they wouldn't be there if you'd smoothed it (correctly)[/QUOTE]
You mean if I had separate smoothing groups for every flat part of the model?
[QUOTE=John117;38113898]I'd rather listen to an industry leader in graphics and gaming than a random poster on a forum.[/QUOTE]
Just going to ignore the fact that you think EQ is a random poster, all my rage.
[QUOTE=John117;38115292]Alright, I'll try using this method on my battle rifle and see what kind of results I get. I've been using CryEngine for a while and never tried to see what my works looked like in other engines. Basically, I've found a method that works well and have been sticking to it.
You mean if I had separate smoothing groups for every flat part of the model?[/QUOTE]
yes smooth your lowpoly as you would normally
and then split your uv islands where your smoothing groups change
and then use a cage for baking so you don't get gaps between your rays
not only would it look just as good as your method in CE3, it'll also look great in every other engine
it also has a high potential to look better in CE3 as there's less gradation which means better compression, better overlaying of fine detail passes you'd pull out of crazybump, better LODing etc
[QUOTE=John117;38113898]I'd rather listen to an industry leader in graphics and gaming than a random poster on a forum. Not to mention, this is becoming irrelevant as low poly limits increase therefore allowing for more geometry in your model. Also, quality over quantity.[/QUOTE]
Then listen to me. I'm majoring in Game Art & Design at AI Pittsburgh. I've been here for over a year now and none of my instructors have said to use one smoothing group. These guys used to work in the industry. That's honestly the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
well i mean it's not dumb when using a perfectly synced workflow, as crytek has theirs set up in house, but it's also not preferable in most cases when there's so many advantages to using hard edges and no cons.
Thanks for all the help guys, sorry for causing a sort of debate over this but I learned a lot more about normal mapping in the process and read up on the links you all gave me. I've pretty much determined that my low poly's topology doesn't accurately reflect enough the hi-poly due to me adding too much of an elevation of details during my sculpt. Separating out my model's smoothing groups fixed the majority of terrible seams, but the reason for my poor normal map results is simply because the hi-poly differs too much from the low-poly. I'm currently messing around with a cage and have been getting better results, but still not sure whether or not I should just start again from scratch.
[img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/DJE0W.png[/img_thumb]
Here's the normal I got from baking with a cage and fixed smoothing groups.
[IMG]http://puu.sh/1gUEx[/IMG]
[IMG]http://puu.sh/1gUJg[/IMG]
jumpin back on dis modeling ish
i feel kinda shit because everyone on this thread is 2leet now
[QUOTE=kaine123;38107312][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/7obCJ.png[/IMG]
My first actual model.
It's a Remington Mark 3 flaregun.
What do you guys suggest I make next?[/QUOTE]
[t]http://i.imgur.com/yK0Dh.jpg[/t]
Bigger render
The bottom part of the barrel I'm trying to fix atm.
May I see a wireframe of that? Specifically the handle
Also here's an ultra fancy tub. Ngons on the lid aren't important
[t]http://uppix.net/4/7/2/58b336c37cb4dde3d56931c09ee8a.jpg[/t]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/YNTpl.jpg[/img]
Okay so what do I need to do a good texture on this?
How should I make the metal shine like real metal and the wood have a wood effect??
[QUOTE=A big fat ass;38119547]May I see a wireframe of that? Specifically the handle
Also here's an ultra fancy tub. Ngons on the lid aren't important
[t]http://uppix.net/4/7/2/58b336c37cb4dde3d56931c09ee8a.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
Nice model. Bake came out nice. Just one question though, why are the two UV islands at the bottom both separated and curved?
I have absolutely no idea what to make.
[QUOTE=skeligandrew;38120319][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/YNTpl.jpg[/IMG]
Okay so what do I need to do a good texture on this?
How should I make the metal shine like real metal and the wood have a wood effect??[/QUOTE]
First of all, the wood grain should probably be horizontal. And the wood should be a lot darker and more brown or burgundy depending on what you want.
As for the metal, give it some worn edges, mess around with the colour balance (if you look at pictures, the metal is never greyscale, it's always a little yellow or a little blue). I find it also helps to give it light scratches and some finger smudging, as well as incorporating all this into a specular to really make it pop.
[editline]21st October 2012[/editline]
Just an example since the latest thing I did was a shotgun
[URL]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1482927/remfinished.png[/URL]
I'm very much an amateur but I think a lot of it is just about thinking of tricks to make it appear real. Look at real pictures, think how you can get a similar effect to the minor details.
[QUOTE=Swog;38110222][t]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/68500821/flashlight-model-1.png[/t] How would I go exactly from hollowing the cone at the top of this, by any chance? Google doesn't give me anything.[/QUOTE]
quickest way that i know of is to extrude the top, scale it down, and then lower it inside. if you need to have curved edges you can stick an appropriately shaped elliptical mesh in there and use subtractive boolean.
[QUOTE=treythepunkid;38120340]Nice model. Bake came out nice. Just one question though, why are the two UV islands at the bottom both separated and curved?[/QUOTE]
I think they shouldn't be curved. Even if that's how they relaxed to, IMO it's better to line up those details with the pixel grid rather than let them curve slightly. When you line up uvs with the pixel grid you generally get cleaner bakes (imagine that for a straight line in a normal map, if it's lined up with the pixel grid you can get higher detail. If it's a curving downward slope like fat ass' two islands are are you lose detail because it now gets antialiased while trying to achieve the same clean line).
Working on some low poly stuff. Can't pinpoint what else to add to this derelict space station wall, course I can always make some pipes n shit for the wall.
[img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/16349584/metalwall.png[/img]
I'm working on a computer console. This is the high poly, with floating geometry because it's going to get baked into the low poly. Some geometry is unsubdivided.
[URL=http://imgbox.com/abeKtyuX][IMG]http://t.imgbox.com/abeKtyuX.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
Since you guys are knowledgeable what amount of triangles would you recommend for the low-poly? I know CryEngine stats but what about other game engines? I want this to be a hero piece, so a texture map size of at least 1024x1024 is needed to adequately capture the details.
I'm curious, what did you use to make those spherical indentations? Just boolean?
Hard to say a specific amount for a model like that, but you should be fine with a couple of thousands for the lowest lod for such a model.
Nice modeling by the way.
[editline]22nd October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=A big fat ass;38132354]I'm curious, what did you use to make those spherical indentations? Just boolean?[/QUOTE]
Probably the floating geo he was talking about.
[QUOTE=Nuclear Arbitor;38122110]quickest way that i know of is to extrude the top, scale it down, and then lower it inside. if you need to have curved edges you can stick an appropriately shaped elliptical mesh in there and use subtractive boolean.[/QUOTE]
You don't want to use a boolean, just about ever.
The spherical indentations are not floating geo because you can see the wires matching up, or if they actually are they shouldn't be. I just make a cylinder, run an edgeloop or two around the inside and one around the outside and then pull the inside of the cylinder back a little. Takes like 2 mins.
But I'm talking about the indentations on the bottom section. Great looking model by the way.
Quick practice last night, ~1 hour from scratch to source. Been out of the modeling game for far too long.
[IMG]http://www.jaanus.cc/pictures/knifetest.jpg[/IMG]
[img_thumb]http://www.jaanus.cc/pictures/knife_uv.jpg[/img_thumb]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
