PenGuin1362 has contributed to 187 posts out of 469516 total posts
(.04%) in 4,331 days (.04 posts per day).
20 Most recent posts:
Oh by all means, it's wonky as hell. However there was an app someone was making a while back that fixed all the nasty visual tearing. I'm long disconnected with this community so I don't know if it released, if it did it increases the games rendering limit and prevents the nasty visual issues. But Conscars always wanted it to get out eventually and it's just never going to get done so here it is.
As for the effort, Mr. Sassy, this thing has sat dormant on my Hard drive for years now. I have no time for mods anymore and with the announcement of gamespy shutting down I felt I'd might as well dump it out there than let the files go to waste. Do with it what you will but I assure it is not a perfect experience.
Well, with the switch to that different server hosting platform and a number of uncertainties I figured I might as well release this for the like 10 people who still play rather than let it sit on my hard drive for no reason. I had hoped to finish it eventually but that's very obviously not going to happen at this point. It's definitely in the beta stage as there are broken portals, no final lighting, some weird temp shotgun that I don't even remember where it came from, and an assortment of other problems. But it's definitely still playable, and enjoyable. Everything was created by our small team, except for the turret which is a placeholder that never got replaced. I'd like to thank Con for creating the skybox and most (if not all) of the world textures, CtrlAltDestroy for various special asset implementation and engine trickery, Choking Victim for script/shader support (and I think he made the new power up assets), and ShadowSpartan. So here it is (sorry for the old dev name that never got changed). You guys still seem surprisingly active over here so hopefully you can get some use out of it as a lot of work went into it to get it this far. Remember though, broken portals = a lot of visual issues. They don't hurt gameplay that much though.
Oh and I should also mention that the map breaks the games max vert count for a level so that also causes some fun tearing!
Temp mirror until the Halomaps one goes through:
Edited by PenGuin1362 on May 4, 2014 at 12:32 PM
Edited by PenGuin1362 on May 4, 2014 at 12:32 PM
Edited by PenGuin1362 on May 4, 2014 at 01:03 PM
If you ever want to advance as a modeler/texture/anything artist it's important to get feedback from places OTHER than one where there's at most 3 people who you can considered well rounded. The ones Sel posted are great ones to go to so consider branching out if you really want to get better.
It's pretty much all circumstantial. It'll change constantly so you have to be attentive enough to know when and where. but yes if smoothing is coming out horrible then yeah you may have to. But with normals now it can hide it a lot.
Also not best post, immature and a waste of space.
long and thin isn't great, but it's not worth adding unnecessary verticies to avoid.
fyi, wireframe on a high poly isn't really important. As long as it works for the normals, who cares how the mesh looks.
Quote: --- Original message by: Angel Natavi
Booyah. Out of the even dozen modeling programs I've tried, Max is by far the most powerful.
Max Maya and Blender are all equally as powerful, they just differ in the way they handle things. Having learned on 3DS Max I can say Maya is much faster to work in, and also has become the most common in the industry. It all depends on what the individual can do with it. Hell I've seen mind blowing work some from Milkshape 3D
Google sketchup will NOT EVER teach you proper modeling methods and topology techniques. it's for 10 year olds who are bored and want to feel like they're creative. If you want to become serious about modeling don't touch it, don't even look at it. Sketchup has its place, far away from inexperienced modelers look for real practice.
Go to google and search for the Beretta 9000 tutorial, that's a good way to jump into the basics.
>_< I'm doing a sherman tank for my assignment haha
On the flip side, character animation is more profitable. And significantly harder.
I actually got to hear Ed Fries speak (former VP of Microsoft Games). Brilliant dude with great ideas. However to open his talk to showed off a game he made for the Atari 2600, and it just so happened to be Halo. The physical limitations he had to work made the end result even more interesting
Quote: more m16s please I dont think anybody 's ever modeled one other than broke. ever
The m16/m4 family (and any variant there of) has been the single most over done model of the modeling community. I don't know of anyone who models well who HASN'T made an m16/m4
But that's not to say it isn't good practice since the receiver has some unique shapes. Anyway, you seem to have a good handle on it so far, you want to soften up those edges a bit, they're very harsh right now.
Loot at your details. first, you details have some inaccuracies so look over your references again. Second, think about how your details work on the gun. Remember they're not just there for looks, think about the indentations around certain objects protruding from the gun. In real life we'd see these rounded edges because remember, there's still a hole around that pin sticking out.
This is what I'm referring to. It makes a huge difference.
No. It distracts from what's actually being showcased and is a horrible practice to get into. Grey background is ideal.
Max rigs (especially for all of the halo rigs) are built using the character studio in 3DS Max. Technically a separate program entirely but incorporated into Max. Maya rigs are built using custom bone structures you have to make and are weighted through vertex weighting. Character studio uses envelops. Not as powerful as Maya but simpler. Therefore any rig built off character studio (i.e. the rigs people have built for the MC) will not open in Maya.
Quote: --- Original message by: AGLion
Again, it doesn't matter because it looks fine already. It most cases, it only matters what it looks like, not what it looks like with a bunch of lines running over the edges.
wireframes are incredibly important. When you model your distribution of detail and polygons can affect the outcome of your model. For example, having a 40 sided cylinder as a barrel is entirely unnecessary but you can't tell what the mesh looks like from just seeing a textured model. You need to know how to properly allocate detail in a model and to the normal map so that you aren't wasting resources. Showing a wireframe is the best way to get crit about it.
Geared your details just seem like they're floating randomly on the gun. Try actually adding the details of the slide grip into the back of the slide and pay close attention to the details of the gun. The topology of the mesh is very important before random detail though so get that down first.
The colt pistol was actually developed prior to 1911, and had been in production since the late 1800's. It was officially named the M1911 in the year 1911 when it was officially adopted by the United States Army as the new standard issue side arm....in 1911. The 1911's design began in the late 1800's as an attempt to create a self loading pistol. It went through a series of trials and tests in the years leading up to 1911 to prove it could be the new standard issue side arm. tl;dr 1911 originated before 1911. 1911 does not equal World War 2 or one for that matter.
Also did you even try when you made that? Gather some references and give it another go
Bump mapping has essentially been replaced by tangent space normals. Normals give off a more real time lighting angle to details which technically don't exist. Bump mapping more so throws light in every direction to give the object the appearance of having depth but will give off the crisp, nice effect of having light reflect off of a normal map. Parallax (made from height maps) is nice, but it can look weird when you get in too close because the map is still flat but it gives a super awesome affect of it actually looking like there's depth. Works best on stone.
Tangent space normal
So clearly bump mapping doesn't even look good in the first place, why try to fake it? And by "faking" it, what you're doing is creating the shadows that would have been created if a bump map was there and overlaying it into the diffuse. AKA an ambient occlusion map, not bump. Which is actually part of the "next-gen" work flow. If done right ambient occlusion can strengthen your diffuse map.
Edited by PenGuin1362 on Nov 28, 2010 at 12:41 PM
You can't even call it bump mapping really, it's basically a jacked up ambient occlusion map.
Quote: --- Original message by: ICEE
Geared seems to have come a pretty long way with no formal education. Maybe you should take him under your (flightless) wing penguin
My inability to fly is none of your concern >: ( and merely a fault in natures evolution. If I had the time to spare I would gladly. What I can say is watch your detail, there seems to be unnecessary detail in areas that get least attention and the main side of the receiver is rather bland. Also start learning high poly to low poly work flow, makes all the difference in the world