Exact modeling

[+Epizikl]

The Lads (!)

 

See on these pictures...

 

Edited May 25, 2010 by Epizikl

[+Epizikl]

... what think, models this or photo of the real machines (?!)

Edited June 20, 2009 by Epizikl

[+Epizikl]

This models (!)

 

Absolutely has accidentally come upon on site: http://precise3dmodeling.com/

 

And has simply freaked out (!)

 

See and honour - themselves all will understand...

One word in name of the site (before 3d) already on all speaks...

Edited June 20, 2009 by Epizikl

[+Julhelm]

It's good texture work and a lot of post-production compositing and editing. If you look at the gear well on the SU-34 you can clearly see nothing's actually modelled inside, but rather painted on.

[+Epizikl]

I already wrote the Author.

This is a russian boys...

[Silverbolt]

beautifull pics btw!

 

the T-72/T-80 pick looks a real photo, its my desktop now

Edited June 20, 2009 by Silverbolt

[+Veltro2k]

Great the most realistic part that really opens your eyes,,,is the pricetag

[+Epizikl]

Such exact work can not not like (!).

[WarlordATF]

WOW! The Viper on that page is Amazing!

[+Epizikl]

Quite well, there was have these qualitative models in play (!).

[+Fubar512]

Quite well, there was have these qualitative models in play (!).

 

The price tag for a "good" model ranges from $200-$500 US. That's before one performs the necessary work to make it usable in this series.

 

And, if one maintains the detail level, one would need a high end system to run it. As an example, I'm working on a ship model's data.ini for another modeler. That model weighs in at 120,000 polygons. I can run it, but chances are, the majority of players, cannot. I'll bet that most of those models run 80-150K polys.

[+FastCargo]

Some of the those models run 250k polygons. Ain't no way the majority of us can run that in game without a LOT of messaging. And that's after you get past the price tag (higher than the cost of 3ds MAX 9 student)...

 

FC

[+Epizikl]

The price tag for a "good" model ranges from $200-$500 US. That's before one performs the necessary work to make it usable in this series.

 

And, if one maintains the detail level, one would need a high end system to run it. As an example, I'm working on a ship model's data.ini for another modeler. That model weighs in at 120,000 polygons. I can run it, but chances are, the majority of players, cannot. I'll bet that most of those models run 80-150K polys.

 

The Authors of these models have a beautiful belief about that that their possible use in play (!).

So, models absolutely suitable to play (!).

The Question of the cost, yes...

This is a serious question.

I have asked the Authors about level of the prices , but me until have answered...

[+Epizikl]

Some of the those models run 250k polygons. Ain't no way the majority of us can run that in game without a LOT of messaging. And that's after you get past the price tag (higher than the cost of 3ds MAX 9 student)...

 

FC

 

Has Answered already above...

[+Veltro2k]

The Authors of these models have a beautiful belief about that that their Remove (possible use in play) Add ( MAKING ALOT OF $$$$ )(!).

So, models absolutely suitable to play (!).

The Question of the cost, yes...

This is a serious question.

I have asked the Authors about level of the prices , but me until have answered...

 

mod

[thundercheif]

[+Julhelm]

Normal mapping + light map on separate UV channel > ultra-hipoly geometry

[zmatt]

Nice 3d models but I never once thought they were real. They are however far superior to most 3d you see.

 

 

Here is the issue with 3d in general:

 

Good 3d modeling looks too real. You don't see all of those details in a real photo, things are out of focus, the image is washed out etc. Also, it's rare to see the heat off of a tailpipe in a photograph.

Edited June 22, 2009 by zmatt

[+Epizikl]

I do not think that a good simulation of a disadvantage from the fact that the model becomes too real. "

Instead, the game has been able to benefit from it (!).

In fact, everything becomes more realistic (!).

 

A poor quality and inaccurate model - is a big negative (!). Self using ...

[+KnightWolf45]

to use this type model you need reduce polys to a lot that it can run no medium machines specs like fubar posted above so some detail might go way next you work up the hierarchy so more problem it all ways best to star a model for zero whit SF on mind for hierarchy and poly count.

i dont like purched models i have EricJ Su-27U on the work shop but it the last time i work whit this type of model to me it more a waste of money wend you can model it from scracht might no look so great but you will have less problem and control all aspects of your projects.

and dont forget a nice skin can replace a lot polys.

well that i view things outers might not view things like it a mater of opinion and im expressing mine.

[zmatt]

I do not think that a good simulation of a disadvantage from the fact that the model becomes too real. "

Instead, the game has been able to benefit from it (!).

In fact, everything becomes more realistic (!).

 

A poor quality and inaccurate model - is a big negative (!). Self using ...

 

That's not what I meant. It has to do with the image quality. With 3d renders it always looks like its in a showroom or in a movie. Neither of which are indicative of what you normally see. The model and textures need to be high quality, but the rendering techniques have a long way to go until they look real. Right now all 3d models look manufactured and sterile without serious post production work. To be fair a lot of what I am asking is very expensive resource wise and isn't very practical. Hopefully we aren't too far off though to where such things are possible in real time.

[+Epizikl]

I know you ... zmatt (!)