DescentBB

http://img265.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pyrogl9kv.jpg

Took me like 3-4 hours. Currently at 3900 polys. Now it's time to start reducing polycount.


Also an extra treat. Took me 30 minutes to an hour.

http://img255.imageshack.us/my.php?imag ... non5vq.jpg



Think it's worth it to finish these models? These are VERY early stage models.

Cool, the ship is really smooth, I suppose that's why it has a huge poly count...

Yep, I designed it in such a way that I can easily modify the detail level though. Not to mention, add more detail in if need be.

That's why I said that this is an early stage.

Update: Made a Vauss ammo belt.

http://img260.imageshack.us/my.php?imag ... elt5wu.jpg

Basic ship and Vauss cannon look pretty good for this stage.

Depending on what you're using it for, I think there's a bit too much physical detail in the Pyro's \"jet engines.\" That's something a nice texture would be more appropriate for, especially if you have normal mapping.

Yeah, the engine is something I'm a bit controversial about myself. I may or may not go with a simple texture in the end. However, I do want the blade to have a rotational animation so the turbine fan in the front WILL actually spin. So I'm trying to decide on if I want it to remain as a 3D object or just use a texture.

I have a lot of things to reduce on and a lot of detail to actually add. I still need headlights, a front grill, possibly a couple of wires/cables running into the guns. Possibly an internal cockpit but I'm not entirely certain I want to go with that idea this time around.

I have a GL with almost 30,000 polys and that was the low res

i like that belt. very cool.

BUBBALOU wrote:I have a GL with almost 30,000 polys and that was the low res

Good for you. I bet that GL isn't in Descent 3 multiplayer combat is it? The last version of the GL I made, red lined. I can't remember the exact polycount but I think it was like 3800. Might have been as low as 2800. I can't remember the exact number as it was 2-3 years ago and I haven't looked at the model since.


I develop models for video games. Not for pretty desktop renders. Not that I have anything against that. But if I were to go all out, I would just build the thing and not worry about resolution. I actually find it easier to go higher because I can do anything I want with the mesh. For a game model, I have to be a lot more careful with the mesh and become very creative with textures.


I guess I'm just puzzled as to what your point is? Are you trying to offer your model for me so that I can use it in a mod of some kind? Are you trying to say that Descent 3 and/or UT2004 can handle 30,000 polygon ships? Or are you trying to give me the "mine is better than yours" lingo? If it's the latter, I would rather not dance around that fire. Mine is mine and yours is yours. Peace, flowers, and fluffy bunnies.


Update: Added some cables to the wings. I also smoothed out the mesh for kicks and giggles.
http://img253.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pyrogl25ou.jpg

BUBBALOU wrote:I have a GL with almost 30,000 polys and that was the low res

post ur new work!!

Isaac wrote:

BUBBALOU wrote:I have a GL with almost 30,000 polys and that was the low res

post ur new work!!

I've seen it. It's been around for some time now. I think if you dig back far enough in the threads, you'll find his older works. Pretty cool model actually.

working from a high poly to a low poly is always the way to go. Intel multires can take almost 99% out of the conversion with just some minor edits on the low poly version

Now in todays games highpoly is always your starting point. It has many benefits for baking the normal maps.

http://bubbalou.event3d.com/images/D3/d3glw.jpg

this was made as a test for patch modeling

is anything over 1500 polys feasible for D3, no!

BUBBALOU wrote:working from a high poly to a low poly is always the way to go. Intel multires can take almost 99% out of the conversion with just some minor edits on the low poly version

Now in todays games highpoly is always your starting point. It has many benefits for baking the normal maps.

http://bubbalou.event3d.com/images/D3/d3glw.jpg

this was made as a test for patch modeling

is anything over 1500 polys feasible for D3, no!

descent ship no jujustu!!! it has a bat like shape, more than other pyros i've seen (at least in that pic). kewl

BUBBALOU wrote:working from a high poly to a low poly is always the way to go. Intel multires can take almost 99% out of the conversion with just some minor edits on the low poly version

Now in todays games highpoly is always your starting point. It has many benefits for baking the normal maps.

http://bubbalou.event3d.com/images/D3/d3glw.jpg

this was made as a test for patch modeling

is anything over 1500 polys feasible for D3, no!

Well, yes and no. You can easily have a model at around 2500 polys. You can even push for up to 3000 if your running on decent hardware, which I think most players here are at this point. It depends on what you are doing. It isn't necessarily better to create high poly models and work your way backwards. There are no decent tools for accurately reducing polycount that I know of. Certainly not for Blender. Maybe for Max. Unless you mean Subsurf modeling which I do use. It is pretty accurate but I still find it easier to design certain parts of the ship by hand in order to fine it exactly to a game engine's limitations. I generally use a mix of both. I'm not exactly certain what Intel Multires is or what program it is for.


Looking at the actual polycount in that model, I see a TON of useless faces in there. Most of them really aren't doing all that much for the shape itself. Particularly in the body. It will, however, be very effective in renders and for lighting effects. BUT, most game engines currently have lighting effects and methods that overcome the lighting problem. The only benefit for an in-game mesh that I see there, is that it could be useful for the texturing process. Which is important and modeling seems to be a lot more dependent on textures these days anyway. That seems very overkill of the shape I'm seeing there. It looks cool but very extreme.


No disrespect intended. I just am trying to figure out what the advantage is here.

Intel-MultiRes (digimation)

Integrated into 3dsmax since version 4 and above and also GMAX.

Just click click click, export and then edit

Bubba is right about normal maps. If your intent is to use them in an engine or render that allows normal maps, you will definitely want to render in very high resolution. The Unreal Technology page talks about, for Gears of War's Locust characters, developing a 2 million polygon mesh for the normal map, and then applying that map onto a 5,000 poly in-game mesh. The result, of course, is almost indistinguishable.

Depending on the game, 3,000-5,000 polycounts are average, based on how many characters need to be around, the platform, and what else is happening in the world. The more linear and scripted a game is (like Gears of War), the more you can get away with. The more open ended or massive a game is (like Grand Theft Auto), the less you can do.

Hey Bubba, I still have the scan of your pyro you did years ago. You were on a plane when you did that as I recall.

Wow.. 5k -6K polys??? i remember when that was unthinkable...or doable for that matter. Like what.. 5..6 years ago??

Hell, a certain Freespace modder managed to get a 50,000-poly Battlestar Galactica model to run in FS2_Open without too much of a performance hit. Oh, if only for D3's source code...

Heh. I think I've actually read about Multi-Resolution models in Max before. I haven't used Gmax in years but I have used Max 4 once for a while a few years back. I actually found it a very easy modeling program. Far easier than Maya or Blender. I haven't been able to cough up the money to buy 3DS Max, though I've wanted it for about 7 years now. I thought you made that ship with Truespace though.



I was about to tell you that I don't exactly have that ability when I noticed that Blender actually released an update today that adds Intelligent Multires mesh editing today. I'll have to try this.


The biggest advantage I'm seeing here is that you won't see that annoying mesh switch when you get a closer view of a model.


However, I doubt this would be of any particular advantage in Descent 3 as it was designed before this and you had to have meshes of various detail levels to make it work.


I don't really see the advantage at all for Descent 3, other than the fact that you can have smoother shape in the UV's to texture after you unwrap it. However, you have more to unwrap and D3 really doesn't have enough texturing/lighting abilities to shake a stick at. The resolution of the textures are very very low.


You also, still lose a lot of detail and features that you could otherwise have, if you just hand-modeled it. That mesh really doesn't hold any more detail than a 1000 polygon mesh from what I am seeing here. You won't really see any difference in-game. The mesh doesn't look that much better than the normal Descent 3 mesh. The only way you could make up for this is with high resolution textures. A cube is a cube, no matter how many triangles you make it out of. If you maintain the same exact shape, it is just that.... a cube. The body on your mesh has a rounder canopy, wings, guns and engines, but the main body and wings are the EXACT same low-poly shape. It would be a different story if you could make the body far more round like you can with subsurf modeling. With that, you can change EXACTLY how smooth or sharp the mesh conforms to each edge of a cage. The cage is a low poly mesh that contains the actual mesh is inside.


I've gone through all the 3D Buzz UT2004 Maya PLE tutorials and it never once mentioned this. Which is odd. I wonder if Maya has this ability? But I can't imagine why not.


I may have to play around with this tool in Blender. Hopefully there is more to it than I'm seeing because that really isn't all that impressive for that many polygons being put to use IMO.

See the thing is that you make the high res model, whether it is 500,000 50,000 or 5,000 as your base and reference and then work down from that using Multires.

For games that use separate fixed LOD models (ie D3) you just export the models at certain stages in your Mutires reduction(IE High/Parts , Med , Low). Since all of your texturing and UVW mapping work is accomplished on the first model it gets translated down to the lower versions during your workflow.

making it uneccersay to map 4 separate models, just minor editing to correct some of the polygons which might be in an undesirable position (IE [/] to [\\] )

Once you try it out for game models you will understand. You can get from point A to E without B C and D. It just depends on the game in which you are creating the models is whether you export the reductions as separate elements(D3's Crude LOD) or encapsulate them in one model as embedded LOD.

Out of curiousity.. how may polys do each of the D3 pyro models have??
er. in game models that is.

Usually, roughly 300 to low 400 range. BP was roughly 700 I think. Probably due to the headlights, upper wings and rounded canopy.


I took a look at Multires in Blender last night and I\"m pretty dissapointed so far. Though, I need to remember that it is only a development build still. But, I really don't see the use for it. Particularly using th way it is designed in Blender. It gives you exactly the same number of faces with half the control. You can make multires models but you have to do it by hand and you don't have any way to manually round it out via cage or to perform extrusions. I think I would be better off creating a high resolution model using catmul-clark, using the cage and lowering the resolution stages on each part individually using that system. Though, that means that I \"might\" have to unwrap it multiple times. But at least I will have more all around control over the shape of the mesh. Their system only allows me to round th shape out. I would have to manually move each and every face into the position I want otherwise.


I personally think it would have been far more innovative if the Blender just allowed us to merge multiple meshes into a single mesh and use that as a multires model. Also a repeat action button would be nice as well.


Maybe there is some other trick to this that I don't yet understand, but I'm not happy with Blender's multires edit mode from what I have seen so far.


BTW, Bubbalou, would you still be interested in creating a graphical enhancement mod for D3? You could focus on ships while I focus on weapons and projectiles. My goal is one weapon model a week night. Work on ships or texturing on the weekend.

Here's my gay pyro \"ricer\" pyro
forgot how many plys this was with out soothing turned on.

Not really a lot to show off tonight. I've managed to create a new sound effect for the Vauss cannon that makes it sound a bit nastier. You can still recognize it as a Vauss cannon but it sounds a bit tougher as I took the Robot vauss sound, gave it a deeper sound and added a little bass. I also located the old D2 sound effect and I am going to play a bit with the laser sound effects as well. I also worked on a custom shell casing for the vauss cannon, which I plan to add in as a particle effect when firing from the ship. I'm starting to figure out Blender's unwrap system. One problem that seems to occur in Blender, is that it it doesn't have certain shapes in the correct orientation. I need to figure out how to correct the axis position. This has a nasty warping effect when unwrapping the mesh.

Well, the casing effect failed. It seems as though you can only fire a particle effect that is on the round itself, even though it is assigned to the gun. I'm not certain if I can create a particle effect that is assigned to the actual gun by itself. First off, I couldn't figure out what I should assign the shell casing as in the table file so I created a generic object. That didn't seem to work. I even told the gun to look specifically for VShell.oof as that is the file name. Then I used orangespark. The same one that Digijoe used for his Metropololis GT mod. The effect works fine but when I fired it, I noticed that I would see a boat-load of sparks when it exited the barrel and a tiny few when it strikes it's target. So I assume that it just creates a constant effect on the round and the only reason we don't see the spark mid-air is because the project is an instant hit weapon.

viewtopic.php?p=186106#186106

That is not my gun.

The specific type of gun say's Vauss PTMC 15
and has eight barrels.