Official 3D art thread - Warband

Users who are viewing this thread

xenoargh said:
The helmet's great, for a first try :smile:

1.  I'd suggest looking at the Sutton Hoo, Vendel and other real Viking gear for a better understanding of their components and proportions.  This looks like it was modeled off of the TW Nordic helm with eye-holes, but a lot of the details are wrong; for example, the cheek and neck guards were almost always leather or maille, not a solid back like that.  There are a lot of construction details like that that aren't right.

2.  The helm also feels too round; real helmets have to match the human skull a little more closely, and generally have an oval cross-section.

3.  It needs to be skinned, not use a procedural texture or a tile.  Real objects aren't that uniform and have a lot of surface details that are specific to the form and the physical requirements of assembly, like rivets, welding marks and the like, as well as wear that's specific to the pattern of use.

4.  There's an obvious seam down the middle, probably where something wasn't adjusted correctly before you subdivided it a lot.

Thanks.But i don't understand in spoiler.Because i don't know english. =(
 
Sorry, let me re-write that for easier translation :smile:

1.  It does not look like any historical helmet that exists.  Google "Vendel helmet" and "Sutton Hoo helmet" to see surviving examples of real Viking helmets.

2.  The helmet is too round.  It should be oval in cross-section, like a human head.  Use a human head mesh as a guide when modeling a helmet.

3.  You should not use procedural textures on an object like this.  Either model or paint the details.

4.  There is a seam on the forehead of the mesh.  This probably resulted from poor adjustment of the quads before subdividing / smoothing.
 
xenoargh said:
Sorry, let me re-write that for easier translation :smile:

1.  It does not look like any historical helmet that exists.  Google "Vendel helmet" and "Sutton Hoo helmet" to see surviving examples of real Viking helmets.

2.  The helmet is too round.  It should be oval in cross-section, like a human head.  Use a human head mesh as a guide when modeling a helmet.

3.  You should not use procedural textures on an object like this.  Either model or paint the details.

4.  There is a seam on the forehead of the mesh.  This probably resulted from poor adjustment of the quads before subdividing / smoothing.
You cant have it in a spoiler because google translate tries to translate the button and it wont open the spoiler.
 
xenoargh said:
1.  It does not look like any historical helmet that exists.  Google "Vendel helmet" and "Sutton Hoo helmet" to see surviving examples of real Viking helmets.

Errrrrrrr. Vendel - pre-viking. Sutton Hoo - not viking. (Saxon) I know what you mean, but the main viking helmet finds are from Norway, Denmark and one other. They all look similar, like the Gjermundbu one.
 
"3.  You should not use procedural textures on an object like this.  Either model or paint the details."

procedural , is that an easier English?, because I don't know the meaning of that.
 
@Merklir:  the Sutton Hoo, Vendel and Valsgarde stuff is all connected with the Viking Age; same peoples, only about a century before the Viking Age "officially started".  Note how similar the Gjermundbu helmet is; same basic treatment of the face plate, nasal, eyebrow ridges, the layers, even down to the maille remnant hanging on the left there, part of what was almost certainly the same facial cover as the others.

I think it's fair to say that they're all representative artifacts of what a thegn's helmet might have looked like, insofar as we know anything. 

But we don't really know that much.  We don't even really know for certain to what extent the Vikings wore maille; the chronicles suggest that most of them did, which was one of the reasons they were so dreaded (men armored all in iron, etc., big deal when all you have is farm implements and the occasional sword).

The fact of the matter is that there just aren't that many artifacts, so it's impossible to generalize; that said, I'd like to see A4 try to match an artifact before trying to Make Stuff Up; it's good practice and it teaches you more about how to make something that looks functional, imo :smile:

@Artizan:  a procedural texture is, technically, a texture whose final look is generated via mathematics at the time the object is rendered, usually using random number generators and some noise or fractals to simulate various processes.  Hence a "procedure" defines the final look of each pixel, not just the geometry and textures.

In A4's case, it looks like a metal texture that was set to tile and a bumpmap with reflectivity was used, but it could be a fancy "rusty metal" procedural material, I've made a few that looked something like that. 

Anyhow, the point I'm trying to get across there is that with a model of this sort, either you need to model everything at very high fidelity, i.e. literally model every scratch, dent, rivet, etc. and use a procedural texture to generate really realistic results, which is tricky... or you need to unwrap the object and skin it like we do for low-poly work used in realtime, but use more textures and at a much higher resolution, for a photoreal look.

What he's done there is just make it look like one piece of metal.  That's not how helmets generally looked in the real world.  Other than bronze, they usually were formed, not cast, and riveted together from multiple pieces.  They also had linings on the inside and many other details, like leather neckguards stitched to the helm's back, etc., etc.  It's important to study the details carefully, if you're working on material for film, and get it as close to photoreal as the scene or shot requires.  For a close-up shot like that, it should probably look like a real thing.  Doing that with stuff like maille is really, really hard, though; he'd have to set up a physical simulation in that shot, because the maille would be laying in folds in and around the helmet.
 
OrangeKnight said:
Just if you want here is a little read on polycount from Industry people about this topic.
http://www.polycount.com/forum/showthread.php?t=92760

I do not mean to get into some long argument and Act like I'm so supreme I just want to state my opinion.
Hey, think about this for a second: all in all, 3D modelling and animation are all graph theory: part of CS, whose industry who pretty much likes to have huge quarrels over standards. Just taking a look over that thread, I don't see as much people praising merit as much as they are citing proliferation--that's what makes it a standard. Now, will you finally take this to heart: spending some time on the bloody polycount forums does NOT make you an authoritative source--and the more you act like it does, the more you're going to feed people the wrong information.
 
More Fantastic
b8dcc1d42ab3b4cc9ab86ca40c532.jpg

40b4c6c8d2a70e89b6fb24c135759.jpg

8a81e7146a55378cdfe9919f0455d.jpg
 
MadocComadrin said:
OrangeKnight said:
Just if you want here is a little read on polycount from Industry people about this topic.
http://www.polycount.com/forum/showthread.php?t=92760

I do not mean to get into some long argument and Act like I'm so supreme I just want to state my opinion.
Hey, think about this for a second: all in all, 3D modelling and animation are all graph theory: part of CS, whose industry who pretty much likes to have huge quarrels over standards. Just taking a look over that thread, I don't see as much people praising merit as much as they are citing proliferation--that's what makes it a standard. Now, will you finally take this to heart: spending some time on the bloody polycount forums does NOT make you an authoritative source--and the more you act like it does, the more you're going to feed people the wrong information.
I never said it did? Most things on forums are opinion and usually should be taken as so. Xenoargh gives everyone tips yet you dont say he is feeding the wrong information. It is not as if Xenoargh is perfect and will always give you the right tips( though most of the time he does :smile:). I'm just trying to state what I have heard, other people also stated that blender was good and that was a opinion that maya was better. There is no way people can ever not feed someone the wrong information there will always be bias's and error's in what people say especially on the internet. Like I said before I just want to voice my Opinion so stop taking it like fact!
 
OrangeKnight said:
Like I said before I just want to voice my Opinion so stop taking it like fact!

Madoc is saying this to you: be more humble in your posts.

You're making a lot of assertions without much knowledge of the topic, in a very arrogant way.

The problem is not that you're expressing your opinion, but how you're expressing them.

If you're not much familiar with what you're discussing but want to share what you know, say something like "I don't know much about it, but from what I heard/read...", that would help a lot :wink:


@a4:

Nice render, but you should watch out the proportions, as the blade of the axe is the size of the helmet.

That way, the axe would be a very very small one :smile:
 
SacredStoneHead said:
OrangeKnight said:
Like I said before I just want to voice my Opinion so stop taking it like fact!

Madoc is saying this to you: be more humble in your posts.

You're making a lot of assertions without much knowledge of the topic, in a very arrogant way.

The problem is not that you're expressing your opinion, but how you're expressing them.

If you're not much familiar with what you're discussing but want to share what you know, say something like "I don't know much about it, but from what I heard/read...", that would help a lot :wink:


@a4:

Nice render, but you should watch out the proportions, as the blade of the axe is the size of the helmet.

That way, the axe would be a very very small one :smile:
Sorry, I tend to have a strong opinion about the superiority of Maya. I promise to be more humble in future posts, just sometimes I tend to be Unmodest also.
 
OrangeKnight said:
Sorry, I tend to have a strong opinion about the superiority of Maya. I promise to be more humble in future posts, just sometimes I tend to be Unmodest also.

After saying something like "blender makes more highpoly models" it's cringe-ingly obvious that such a strong opinion is the kind which could only have developed through acute lack of wider experience.

Misinformation has held this community back quite a bit. Remember a lot of people are new to modeling and if you feed them totally subjective (and worse, actually inaccurate) information, they're more likely to accept it than on a dedicated modeling forum - and that's harmful to learning.
 
Yeah, this has been interesting to read while eating popcorn  :lol:

I keep expecting Gandalf to show up and explain all about the One App, and how masters of its dark powers became awesome artists overnight, leaving everybody else writhing in envy  :mrgreen:

Then I remember that, for most of the people I know who don't suck, it took a few years, a lot of study and practice, practice, practice :smile:
 
xenoargh said:
Yeah, this has been interesting to read while eating popcorn  :lol:

I keep expecting Gandalf to show up and explain all about the One App, and how masters of its dark powers became awesome artists overnight, leaving everybody else writhing in envy  :mrgreen:

Then I remember that, for most of the people I know who don't suck, it took a few years, a lot of study and practice, practice, practice :smile:
Which am I thats the question :smile:
 
Back
Top Bottom