Author Topic: BC poly limit (Read 12399 times)

Aeries · « **Reply #60 on:** December 07, 2009, 08:21:58 PM »

In my more recent works [namely bridge and interior design project for the Mithra, oh how long I have worked in it... lol] I've often found that putting a crap ton of polies just to smooth the whole thing out is pretty wasteful; you don't always notice it anyway. best thing to do, is to put those wasted polies into the edges. A grand example could be saucer sections. pisses me off seeing saucers all jagged-edged or sharp-edged when they should be [well, generally anyways] smooth and clean, not like someone could cut their foot walking on the darn thing. Spend the polies where "jaggedness" is going to be noticed and criticized, not on the project as a whole wherein a lot is going to be wasted.

Aeries, slowly learning not to be wasteful. xD

RCgothic · « **Reply #61 on:** December 08, 2009, 09:24:41 AM »

A thought occurs... Could a couple of modders post a few wire mesh views (or solid views with the poly edges highlighted or something), in order to demonstrate good mesh quality? Perhaps a few comparisons with less advanced meshes in order to highlight some common mistakes?

Could help the rest of us learn where we're going wrong.

Aeries · « **Reply #62 on:** December 08, 2009, 05:48:27 PM »

You got it, RC. :]

Pic one:
Base shape created from a spline outline then lathed. Pretty raw, untouched and not modified at all. Obviously, very disgusting and not usable for any model these days, even low-standards.

Pic two:
Using the loop tool and highlight functions, remove the un-needed edges then the un-needed verts they connect to, in areas they aren't required, to keep the mesh at a nicer and significantly lower poly count. Then, using the Chamfer tool, chamfering the vertical edges of the saucer to created a nicer, smoother and far less jagged outline.

Pic Three:
Be sure to weld/target-weld the un-needed verts!!

Pic Four:
Chamfer the horizontal edges to dull the saucer edge, so as to not look like you can cut your finger on it. ;)

Pic Five:
Not WLAYS needed for modeling in CGI settings, but in BC and many/most games, triangulating is a must. a VERY simple way to do this is to convert the mesh into an editable patch, then back to editable poly/mesh/whatever you wanna use. [I like poly, much more versatile.]

NOTE: If you need to keep the mesh perfectly symmetrical, make sure the pivot point is centered to the mesh and the axis you want to be symmetrical, and use the Modifiers -> Mesh Editing -> Symmetry tool

Like I said, this is really rough. there's still a bunch of things you can do to improve upon the mesh and optimize it a bit, but this should get the point across. Happy modeling.

limey BSc. · « **Reply #63 on:** December 08, 2009, 06:22:30 PM »

Quote from: Aeries on December 08, 2009, 05:48:27 PM

Not WLAYS needed for modeling in CGI settings, but in BC and many/most games, triangulating is a must. a VERY simple way to do this is to convert the mesh into an editable patch, then back to editable poly/mesh/whatever you wanna use. [I like poly, much more versatile.]

The nif exporter triangulates the mesh itself. I think others would too, so that's not much of a concern.

Quote from: Aeries on December 08, 2009, 05:48:27 PM

NOTE: If you need to keep the mesh perfectly symmetrical, make sure the pivot point is centered to the mesh and the axis you want to be symmetrical, and use the Modifiers -> Mesh Editing -> Symmetry tool

I personally find its easier to model the thing as a whole, making sure at least one half of it is perfect, then splitting it and using a symmetry modifier right at the end. Though if you do, remember to remove any unneeded faces making the seam will create.

RCgothic · « **Reply #64 on:** December 08, 2009, 06:32:48 PM »

Thanks Aeries. Getting a good edge on something without wasting polies in the middle is something I've always found difficult, and you've solved it straight off. Cookied!

I've always modeled by symmetry, and it is important to keep the polys centred exactly on the axis. In lightwave there's a 'set value' tool. If I screw up and end up with a few off-axis, I can select all the affected polys and set the offending coordinate back to zero.

Villain · « **Reply #65 on:** December 09, 2009, 07:32:27 AM »

Agreed, very handy, Aeries, mate! Cookie for you!

Also, RC, seeing as we both have Lightwave (Albeit different versions), Is Chamfer listed under a different name? I can't find the dang thing!

RCgothic · « **Reply #66 on:** December 09, 2009, 08:31:14 AM »

Hmmm, turns out we don't have a chamfer tool in lightwave. That's going to make things trickier.

Villain · « **Reply #67 on:** December 09, 2009, 09:12:22 AM »

Found something handy...

There is an alternative in Lightwave. Not as great, and very basic, but using Smooth Shift gives a similar result.

RCgothic · « **Reply #68 on:** December 09, 2009, 09:33:19 AM »

It doesn't actually. I use smooth shift a lot for box modelling, and it doesn't increase the number of polys around the edge, it just extrudes the existing polies.

Villain · « **Reply #69 on:** December 09, 2009, 10:13:13 AM »

Ah, that would explain why it won't double up... Seems only 9.5 has a chamfer called "Rounder"

RCgothic · « **Reply #70 on:** December 09, 2009, 11:42:45 AM »

9.5? Lol, I'm using 5.6. From my KA days. I think if you have a reasonably up to date LW, you should be able to find plugins for it.

Aramus · « **Reply #71 on:** December 17, 2009, 07:54:45 AM »

Here is something also.

When working on a low poly mesh, that needs that EXTRA detail in places.

I will continue to add examples of this during the build of this andorian ship.

by cutting into the mesh and connecting in new lines here and there, I managed to modify my simple shape to allow me to add those detailed extrusions in a clean manner.

RifleMan80 · « **Reply #72 on:** January 03, 2010, 12:24:49 PM »

Dang guys! I tried makin a ship back in 03' for BC but I did not have the get-go, nor the understating of this kind of work. To this day, I cannot even understand basic modeling lol. Work by pure genius if you ask me. But if it weren't for you guy's expertise, my videos would not be possible. It all goes to you guys.
*Raises glass of beer*

Aeries · « **Reply #73 on:** January 11, 2010, 12:18:01 AM »

Hmm. One of these days I'm gonna have to write some tutorials, methinks.... xD

candle_86 · « **Reply #74 on:** January 21, 2010, 08:20:42 PM »

Quote from: RifleMan80 on January 03, 2010, 12:24:49 PM

Dang guys! I tried makin a ship back in 03' for BC but I did not have the get-go, nor the understating of this kind of work. To this day, I cannot even understand basic modeling lol. Work by pure genius if you ask me. But if it weren't for you guy's expertise, my videos would not be possible. It all goes to you guys.
*Raises glass of beer*

just grab gmax and fiddle lol thats how i got going granted im not that good yet

Joe · « **Reply #75 on:** March 24, 2012, 09:36:17 PM »

It was always drilled into me to avoid triangles and 5 sided polys like the plague. Part of my frustration has been hunting down all faces with less or more than 4 edges and fixing them. If this is not true in this type of artwork, then that will make things significantly easier.

Does anyone else use Maya?

-Joe

FarShot · « **Reply #76 on:** March 24, 2012, 09:43:08 PM »

I can't think of anyone that uses Maya.

As for the number of sides, keep it either to 3 or 4. I'm not entirely sure, but I believe the conversion process breaks all polies down into triangles anyways, which is easy to do for 4-sided polies as it just bisects them.

Joe · « **Reply #77 on:** March 24, 2012, 09:56:25 PM »

Well that's the general logic for video games, but I studied animation more as it pertained to film which is why they taught Maya at school lol.

So the logic was tri's would not sub-divide correctly, but quads would. When you were rendering out to static frames you didn't have to worry about tessellation ruining your frame rate, so it was more important to avoid them for the sake of geometry appearance after smoothing. Since the ships in this game will not be sub-divided to keep poly counts low, that becomes a moot issue.

This might be why I am having trouble modeling mechanical objects like ships. I need to think less "pixar" more "CAD" haha

-Joe

FarShot · « **Reply #78 on:** March 24, 2012, 10:28:17 PM »

I'd encourage you to take a look at the meshwork of DJ Curtis's and WileyCoyote's ships. They're pretty much the upper end of BC standards these days. If you're not sure how to convert BC's .nif's to something usable in Maya, read:
- download and install NifSkope
- download relevant models
- open relevant .nif's in NifSkope
- Under "File" there should be options to convert the .nif to .3ds or .obj. I'm sure Maya can import one of these.

Joe · « **Reply #79 on:** March 24, 2012, 10:38:15 PM »

Quote from: FarShot on March 24, 2012, 10:28:17 PM

I'd encourage you to take a look at the meshwork of DJ Curtis's and WileyCoyote's ships. They're pretty much the upper end of BC standards these days. If you're not sure how to convert BC's .nif's to something usable in Maya, read:
- download and install NifSkope
- download relevant models
- open relevant .nif's in NifSkope
- Under "File" there should be options to convert the .nif to .3ds or .obj. I'm sure Maya can import one of these.

thanks for that info. do people usually start from an existing model or something?

News:

Author Topic: BC poly limit (Read 12399 times)