Personally I think trees are super easy and you can do a lot of cool things with them, ya just gotta look at the form.
Also, I started on ADD meds today and I'm super stoked to see how it changes everything for me to do them regularly.
[editline]3rd November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jeggis;38299628]It's a lot of fun at first, but after a while, most just leave it to collect dust. I'm doing a lot of cinematography for short film projects, commercials and so on, where it comes in handy. Setting up cameras with a 3D mouse increase my effectiveness greatly. Also, when modelling small parts of a bigger object, it's a great asset, as it allows you to really "get in there", not having to constantly reset viewport around single vertices.[/QUOTE]
if mine hadn't stopped working i would use it every day. it's super useful, and i loved being able use it to [I]animate cameras[/I]. once you clean up the keys it would look beautiful and smooth as fuck
[QUOTE=Jeggis;38285009]Reinstall drivers, update to latest 3DxWare. Works great with 2013 here.[/QUOTE]
add me on steam, i cant get this figured out :I
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/d95zD.jpg[/IMG]
Escher-inspired work I have to do for college. I built it in Maya, and so far, it's been a miserable experience. About three solid days of non-stop work went into this, and I still need to do the entire background, then UV the entire thing. Aaaand it's due for next friday, aaaaaand I have a ton of other assignments that I need to finish as well.
Yay me.
uvs shouldn't take too long if you tile maps.
[QUOTE=Juniez;38304790][img]http://media.moddb.com/images/members/1/96/95390/ar20_lp.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
Hey Jumiez seeing as you seem to be a pretty skilled guy at doing this sort of thing, what sort of tips do you have for modelling, skinning, etc?
[IMG_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/UxRxa.png[/IMG_thumb]
Finnish M31
Planning to texture it.
ps. Requesting feedback.
[QUOTE=kaine123;38305425]Hey Jumiez seeing as you seem to be a pretty skilled guy at doing this sort of thing, what sort of tips do you have for modelling, skinning, etc?[/QUOTE]
get some basic concepts down like sub-d / making lowpolies / uving and then just practice and show people what you've done so they can tell you what's wrong with it and then try to apply what you've learned the next time you do something
always believe in urself
It's a Menger sponge!
[img]http://i.imgur.com/YdKZ0.jpg[/img]
Testing absorption with Cycles Render.
[t]http://puu.sh/1mlpV.png[/t]
This is at 4000 samples, and it's still almost as noisy as it was at 2000 samples.
After the Blender 2.64 upgrade Cycles has been much faster on my CPU than my GPU. Does anyone know why?
absorption???
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;38313297]absorption???[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkqsx951gcg[/url]
Light absorped in a material (glass for example). In my image, this is what gives the greener color where the glass is thicker.
kinda asinine of the dude in that vid to call it absorption when it's not really ever called that in cgi. he should just call it SSS like it is, less confusing for beginners wanting to do follow up research (unless they click his link for the files and then they'll see it at the very bottom)
ignore me if he refers to it as sss in the video, but im not gonna watch 25 minutes just to satisfy my curiosity
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;38314392]kinda asinine of the dude in that vid to call it absorption when it's not really ever called that in cgi. he should just call it SSS like it is, less confusing for beginners wanting to do follow up research (unless they click his link for the files and then they'll see it at the very bottom)
ignore me if he refers to it as sss in the video, but im not gonna watch 25 minutes just to satisfy my curiosity[/QUOTE]
Same thing, different term, I think. But does it matter that much what we call it?
In my opinion 'absorption' explains just fine what it is (absorption of light in the given material) for beginners. 'SSS' on the other hand requires you to find out what that acronym stands for first.
Also, when are you going to buy that new keyboard?
or just call it "subsurface scattering (sss)". either way terminology matters a lot because if you don't use standard terms, you're only 1) making it harder for everyone to understand what you're saying and 2) perhaps misleading whoever comes across improper usage.
what new keyboard
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;38318895]what new keyboard[/QUOTE]
Well, your shift key seems to be broken...
I guess it's not called SSS since it probably isn't. SSS simulates scattering of light this just removes a part of the intensity relative to the thickness of the material. I don't believe it has anything to do with scattering and is a sort of hack.
Seems it's pretty similar to SSS after all. Intensity doesn't change it's just mixed with black.
[QUOTE=clb;38318978]Well, your shift key seems to be broken...[/QUOTE]
care less about lazy, informal language on an internet forum
[editline]4th November 2012[/editline]
it's just a cheap way to approximate sss, they have the same goals but that way is not as good
Yeah cycles doesn't have SSS yet so all of the current ones are hacks with the ray length node.
Pageking, have a random old model.
[t]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2344342/Clay_01.png[/t]
[t]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2344342/Clay_02.png[/t]
SSS And absorption are not the same thing. SSS means scattering and bouncing of light inside a volume.
Absorption is just eating away light the more it travels trough a volume. The blender video has a tiny flaw in it
since absorption color should be the negative of the resulting visible color. Absorption color in a material should
describe what color of the entering light gets absorbed for example blue, so the remaining light would be more yellowish.
But I guess that's a more artist friendly solution.
learned somethin new
[QUOTE=nVidia;38324768]SSS And absorption are not the same thing. SSS means scattering and bouncing of light inside a volume.
Absorption is just eating away light the more it travels trough a volume. The blender video has a tiny flaw in it
since absorption color should be the negative of the resulting visible color. Absorption color in a material should
describe what color of the entering light gets absorbed for example blue, so the remaining light would be more yellowish.
But I guess that's a more artist friendly solution.[/QUOTE]
I was thinking about answering this way but as far as I understand this is just a way it works easier in CG. Like we separate specularity from reflection even though it's the same thing.
In real life the reason amount of light decreases relative to the thickness is a combination of scattering and light being blocked (absorbed) by contaminants in the volume. Completely perfect glass with no contaminations shouldn't absorb anything and would have no color, but that doesn't exist. The same way that perfect mirrors don't exist. If we had a material that didn't absorb or refract anything we couldn't see it.
This is a bit annoying but he's got some good points.
[video=youtube;-yrZpTHBEss]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yrZpTHBEss[/video]
[QUOTE=ben_lind;38325180]I was thinking about answering this way but as far as I understand this is just a way it works easier in CG. Like we separate specularity from reflection even though it's the same thing.
In real life the reason amount of light decreases relative to the thickness is a combination of scattering and light being blocked (absorbed) by contaminants in the volume. Completely perfect glass with no contaminations shouldn't absorb anything and would have no color, but that doesn't exist. The same way that perfect mirrors don't exist. If we had a material that didn't absorb or refract anything we couldn't see it.
This is a bit annoying but he's got some good points.
[video=youtube;-yrZpTHBEss]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yrZpTHBEss[/video][/QUOTE]
I know, but wouldn't it defeat the purpose of CG if we couldn't create a material with the properties we want, even if it's not physically accurate.
Yeah ofcourse I was just trying to say it's a bit of a combination of the two so I believe DOG-GY is at least partly right if it were physically accurate but this isn't. I agree it's a good thing to be able to do what you want I was just throwing it out there.
There it is! Improved camera angles, higher res, wider angle, and improved slow motion.
[video=youtube;APsQk24vIXU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APsQk24vIXU[/video]
Very good, but I think his head twist much too fast.
It's well animated overall but at around 28s where he throws the ball in the air looks a bit off. It feels more like he's letting go of the ball and it's filled with helium and flies upwards. I think the hands should "whip" a bit to flick the ball. That's just nitpicking though.
The ending still isn't clear enough imo due to the camera angle. At least I felt that I really got what happened only a second or so after it had happened. If that was your intention then it's fine ofcourse but I think seeing the action a bit more from the side would make it clearer.
Overall it seems quite polished though. No pauses and the motions are fluid. Nice work!
Like I said earlier I've not posted much because I've been working on Games, here's ome pictures of the early builds
[img]http://media.desura.com/cache/images/games/1/20/19003/thumb_940x3000/UrbanWarDefence_2012-10-07_22-00-10-57.png[/img]
[img]http://media.desura.com/cache/images/games/1/20/19003/thumb_940x3000/UrbanWarDefence_2012-10-07_22-01-04-83.png[/img]
And the blurriest picture I have ever seen or taken of it on my Android.
[img]http://media.desura.com/cache/images/games/1/20/19003/thumb_940x3000/snapshot.jpg[/img]
And the other game has a video
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTxEXA4FDcA&feature=relmfu[/media]
[url]http://www.desura.com/games/urban-war-defense[/url]
[url]http://www.desura.com/games/lander-mission-control[/url]
[QUOTE=ben_lind;38325569]It's well animated overall but at around 28s where he throws the ball in the air looks a bit off. It feels more like he's letting go of the ball and it's filled with helium and flies upwards. I think the hands should "whip" a bit to flick the ball. That's just nitpicking though.
The ending still isn't clear enough imo due to the camera angle. At least I felt that I really got what happened only a second or so after it had happened. If that was your intention then it's fine ofcourse but I think seeing the action a bit more from the side would make it clearer.
Overall it seems quite polished though. No pauses and the motions are fluid. Nice work![/QUOTE]
Thanks :)
I know I got stuff to improve, and I'll take it with me to the next video.
I feel that while I'm animating I'm getting rather impatient to move on with the next move, and it shows.
A flick in the wrist would make the toss look a lot better, and I'm gonna pay attention to such details when animating the next flick.
The ending is supposed to be a little "in-your-face" and it was my intention that people was supposed to go a little: "WTF happened", but realize what really happened when it was all over.
A little similar to what if stuff like this happened in real life.
I appreciate the criticism, and will definitely look into stuff like this :)
Keep em coming :)
need some UDK help for a school assignment. we're having to use the default assets and set dress a level, but i'd like to make some changes in the materials. tried to make a duplicate of that rusted barrel and it's material to have a different look, but nothing happened. my prof said it was because that asset happened to be cooked. does anyone know how i can tell in the content browser what assets are cooked vs uncooked and what I can do to make unique uncooked duplicates so i can edit stuff to my liking?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
