MMZ_TimeLord Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 So, I had an urge to do a simple model that quickly grew into a serious monster... I wanted to model a simple stick of RAM for a computer. The first step was to scan both sides of it so I'd have a good reference. Then I thought, I could make this ultra simple and just made a model the same shape as the main circuit board of the stick of RAM and apply the image of the front for a decal and I'm done. (Patch count at this point 51) Well, when I rendered it, it looked good, but very 'flat' to me. So, I figured, Well, I can extrude it, clean it up some and then apply the image of the front and back to ... well, the front and back and see if that helps. (Patch count: 170) It helped, but it still looked a bit 'flat'. It would hold up for a quick prop, but that's about it. Okay, I've come this far... I figured what the heck. I modeled the various chips and surface mount components at a very basic level and decaled everything. (Patch count: 1,139) It came out pretty good and would be VERY convincing even as a semi-close up. But, what about for a still image? Hmmm... So I modeled MUCH more detail into the surface mount components and the chips that had 'legs' showing. (Patch count: 17,219!!!) When I rendered this one, I thought WOW, that would hold up pretty good on a fairly large resolution close up. I'd just have to scan the decal images higher to make it any better. So, what was the lesson in all this? When you begin to model something for a project, be aware of how much screen time and space it will take up as well as the final format of your work. Version 1: Still Images: Not usable - HD: Not usable - NTSC/PAL: Background prop/Quick Prop - Medium Web Content: Standard Prop excluding close ups Version 2: Still Images: Not usable - HD: Not usable - NTSC/PAL: Background prop/Quick Prop, possibly standard prop excluding close ups - Medium Web Content: ALL Version 3: Still Images: Background prop/Quick Prop - HD: Background prop/Quick Prop, possibly standard prop excluding close ups - NTSC/PAL: ALL - Medium Web Content: Overkill except extreme close ups Version 4: Still Images & HD: ALL with higher DPI scan of the object for a better decal - NTSC/PAL: For primary props or close ups - Medium Web Content: Overkill Sometimes less, is more... or at the very least easier to work with. I've included a BIG render of all four models and the project and decal files in a zip archive for public consumption. Cheers! Parts_Modeling.zip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric2575 Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 Nice comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zandoriastudios Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 Maybe a normal map would have been simpler? I don't see a visible difference between the first one and the last one, except that there is some thickness to the circuitboard and the chips have thickness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMZ_TimeLord Posted July 28, 2008 Author Share Posted July 28, 2008 William, My primary focus here was actual patch modeling. Version 1 is a simple plane modeled the same shape as the stick of RAM. Only one Decal was applied to the top view. Version 2 is version 1 only extruded and some of the internal patches removed (cleaned up). Top and bottom views were decaled separately. Version 3 has all the geometry of Version 2, but also has the RAM chips, controller chips and all the surface mount components. The SMCs were modeled as simple blocks to lower patch count. The top and bottom board chips and SMCs were all decaled together in each view and then the label decal applied separately. Version 4 has replaced the SMCs with much more detailed versions. Each solder section on the SMCs has been modeled and a 'solder' set of surface properties applied. The SMC bodies were decaled a the same time as the rest of the circuit board and chips. The label was again done separately. You can see the differences between version 3 and version 4 in this shaded wire frame (no decals). Oh and those are not just blocks for solder joints... they are rounded boxes that are 20 patches each. The second picture shows a REALLY close up view of one of the SMCs. Cheers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agep Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 Small world ey? I'm currently working on a circuit board myself, related to my day job. I have been patchmodelling all those resistors too. I even went so far that I actually modeled those tiny holes in the circuit board... thousand of those tiny bastards I tell you:p Reason for this is I plan on making an animation on the board using it as a cityscape kinda thing. I still have lots of other SMD's left to make though. However, I don't use any photo as decal (I wont hijack your thread, so I'll might make my own wip thread later). Anyway, Nice job! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zandoriastudios Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 I just don't see enough of a difference to justify the extra time...unless you need to be able to animate a fly-by along the surface of the circuitboard, or something. I had to get on to one of my designers once, for modeling something down to the threads on a bolt...when the final rendering the head of the bolt would only be 1-3 pixels! Since he was an hourly worker, I felt that he was wasting time... but if you are just doing it for fun, then it doesn't matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMZ_TimeLord Posted July 28, 2008 Author Share Posted July 28, 2008 Stian, Thank you for the compliment... I look forward to your WIP on the circuit board. William, I was trying to relate the same thing you had to come down on your guy about... what is overkill and therefore a waste of time. i.e. - Modeling the head/base and threads on a bolt when the bolt head will be the only thing showing and only two pixels high at that. A small extruded hexagon would suffice in that case. Cheers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Rodney Posted July 28, 2008 Admin Share Posted July 28, 2008 Jody, That really is impressive. Thanks so much for sharing the project file too. I'm stunned by your generosity but sure am proud to have that in my collection. I really admire all of you guys/gals with the patience to model all those details. I'd be more like... gak... sputter... gah... and never get it done. And the lesson... lets not forget to comment on that. Very nice comparison. I agree that in many instances the viewer won't see a bit of difference. The ultra level of detail isn't going to be needed. You are a master. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMZ_TimeLord Posted July 29, 2008 Author Share Posted July 29, 2008 Why, thank you Rodney... your words are always too kind. Yes, the point of the lesson is that you can easily get caught up in the modeling and forget the production. I am to the point now where I'm creating proxies for just about everything and getting my shots laid out. Then I'll go back and determine what needs details and how much. Some things might easily get by with simple decals and bump maps/displacement maps (render hit) or the like... there are a lot of tricks to use to fool the viewer into seeing more detail than there is. I've gone and added a displacement map to the top decal stamp of Version 4, just for fun. It's kind of a quick attempt, but we'll see how it comes out. Cheers! 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.