graphicguru Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Just a few WIPs from my (new) portfolio What you see, has been imported from AM into either Vue or Bryce to do final renders. Constructive critique toward a new modeler couldn't hurt.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanCBradbury Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 very interesting stuff. lots of color. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric2575 Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Should I be the first one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RViewer Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 They look like they are coming along nicely considering how short a time you have been learning A:M. The fact that you can import your models into other apps. you are more comfortable with should allow more options for texturing that you are more used to. However, A:M is great for texturing once you get the hang of it. I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors Gerald. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric2575 Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 to look for a way out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graphicguru Posted November 23, 2005 Author Share Posted November 23, 2005 to look for a way out? A way out of what? I don't follw you... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamagica Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 those look great! One thing though...the ark of the covenant has wodden handles that go across those bars. They aren't part of the actual ark. The only way to carry the ark without death was by adding handles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric2575 Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 A way out of this thread. If you're a beginning modeler, I should go back into a sandbox and play there. Wow, those are great. Please post some closeup wireframes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graphicguru Posted November 24, 2005 Author Share Posted November 24, 2005 A way out of this thread. If you're a beginning modeler, I should go back into a sandbox and play there. Wow, those are great. Please post some closeup wireframes. I have been an actual sculptor and painter most of my adult life, I just started learning 3D rendering this summer. I had to get past learning the basics of the program first. as far as the Ark, check out the biblical description. The carrying bars, it is mentioned that they are permanently attached to the legs, and (yes, wood) overlayed with solid gold. Here is the close up of the Ark. Let me know what other close ups of other model wireframes you would like. And thanks for your interest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamagica Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 they don't look wooden...take off some of that specularity so it doesn't match up with the gold material Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graphicguru Posted November 24, 2005 Author Share Posted November 24, 2005 they don't look wooden...take off some of that specularity so it doesn't match up with the gold material Well I hope this explains why they look gold, they are wooden poles that are OVERLAYED with gold. (gold covered wood) for that matter, the box was originally (In history) a WOODEN box, overlayed with gold. The Ark as a whole was wood, OVERLAYED with gold, if you catch my meaning...you will not see the actual wood on ANY parts of the Ark, because EACH part is COVERED with gold, according to the historical accounts found in the holy scriptures and other writings. P.S. Forgive me for repeating myself here, I just want to be clear as mud on the 'gold' issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajcedrv Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 Lovely models, great choice of colors... Keep on the good work and keep us posted!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CreativeAustinYankee Posted November 25, 2005 Share Posted November 25, 2005 From a modeling viewpoint, your models look quite good, but perhaps a bit patch-heavy, a particular example would be the angels on the Ark. Study some of the humanoid figures that were created in AM, and you'll see where you can get away with less. To really get some quality critiques on the modeling, you should strip all the models down to wireframe and post pics of those from a few different angles, it looks as though you might be used to dealing with polygons. Patches are much more economical and forgiving. Then again, I'm not sure how models native to AM interact with other programs. My two cents. Steve P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Rodney Posted November 25, 2005 Admin Share Posted November 25, 2005 This will seem contrarian... bear with me. I love your models. The wireframe really lets us know the detail you've put into them. Impressive! The rendering though... It looks like old CG work to me. You know what I mean? That look like it *is* CG? I'd love to see your models rendered with some of the skylights or setups in A:M. I can't help but think it would bring out the details more and give a more realistic feel to them. You could always use the backgrounds generated by Bryce and other programs. Now, if on the other hand, the CG look is exactly what you were going for... ...Disregard. Pretty stuff either way. Rodney Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graphicguru Posted November 28, 2005 Author Share Posted November 28, 2005 I'd love to see your models rendered with some of the skylights or setups in A:M. I forgot to mention, the bottom right model that looks like a fish & is really a space ship, is done intirely in AM. As far as CG, I think that ALL Computer Generated graphics are called 'CG'.....Aren't they?.... Some one help me out on this one... The rest of the renders of course, are mutiple application renders....(ALAS) P.S. Sorry I am not the 'loyal to only one application' kind of a guy when it comes to 3D rendering...besides, AM is VERY NEW to me still! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vong Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 Wait... The Ark was made entirely of WOOD, and was only COVERED in GOLD?!?!?! I was totally lied to by Raiders of the Lost Ark!!!!! Good work by the way!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RViewer Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 The lid was made of solid 100% 24-carat gold. The lid weighed 2,714 pounds. In today's market just the raw gold would be worth 10.5 million. And that is not even getting into the practical uses of this device. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Rodney Posted November 29, 2005 Admin Share Posted November 29, 2005 As far as CG, I think that ALL Computer Generated graphics are called 'CG'.....Aren't they?.... Some one help me out on this one... Yeah... but they don't all look "CG". My point is that your models get swallowed up in the "CG" look. In Hashspeak that is one way that you can often tell what program a render was done in. The renders are beautiful as they are though. I will seem to be loyal only to A:M but the truth is that Animation:Master is the first 3D program that was worth anything to me (POV, POV Ray, Polyray etc the early exceptions). Once I discovered A:M I didn't look for any other 3D solution. Your mileage may vary and I think you (and everyone!) should use every tool they can to get the story told. What I'm referring to here is personal style and there is as they say "No accounting for taste". In this particular case I would just like to see your models rendered in what I would call "your own style" whereas they look (to me) to be more in the classic "CG" style. Perhaps the "CG" style is your style. I'm still struggling with my own style as there are so many to choose from. For my own part, I prefer toon rendering for instance because my 2D senses prefer sharp lines and stark colors. I am not suggesting toon rendering in your case however. Only a shift away from the standard (I'd say older) CG style. In any case... Keep posting and I'll keep watching! Rodney Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CreativeAustinYankee Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 A comment on your spaceship/sub: I gave it a close look over, most of it is very fluid and smooth, befitting it's intended purpose, what struck me as out-of-place were the (engines)? They lack the same slick lines the rest of the vessel has. They aren't fully integrated with the design of the rest of the ship. It may be a small nit-pick, more about style choice, but.... Steve P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graphicguru Posted November 30, 2005 Author Share Posted November 30, 2005 what struck me as out-of-place were the (engines)? They lack the same slick lines the rest of the vessel has. They aren't fully integrated with the design of the rest of the ship And I have to agree with you on that note...They were the last thing I added, and sort of half thougt through. This particular ship is supposed to be an alien ship, and yet the engines look as though humans built them. Thanks for the contenuity insight there by the way, another model I am working on...A stealth plane as seen below. You are welcome to critique it, I don't mind at all. I am still at the learner's level, but I don't get my feelings hurt too much...so, lay it on me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.