More 3D Models

[Maindric Games ©]

As you all should know, I am starting to 3D model (finally) and these are some more of things I made.


My newest and latest, a pedestrian crossing sign, 24 faces.


My current WIP, a human. This is the base of it.


My first UV mapped item, a computer mouse.


My first decent looking model, a table.


my new logo. =D

[Dungeon Warden]

Those are pretty good 3D models. About the level I started out at when I took modeling in school.

UV mapping can be a pain can't it? Especially when things don't wrap around the way you want them too. This is especially a problem with complex shapes, but the mouse shouldn't have been to hard.

Have you tryed bump mapping yet? The mouse would look better if the button edges were indented a little.

Humans are very hard to do. In fact, despite evidence to the contrary, you shouldn't model humans in 3D at all. The more realistic they look the creeper they are. The best models look more like cartoon characters then real humans.

What program are you using? I learned most of my modeling on Maya 8.

here iare some 3D models I did:




3d models

The ogre-cyclops can be seen in a video nine members of my class put together. You can see it here.

[Maindric Games ©]

Those are pretty nice. Since I have almost no money, I use 3D Canvas Pro, but I see some REALLY good models in it.

I saw some human models that look REALLY good and realistic. They were not made in my program, but I saw some looking similer in a way. Here are a few examples:


And alot more, and more realistic looking models...

[Dungeon Warden]

They only look realistic because they aren't moving. Trust me, trying to move a 3D model in a realistic human way just doesn't look right.

Lighting is one of the main problems. With a still image, you can make the lighting perfect but not with a moving one. I suspect that those images were altered in Photoshop (or a similar editing tool) to remove unwanted glare and textures so that they would look more realistic. Unaltered models don't look like that.

That's not to say you can't create some pretty cool looking models, it's just that humans are the hardest things to model because it's so easy to spot the flaws. People are so used to looking at facial features to tell each other apart that they can tell when even the slightest detail is wrong.

Either way, I suggest you stick with objects, non-humans or cartoon humans, at least until you're really good at modeling.

[Maindric Games ©]

Well, I agrre with with what you said about sticking in ananimate objects, but I saw his models in some of the games he made, and the animation was actialy pretty good... But I am going to try and make a stop light next for no apearant reason.

[Deleted]

Both of your work is great, DW and MG. I didn't vote because I think you should do what you want to/think you should do.

[Rodak]

Wow! Dungeon Warden is Back!

3D Modeling...

I found a Cheap-O way to imitate it...

doansdomain.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=rodak&action=display&thread=1184501013

I posted that a while ago. It's a trick for framing facial features around a phote and animating it.

I used Art and Fractals, of course...

Some Bizarre Results!

I picked up a real 3D Modeling Program (Hexxagon) and plan on doing work with it soon.

There is more animation in the Long Hair Games forum too, including a Stuffed Cow render! [/shameless-self-promotion]

It's good to see you back, Mr. Warden.

And I like the progress so far Mr. Games ©!

I voted "Other" because, of course, you should do a Cow!!

[Maindric Games ©]

Lol, I thought you would suggest a cow. Hm, I might see what I can do...

[Dungeon Warden]

I came across this article that talks about the problem with animating realistic humans:

Game Graphics: Scaling the Uncanny Valley

If you're not already familiar with it, here's a term used you'll see a lot of when people talk about computer graphics (or even robots): The Uncanny Valley. Learn the definition and you'll be able to impress your friends at parties. It works like this: if you were to draw a graph of people's emotional responses to things, it would follow a clear pattern. If something doesn't resemble a human at all (say, a picture of a rock), people have no response to it. But as you add more and more human-like characteristics -- eyes, noses, smiles, etc. -- people will develop a warmer emotional response to it. You'll start to feel empathy. The response is even greater if the character is animated and moves in realistic ways. But, the graph isn't a completely smooth curve! At some point, the character looks real but not real enough, and suddenly people will actually have the opposite reaction to it. A negative response. The character will look "creepy" or "weird" or "strange." Instead of seeing the human-like characteristics, you only notice what isn't quite right.

Animators have known about this phenomena for decades, and in the computer games industry it really became a concern more recently as graphics became good enough to make photo-realistic characters. Have you noticed that characters who might look okay in screenshots just seem wrong when you play the game? Creepy, waxy, jerky and robotlike? Yep, those chracters are sliding into the uncanny valley: they're human, but there's something wrong with them, and your instincts react negatively. It's fun to compare the characters of EverQuest II with World of Warcraft: WoW's designers consciously made their characters look like cartoons, exaggerated in dozens of ways, making them less human but high on the curve and easy to empathize with. EverQuest II went for a more realistic look, and plunged into the valley as a result.

Virtual Me
We can depict human beings photorealistically in real-time,
but can we make them move like humans? [Shown: EA's 'Virtual Me' Technology]

Gaming Beyond the Valley

I dwell on this topic as a followup to yesterday's blog about id's Tech5 Software. We now have the ability to render, in real-time, startlingly human faces. Every pore, blemish, freckle, and eyebrow-hair -- it's all on the screen!

But will the characters look right? That's the next step, and it's going to require animation that's as solid as the rendering. I suspect that will be the focus in the next five or ten years of videogame graphics development: progressively better and more realistic animations. It's going to require moving beyond 'canned' animations and into 'procedural' animations, blended and rendered on the fly.

A lot of work is going on in this space. My favorite example is the new Indiana Jones game, which uses NaturalMotion technology to dynamically animate the characters. I saw the demo last year at E3 and was really impressed: individual characters would do their best to keep their balance amidst all kinds of forces, like standing on a moving streetcar while being punched in the face. Or staying on a wriggling rope bridge while boulders landed on it. Admittedly the characters looked a little like marionettes being smacked around, but the technology was a real blast to interact with. And it's still early! We're going to see more and more technology focused just on realistic (and dynamic) animations.

At this year's SIGGRAPH (Computer Graphics) convention, EA's chief visual and technical officer gave a keynote speech that raised some of these same points. You can read a summary of the keynote on GamaSutra, where he talks about what it takes to move beyond the valley.

And of course after that comes improvements in AI... but that's a blog for another day.

-Fargo

full article

hi Rodak, good to see you're still hanging around here. Maybe we should have a contest to see who can model the best cow. ;D

[NASH7777]

They actually faced the same problem with making team america. It was too creepy so they purposefully made their movements more jerky and puppetlike.

[Deleted]

That explains why RPGM2 has all the bouncing and stretching in the Enemy Actions. Perhaps it's also why they made the Character Models "chi-bi."

[Rodak]

I have Always said it...

Keep your Realism OUT of MY Fantasy!!!

[Maindric Games ©]

It would sound better saying "keep you reality out of my virtural reality." But yeah..

In that artical, it mintions photo realistic 3D models, that can never happen. There is to much detail to a human that it would take hours to render.

[Dungeon Warden]

Actually, as computer power keeps doubling every year, what once took hours now only takes a few minutes. In my Computer Animation class we updated our computers and found with the new processing power, we could render 1 minute of animation in half an hour, whereas before it took six hours to render.

If you look at some of the 3D modeling done today, you can see that they are coming closer and closer to photo realistic all the time. Skin pores, sweat, and muscles can all be simulated in 3D now. The only limitation is facial movement. There are dozens of muscle groups in the face, some (like the ones around the mouth) are of a type not found anywhere else. It's just a matter of time before power and skill meet so that realistic faces can be generated in cut scenes. Rendering in real time is still a long way off, but there are very few games that need real time rendering of faces anyway.

The point is, between exaggeration and realistic is the vast valley of not quite real enough. Until a way can be found to cross this valley, it's better to stay away from it altogether.

Personally, I prefer cartoons and caricatures over realistic images anyway. It's only non-artists that like realistic stuff. I don't want to get into it now, but one of the problems with entertainment today is that non-artists with all the money are telling artists what to do, and if the artists won't listen they'll hire quasi-artists (people with some artistic ability but no real talent or skill - usually young people new to the business) to do it for them. Many artists are forced to produce stuff they hate just to survive.

With the arrival of 3D animation, tech-geeks are getting into creating 3D models and animation. They are more interested in seeing what the technology can do then in producing anything of artistic merit. That's why you'll read a lot of articles on how great the fur looks or how well they can animate fire and water now. These things are hard to do and it's great that they can be done realistically now, but you need more then that to make a good movie or video game. It's like putting beautiful decorative frosting over a cardboard cake. It looks good, but there's no substance to it.

Anyway, that's all I'll say on the subject. Anyone who wants to work in the entertainment industry needs to be prepared to deal with a lot of BS and hard work. It's not all fun and games.

[Maindric Games ©]

dungeonwarden said:

Anyway, that's all I'll say on the subject. Anyone who wants to work in the entertainment industry needs to be prepared to deal with a lot of BS and hard work. It's not all fun and games.

That, I understand, like when people were complaining about FFXII's low quality talking, compressing the game to the disk did that, the game was to large to put in (Great game though, did not get anywhere near all extras finished, but it still took me 100 freaking hours toi beat it.)

Anyways, with photo realistic models, the textures and 3D models (in a human.) both have way to much detail that it would take a few years at the very minimum in oreder to do it, if it does happen. But even if you do, it would take way to much time just to make the model and texture that some details can just be done without, in my oppinion. In a game, graphics are not the most important thing, but in today's twisted reality, it is a big factor for profits....

[Dungeon Warden]

I really wish more companies would take a more artistic approach to game design. Games like Hotel Dusk: Room 215 and Okami show that you can make a great game using stylized art. Hopefully, as games become more expensive, independent companies will start making games with stylized artwork to cut costs and make a tone of money doing it.

On the other hand, the two games I mentioned above didn't sell well despite the great reviews. Maybe you need a good realistic looking trailer to sell a game. Many bad games have sold well because they had a good looking trailer. That's why most of the "me too" games spend most of the money on the graphics instead of the game play.

[Rodak]

Maybe, then, it's time to adapt Lewis Carrol PROPERLY!

Do Through The Looking Glass in Two Styles!

Make your trailers 90% of the realistic footage but have the game 90% Cartoony Footage in the "Wonderland!"

Best of Both Worlds.


...


It'd never work.

[Maindric Games ©]

Well, with some componies, such as Squire Enix when they made Dirge of Cerberus, They use the same people to make the stuff, the where the money goes and how much does not change much. But it was the fact they used the same people who makes RPG's and not Shooters that made the gameplay go down. They used the same graphics people, and it almost did not change, but they used the same programmers. It mainly depends on who makes it. Most companies pay the same time for each, but some do tend to go more graphics, and the people they are paying to program, do not like it, so they draw their quality down.

[Dungeon Warden]

I don't think it's that the programmers "draw their quality down" because they aren't payed as much, I think it's the simple fact that they aren't given the time to really develop and test the software. Many games are rushed out the door before they're finished. With the cheap "me too" games, the programmers know they don't have the time to develop anything good from the beginning, so they rehash some old formulas and try to do the best they can before time and money run out.

There are many software development companies that will take the time to make sure both the graphics and the game play are up to par before releasing a game. I'm speaking more about those companies that are only trying to make a quick buck by copying what seems to be the next big thing. They aren't as big as SquareEnix or EA, and so they can't take risks and try to develop anything new. On the other end are small companies who put their whole energy into producing one good game, knowing if that game fails so does the company.