Car makeover
by wiseman2 · 01/20/2009 (4:36 pm) · 13 comments
Well from the comments I received, on the last blog post, I decided just not to try to only cut the polys down a little, but way back.
I did a complete makeover. Originally the high poly lod had over 3800 polys, and the 2nd lod had just over 1900, and the geometry did need to be cleaned up a bit. So, (since I do incremental saves) I went way back in the modeling process...The model was started with nurbs curves, and boundary surfaces...and then decided to only convert 1 panel at a time ..then reduce the poly count before combining it with the next mesh. Then while isolating my geometry ,I went vert by vert around each panel to make sure that there were no holes where it matched to the next one.Thus I have a much tighter looking model than previously.
I did some thinking about this as I went to do it, and decided that if requested I could always subdivide out the mesh for something smoother. But most probably for quite a while if I got the poly count low enough, I wouldn't really need several lod...thus no popping to worry about.
TO anyone who's not into modeling I'm sure this is realllll interesting.
So here is the new look , ...no textures yet, but will have soon.
I did a complete makeover. Originally the high poly lod had over 3800 polys, and the 2nd lod had just over 1900, and the geometry did need to be cleaned up a bit. So, (since I do incremental saves) I went way back in the modeling process...The model was started with nurbs curves, and boundary surfaces...and then decided to only convert 1 panel at a time ..then reduce the poly count before combining it with the next mesh. Then while isolating my geometry ,I went vert by vert around each panel to make sure that there were no holes where it matched to the next one.Thus I have a much tighter looking model than previously.
I did some thinking about this as I went to do it, and decided that if requested I could always subdivide out the mesh for something smoother. But most probably for quite a while if I got the poly count low enough, I wouldn't really need several lod...thus no popping to worry about.
TO anyone who's not into modeling I'm sure this is realllll interesting.
So here is the new look , ...no textures yet, but will have soon.
About the author
#2
My point being man is you're doing a good job and we all can improve so just take the criticism as a way to get even better, but don't get beat up over it.
01/20/2009 (5:35 pm)
I liked your last car model and I like this one. I'm not saying that I don't agree that maybe you could of used less triangles, but I'm not sure what the triangle limit for cars are so I can't say if you are too excessive.My point being man is you're doing a good job and we all can improve so just take the criticism as a way to get even better, but don't get beat up over it.
#3
lots who make high poly cars like that.
Its always easy to add poly's to a model then take them away
keep up the good work.
01/20/2009 (6:15 pm)
Its a nice model but making any low poly model your better off box modeling from primitives then lofting mesh using CV curves or nurbslots who make high poly cars like that.
Its always easy to add poly's to a model then take them away
keep up the good work.
#4
not using lods is just bad optimization.
i can see atleast one T junction on the door, and where theres one there is more.
and the engine can handle up to 7k tris just fine. especially if you use lods.id say 5+ lod models will be needed for desired effect.
01/20/2009 (9:29 pm)
if lods are used right, with the right amount of lod models and poly counts per lod, the player shouldn't notice. not using lods is just bad optimization.
i can see atleast one T junction on the door, and where theres one there is more.
and the engine can handle up to 7k tris just fine. especially if you use lods.id say 5+ lod models will be needed for desired effect.
#5
01/20/2009 (9:32 pm)
hmm you could of saved allot of time by using xsi as they have a poly reduction in there program and it works quite well. its what i have done to a character i took its 170k polys and reduced it to a much smaller amount to get it in the engine. i just started using xsi i only been using it for 2 weeks and i already know how to use it its so easy to learn i learned how to use it in less then 2h its that easy. i don't know everything in those 2h but i know how to do all basic stuff with it in that time frame.
#6
01/20/2009 (9:37 pm)
i think that feature is called autoLOD in max. Haven't used it so im not sure. 
#7
I would not worry about that wing, it looks about right and looks like an effective wing. It's in line with the roof of the car and those type wings are very effective.
Having raced Radio Control cars competitively as well as flying remote control airplanes I can tell you it is not about how big the wing is on the car for the type wing you have, but the airfoil design and the angle. Ever wonder why airplanes elevators which essentially provide down force on the rear of the plane (and up force) are so small compared to the main wings? Not much surface area is needed. (Edit: Unless you are doing 3D flying which requires a larger elevator and rudder)
Just an FYI. That does not look like a spoiler but a wing. If air can get under the bottom and across the top then it is a wing and does not have to be very large to be effective, depending on the airfoil. If the air is restricted underneath, then it is classified as a spoiler.
Only thing I can see is you need to make it animated so it tilts back and forth depending on speed:)
Looking good!
(FYI: www.nrauto.com/product_body.asp?id=212&makeid=Porsche&type=1)
01/20/2009 (10:03 pm)
Nice car!I would not worry about that wing, it looks about right and looks like an effective wing. It's in line with the roof of the car and those type wings are very effective.
Having raced Radio Control cars competitively as well as flying remote control airplanes I can tell you it is not about how big the wing is on the car for the type wing you have, but the airfoil design and the angle. Ever wonder why airplanes elevators which essentially provide down force on the rear of the plane (and up force) are so small compared to the main wings? Not much surface area is needed. (Edit: Unless you are doing 3D flying which requires a larger elevator and rudder)
Just an FYI. That does not look like a spoiler but a wing. If air can get under the bottom and across the top then it is a wing and does not have to be very large to be effective, depending on the airfoil. If the air is restricted underneath, then it is classified as a spoiler.
Only thing I can see is you need to make it animated so it tilts back and forth depending on speed:)
Looking good!
(FYI: www.nrauto.com/product_body.asp?id=212&makeid=Porsche&type=1)
#8
Dave MacIsaac, few people these days use NURBS or curves for high-poly car modeling in Max. Modelers these days typically polymodel, and apply meshsmooth to the finished product (and at various stages during modeling). It provides for a simpler, faster workflow.
There used to be a good, free car modeling video tutorial over at www.3d-palace.com. It may still be there.
01/21/2009 (12:04 am)
The polygons are definitely "off." They should be more regularly placed. Additional polygons should be placed where there are curves and tight corners. You could actually simulate the curves and such through creative texturing.Dave MacIsaac, few people these days use NURBS or curves for high-poly car modeling in Max. Modelers these days typically polymodel, and apply meshsmooth to the finished product (and at various stages during modeling). It provides for a simpler, faster workflow.
There used to be a good, free car modeling video tutorial over at www.3d-palace.com. It may still be there.
#9
01/21/2009 (1:57 am)
shape is ok, but those polygons are creazy. I'm not even sure how is that possible? you must have modeled the car in hires and then used optimizer on it. better polygon flow is needed, it would be more optimal and better for shading etc...
#10
He said the car was started in nurbs/curves, and boundary surfaces.
I just said to box model with polygons primitives you have more control over geometry. And lots of Maya modelers still use Nurbs/curves SubD's you can get perfet results with them search Google you can find twenty ways to model a car.
aliasdesign.autodesk.com/learning/tutorials/details/How%20to%20create%20and%20Wh...
01/21/2009 (8:27 am)
@joeQuote:few people these days use NURBS or curves for high-poly car modeling in Max. Modelers these days typically polymodel, and apply meshsmooth to the finished product
He said the car was started in nurbs/curves, and boundary surfaces.
I just said to box model with polygons primitives you have more control over geometry. And lots of Maya modelers still use Nurbs/curves SubD's you can get perfet results with them search Google you can find twenty ways to model a car.
aliasdesign.autodesk.com/learning/tutorials/details/How%20to%20create%20and%20Wh...
#11
Elongated triangles are a big "no no"...try to keep them square(stubby with a right angle).
I would take that current car as a stencil-model and box/extrude a model over it to make a replacement.
01/21/2009 (8:45 am)
I hope you can get a hold of the geometry. I personally avoid decimators/optimizers for game development. Elongated triangles are a big "no no"...try to keep them square(stubby with a right angle).
I would take that current car as a stencil-model and box/extrude a model over it to make a replacement.
#12
Anyway, the point of my post was to provide some commentary to help the OP with his modeling. Getting good curves on a car model can be very complicated, and when the faces look like those in his screenshots it's probably best to just throw it out and start over. That's not to say that the car design looks bad; I'm just saying that it should be modeled cleanly.
01/21/2009 (9:00 pm)
Dave, I was mostly talking about Max, because Max's NURBS are (were) notorious for being a pain to work with. Most modelers I know use polymodeling. But really, people just use what they're comfortable with. I'm sure there are some modelers (insane ones) that like Max's NURBS implementation. :)Anyway, the point of my post was to provide some commentary to help the OP with his modeling. Getting good curves on a car model can be very complicated, and when the faces look like those in his screenshots it's probably best to just throw it out and start over. That's not to say that the car design looks bad; I'm just saying that it should be modeled cleanly.
#13
which wood give you tons of room to add way more detals.
It was box modeled off just one cube..
01/22/2009 (9:21 am)
Your looking for something more like this were your ploys flow from front to back and over the car better this copy has only 1024 polygons in tri'swhich wood give you tons of room to add way more detals.
It was box modeled off just one cube..
Torque 3D Owner Kevin Rogers
Looking cool; although, I'm seeing a number of surfaces that still seem to have more polygons than necessary...
For example, I'd expect the side window to be relatively flat, yet there are still ~25 polys.
Also the side door doesn't seem to "flow" i.e. the polys look strange, like they've been randomly placed. The front wheel well could be smoothed and rounded more.
The rear spoiler looks tiny; it's supposed to help provide traction, but this one doesn't look like it would really help much. =\
Finally, watch for T-junctions -- looks like there are maybe a few in there...? But hard to tell from the pics... =)