Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by LT. Smell My, Aug 5, 2013.
You should really clean up that model, it looks like it's been pressed together and crushed right now
Also, I tried a thing and failed
I'll probably try to make a hatch too later on, but the estate didn't turn out quite as good as I wanted.
Well, that took a while but I think it was worth it...
That looks great!
May I ask what Mercedes you are modeling?
Small update on my Mercedes:
Added a few details and began to model the chassis
Did you model that with a potato?
You've made a good amount of progress! That looks great!
I'm modelling the same as you, the new C Class, though the W205 compared to your S205.
I saw your's a few pages back and, the Mercedes addict I am, couldn't help but model my own!
Indeed XD. I have fixed it a bit, but I would like to know the method you use to make your models eg. plane modelling? And also, your models are of phantasmagoric proportions in terms of realism. Every single detail, carefully orchestrated to form each part of the body. It astounds me at how accurate your models are. Im sure all of us on this forum wishes they could model at your impeccably unimpeachable standard of modelling. Hats off to you my friend.
most likely XD
What... Can i see your work flow and wireframe... Im not sure if thats the render / material killing that... or you have thrown a bunch of verts around into a spiky death cube thing.
here is a picture of the wire frame, and a render of it with mostly default material.
Not trying to be rude but be honest...does that look like a car to you?(it is supposed to be a car, right?) I think it would be a good idea to start over and be more carefull with your polyflow...that model is pretty much unsaveable. Don't give up tho..you'll get there
Completely agree. My workflow completely disappears when I'm designing a car completely off the top of my head. (If I had any to begin with) Even then I think blueprints would help imensely. So now I'm going to stick to modelling off blueprints. I have since visited some tutorials and found that the best way to have a lower polyflow is to increase the amount of triangles in the mesh. I have since learned how to use commands such as "f", which I had previously been oblivious to. And with my designs. I myself find it hard to convey the message that it is a car without context. And through my style, the car has no context until the car is finished. Also I find your models quite amazing, keep up the good work!
Good idea You cold also try designing a car on paper first, which might help you with visualising it in 3d...But first I would say work on your polyflow. Learn the fundamentals and then go on maing your own thing
I suggest you to use blueprints and make a IRL car model. Making something from your head right after you started using blender is very hard. Try to make something cubish like '80 volvo or chevy P30. And take your time, practice makes you better
(imported from here)
this is not actually trolling, is it? wtf
As SoHigh said, its mostly your polyflow thats your problem. from what I see, the thing is that you've kinda moved around everything in 1 angle (ex from the front angle), but you haven't modified it from other angles so it looks weird like that.
You'd probably be better off watching a couple tutorials on how to make a bit more basic models or how to model from blueprints.
For example this is a very good tutorial :
And incase you decide you've learnt good enough here is a collection of blueprints from various sites that I have :
And a good website with blueprints :
Also besides that as a reference for you, this is my polyflow on the R30 :
http://darkscarab.com/view/43 is among the best beginner friendly tutorials I've seen that establishes a good foundation for more advanced modelling. I'm glad I found it early on my modelling journey. I encourage you to build as many cars as you can from blueprints, discover and experiment with new commands, techniques and modelling styles, and just generally broaden your knowledge.
Designing off the top of your head is not a skill that comes easily. I started SSP2 much, much too early, and what looked correct and awesome back in 2013 was completely reworked because it was also totally wrong. The bodyshell you see on the right took about as long to make as much of the interior and mechanical components of the finished model, which are way more difficult and time-consuming. I peg this down to me leaving the model to rot for a year, then returning to work on it with a more sophisticated skillset.
(imported from here)
To clarify, polyflow is the uninterrupted rows and columns of quadrilaterals forming a surface, while polycount and poly density refer to the number and resolution of polygons in a given area respectively. There's no real correlation between the number of triangles in a model and its polycount; that's down to how detailed you've made the model. Ignoring the diagonal lines, you can clearly see the clean vertical and horizontal polyflow in the model below. I knocked this out in a matter of hours, but only because of how much I've practiced.
I triangulated this model for presentation, which is not how your model should look until it's absolutely finished and ready for export. You should model almost exclusively in quadrilaterals. Some triangles are unavoidable, but it's best to minimise them as they interrupt your polyflow and can funkify your shading under some circumstances.
(imported from here)
edit: oh, go to hell razer you ninja
That's one of the things I've always found weird about modern 3D modeling: how everyone and everything (i.e. modeling software) pretends stuff is made from quads, while it's all converted to triangles for rendering eventually anyway. Oh well, guess I'm getting old or something.
Anyway, here's a development screenshot, although I admit it's not the usual sort:
That's probably because it's WAY easier to model in quads than in triangles.
I'll begin by saying that working with quads is considerably easier than triangles; cutting loops or highlighting a row of vertices on triangulated topo would be nigh on impossible, as the 'polyflow' could be interpreted and oriented in so many different ways that it's not really feasible for the software to pick an optimal route to cut/highlight. AFAIK, it's not possible to render a true quad, so even when presented as one, it's still really two triangles tacked together posing as a quad. This is probably because the vertices that compose a quad are almost never totally flat relative to each other, so the quad must be 'cut' one way or another to represent the crease formed by the discrepancy in vertex position. But I suspect you already knew that.