CGTalk - New Head Model... (just messin'around)

l_farley13_l

07-01-2002, 10:33 PM

not to interupt this nice class, but I'll add a bit myself :)

The shape is spot on and the horns are nice.

Now you just have to think about details - that's one thing I'm really strating to notice with great models - things like the eye sockets have not just one simple flat lid, but excess butched up at the top and bottom (think of extrudes - flaps- all arround a sphere). And of course the interior of the mouth/gums is another area for interesting detail.

The mouth is a little odd being a concave nose area, still could be done if it's made to look fleshy- then the bottom would have to match and hang over the lower jaw bone a bit.

So in short, think of the areas that bulge, and pull them down to simulate their weight (fatty cheek especially).

Think about the skull and how different parts lie/hang on it.

Could you post the base model?

Huge improvements BTW ;)

see you,

Farley13

Grey

07-01-2002, 10:57 PM

not sure what you mean by "make look fleshy" But I intend to add rows of teeth top and bottom, no fangs, just pointed generally the same shape.

The eye sockets have no lid yet, but the lid will come back to front, rather than top to bottom.

This is the basecage

kiwi

07-02-2002, 12:08 AM

Grey think streamlined :) .....try Komodo dragons,or look up a specific lizard name and then do a search.Try National Geopgraphic etc :)

I have a pic of my Dragon I am still working,it should give you some tips and ideas,I used a truckload of reference material,like Dinos Lizards,Bats etc.

Stu.

kiwi

07-02-2002, 12:12 AM

Here we go :)

Stu.

Grey

07-02-2002, 12:15 AM

oooo :D

Can I pet him? does he bite?

Thanks Kiwi!

Grey

07-02-2002, 01:32 AM

this was too funny not to post... :D

LucentDreams

07-02-2002, 01:49 AM

I think he's missing a few, just a hunch

l_farley13_l

07-02-2002, 02:03 AM

no kidding :)

not sure what you mean by "make look fleshy"

I was talking about his "nose" region, instead of coming down in a bulbus shape (think most dinos from JP) it kinda lips out - this could be made to look like a loose lip of some kind - like a tapir, but less exagerated. If that was done then the bottom might do the same - just adds some interest that's all - a reason for different structures ;)

That lid's going to be interesting ;) I know a third lid can do that, but most go up and down in nature right (not that you have to copy ;))

Your Base cage looks just like mine- tweeked to hell, it's hard, but the more you know abouthe topology, the more the detail can be localized, probably still around the eyes nose and lips. Some higher amounts of polies there will let you give it a more solid feel and look less uniform.

see you,

Farley13

Grey

07-02-2002, 04:24 AM

I haven't done much more than tweak the teeth since posted last, so I'll spare you another update...

Spent most of the day working on this one. Farley, I'll try to take your advice to heart, I'm not sure my skills are up to it, but we'll see.

Today was a complete joy because of this thread :D

kiwi

07-02-2002, 05:23 AM

Grey as you do more projects your skills will improve bud :D

I have another wip head somewhere on my HD which is about half way ish,I think complete that might help as well.

Stu.

bunk

07-02-2002, 05:10 PM

Spent most of the day working on this one.

Hey Grey,

I think part of the "problem" is your mesh. There hardly is any and thus no way to control it.
First define the shape your after and try to build your polygons around this. In other words, let them follow the shape you're after. Once you got that it's "simply " a case of filling up the wholes.

Have alook at this image.

http://www.bunk.cistron.nl/polyrows.jpg

It's a Meerkat but could have been your lizardman with a bit of tweaking (just ignore the nose and ears). The focus was on the shape of the beak and the eyes.

It really pays off at the end of the day, once you got the hang of it.

hth with your future models,

bunk

Grey

07-02-2002, 05:58 PM

I'm trying to get away with as low poly as possible.

A big difference between your figure and mine is the way the lower jaw is... it's almost a completely separate part on my figure, where as on yours it's totally integrated. This has to do largely with the structure of the head I'm trying to create which is why I didn't loft it as it appears you have from the mouth area of your figure (appears, not saying that's what you did...)

l_farley13_l

07-02-2002, 06:25 PM

I'm trying to get away with as low poly as possible.

Yes, but you still have to think about topology - if it localized detail arround the nose, mouth and eyes, uneeded polygons between could be optimized, and the subdivison wouldn't need to be as high, plus the shading just looks nicer.

see you,

Farley13

Grey

07-02-2002, 06:30 PM

the sub-division is set at the default: 3

I had always understtood however, that lower poly would need higher subdiv... that's how I treated the Boat Hull. It's so low poly I set the subdivs to 5.

l_farley13_l

07-02-2002, 06:38 PM

Then why work so low poly at all, you'll have much more control with a bit more polygons arranged in a logical manner. 4d has more than resources through plugs etc. to handle it, plus sel. sets etc. can handle any hardware troubles.

It really helps get rid of that whole "too soft look".

see you,

Farley13

Grey

07-02-2002, 06:47 PM

understood, but one thing this guy El Diablo brought up in a thread was that lots of detail can be brought out through Displacement Mapping... which I think I'll try and make use of here...

bunk

07-02-2002, 06:56 PM

I'm trying to get away with as low poly as possible.

I think you missed the point or I wasn't clear enough.
Have a look at this picture. Same principle, low poly count. (set up in ten minutes)

http://www.bunk.cistron.nl/lizard.jpg

I had always understtood however, that lower poly would need higher subdiv... that's how I treated the Boat Hull. It's so low poly I set the subdivs to 5.

It's better to use a bit more polygons to control the cage then tweaking points out of range that need to be smoothen drasticly to get the desired result.

Cheers,

bunk

randyrives

07-02-2002, 08:19 PM

bunk,

Did you build this point by point (edgeloop) or did you use a cube and knife & extrude the shape. I was/am having a similar problem with a dolphin model I am working on. The mouth and eye polys do not flow smoothly.

--Randy R

Grey

07-02-2002, 09:58 PM

<---bows to Bunk's superior modelling skills :applause: :applause: :applause:

All I have to say to that is:WOW!

Regarding the boat hull, the big reason I kept it low poly is because precise control over the surface would have been a mistake as it would require a great degree of fine tuning to get a fair hull, one that flows smoothly.

I'm now seeing what your saying regarding this model, however. Thanks for taking the extra effort to show me!

kiwi

07-02-2002, 11:48 PM

Bunk after modelling a basic shape I always start next on making the eye area,is that where you start next or does it vary?

Stu.

bunk

07-02-2002, 11:54 PM

Did you build this point by point (edgeloop) or did you use a cube and knife & extrude the shape.

Hi Randy,

I started with a polygon (3x3) in this case to build the mouth. After that I used Arndt van Koenigsmarck's Edge Extrude plugin. But as the picture shows you could as wel start with a plane. In the end that's all it is. Just use what ever methode suits you best.

http://www.bunk.cistron.nl/plane.jpg

I adjusted the connection of the polygons below the eye a bit for the dolphin. The plane was done later. Also took out the ±square polygon between the eye and mouth of the lizard (made the mesh a bit cleaner).

bunk

bunk

07-03-2002, 12:15 AM

Bunk after modelling a basic shape I always start next on making the eye area,is that where you start next or does it vary?

It does vary. Sometimes I start on details and do a rough for the rest which I then narrow down. Sometimes I do what you do. It really depends.

bunk

l_farley13_l

07-03-2002, 04:09 AM

Not knowing bunk would clear things up I started this and finished it in about 2 1/2 hours. Hope it shows a good example of localization, still some funky stuff, but a good practice anyway, hope it wasn't futile.

First box (note also 5 cuts down middle)

l_farley13_l

07-03-2002, 04:09 AM

low poly

l_farley13_l

07-03-2002, 04:10 AM

sub-d of 1 (2 can be used for hires output.)

l_farley13_l

07-03-2002, 04:16 AM

and hopefully most importantly the file. finally used spline-extrude! The base mesh should be pretty quick in the editor, but get most stuff done. Some uglyness here and there as said. But please no comments on my stuff, just pointers for Gray :)

see you,

Farley13

Grey

07-03-2002, 06:14 AM

:bounce:

This was done for my benefit?

My god I wonder what these guys do when their serious???

Farley, I promis never to use this head for anything but learning... but I will be using it a lot for THAT :D

randyrives

07-03-2002, 02:27 PM

bunk,

Thanks for your helpful explanations and examples.

farley,

Narley dude. Excellent model. I have downloaded it and will examine in detail this pm.

Thanks.

Randy R

Pegasus

07-03-2002, 02:35 PM

Thanks for the file...

Great work...

Keep going :thumbsup:

LucentDreams

07-03-2002, 06:33 PM

greats stuff Bunk and Adam, I think this is gonna change the way this forum works, reaaly helpful stuff and both of your images are great to see. see you guys around. Probably will be posting here a little less the next few weeks have a lot to do, well renders are finiishing have to go .

bunk

07-03-2002, 06:49 PM

Probably will be posting here a little less the next few weeks have a lot to do, well renders are finiishing have to go .

Must be Villa time! ;)

See you around,

bunk

Grey

07-03-2002, 07:58 PM

one good turn...

:D

Okay, so I need y'all's opinion on the current status of the model.

Should I go back and start over using the methods outlined by Farley and Bunk?

Here's the current un-subdivided model

Grey

07-03-2002, 07:59 PM

and here it is again, subdivided with the some work done around the mouth edge...

And by the way, I hope very much that Kai's right about the C4D forum expanding how it operates :D

LucentDreams

07-03-2002, 09:16 PM

we'll see soon enough, about the forum, maybe this method will help attract more to this forum. I love Perry and PF, and PF is definitely better for slower bandwidth, but I find this area so\ much more useful

and better than little red flags too:)

marcom

07-04-2002, 04:34 PM

ooops...

i must say this is one of the best threads i've seen here on the c4d-forum.

thanks to farley for the modell, nice work.

cheers marcom

Grey

07-04-2002, 06:37 PM

Marcom, the only bad part about it is now I have to get motivated and either start over again or fix the one I have...

But you're right, these guys are pretty amazing...

bunk

07-05-2002, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Grey
Marcom, the only bad part about it is now I have to get motivated and either start over again or fix the one I have...

Hey Grey,

I had a look at your mesh and to be honest I think it's a better if you start all over.

And just to show you it doesn't come natural.

http://www.bunk.cistron.nl/tips/mess.jpg

I screwed up the bottom completely. Simply deleted it all and started adding new polygons with the help of EdgeExtrude. Like I said it does pay off to think things over in advance which I obviously didn't do. Came away without too much damage though.

Cheers,

bunk

Grey

07-05-2002, 03:14 PM

Bunk, thanks.

You're complytely right, I didn't think this one out at all... as I orignally posted I was just screwing around and I got a decent shape. Virtually no refference data.

So I'll be looking carefully at the techniques you and Farley have put forth.

I very much appreciate everyone's contibution here. It's been a great experience!

LucentDreams

07-05-2002, 05:58 PM

One thing to add to what bunk is saying, is that the more you do this stuff the better you will get at predicting your tools adnd sort of modeling things in ytour head a few steps before you do on the computer.

A lotof times too, when I do come upon a odd section, sometimtes I too find the easiest solution is to start again, unless it is a HUGE model and then I simply select the section and dlete then rebuild it. I also do this when I discover tri's, I looke at the srrounding area and figure the best way to remake that section of mesh without the tri's.

My moos has four tris :( but I think I may rebuild a few sections on him now wnyways. :scream:

kiwi

07-06-2002, 12:00 AM

Something I find really helpful is making a backup when you get to an area where you are pleased with a result..... thats from the Messie tutes :)

With LW I believe they have one undo?...if thats right I dont know how they model that way :hmm:

Stu.

AdamT

07-10-2002, 12:39 PM

This has been a great thread--great stuff by Bunk and Farley! Question for Bunk: I found the Meissie tutorial pretty unintuitive, starting with all of the topology and working it into a head. It seems you've since switched to a more traditional edge-loop method, no?

Not sure if you're aware of it, but the Meissie tut was subject to some pretty harsh criticism from the edge-loop gods, including Bay Raitt himself.

LucentDreams

07-10-2002, 04:18 PM

Which in a way is funny since Noit too long ago Bay was playing with Xugdef and Martin tried it in a challenge very shortly too. These are simply higher res versions of Bunk's methoud really.

As I have said before I didn't do the tutorial cause it didn't look like my kind of thing, then again I am the one whot used bezier patches to model a head, converted them all and welded the points one by one as we didn't have Stitch and sew yet (main reason I proposed it to Hideo) So I am not one to talk about styles of modeling, but overall its what gets the job done, the messie model is a great model, definitely one of the better humans to come outof XL. So its what gets the job done.

bunk

07-11-2002, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by AdamT
This has been a great thread--great stuff by Bunk and Farley! Question for Bunk: I found the Meissie tutorial pretty unintuitive, starting with all of the topology and working it into a head. It seems you've since switched to a more traditional edge-loop method, no?

Not sure if you're aware of it, but the Meissie tut was subject to some pretty harsh criticism from the edge-loop gods, including Bay Raitt himself.

Hey Adam,

At the time I wrote the Meissie tutorial Cinema 6 was out for a couple of month -I was a complete novice myself- and all tools we had were the knife tool and the add point tool to manipulate the mesh. So hardly any tools at all. The first character I build started with a cube but was heavely modified in way I could hardly repeat myself, let alone that I knew of a way to tell others how it was done.
So what I did was model it backwards into a cube to see what I had done. That gave the 5x5x5 subdived cube which I then used as the basis. At least that way I could make it clear that an eye or a mouth were no more then a couple of inner extrusions and with all geometry already there, there was no need to destroy half of your face again just to knife some polygons later on.

To be honest I never used the methode myself other then to check the tutorial.

Not the easiest approach, I know. But at that time it made it possible for me to explain how to get it done.

If the EdgeExtrusion and Cutter plugin would have been there when I started, it probably would have been a complete different tutorial. But they only came in sight when I was almost finished.

I'm aware of the thread at Bay's forum. In a way it was kind of funny to see it being discussed there. At the same time I would like to see a tutorial by the 'edge-loop gods' -as you call them- with only a knife tool, an add point tool and a magnet tool to their disposal and the request that literally every step they make has to be descriped.

Cheers,

bunk

AdamT

07-11-2002, 06:42 PM

Hi Bunk,

Thanks for the reply--that's very interesting! I really didn't think you worked that way, from what I've seen of your work and workflow. Still, it's pretty impressive that you were able to write the tutorial the way you did. Now what would *really* be great is if you could write an updated tutorial with the tools currently available. ;) I do have your "edge loop folder", BTW, which has been very helpful.

I'd also like to see what Bay would do with Cinema's tools. I think he'd feel quite hamstrung without the ability to create n-sided polies, but I'm sure he'd still knock out some amazing stuff in record time. As ever, the most important tool is the artist's eye.

LucentDreams

07-12-2002, 05:40 AM

Originally posted by AdamT
Hi Bunk,

Thanks for the reply--that's very interesting! I really didn't think you worked that way, from what I've seen of your work and workflow. Still, it's pretty impressive that you were able to write the tutorial the way you did. Now what would *really* be great is if you could write an updated tutorial with the tools currently available. ;) I do have your "edge loop folder", BTW, which has been very helpful.

I'd also like to see what Bay would do with Cinema's tools. I think he'd feel quite hamstrung without the ability to create n-sided polies, but I'm sure he'd still knock out some amazing stuff in record time. As ever, the most important tool is the artist's eye.

got that folder too. always keep references of anything helpful for me or others.

As for Bay, It may slow him down, not as much because of N-gons, but of the lack of actual edge tools. Not being able to select edges after using an app where you almost always use edges can be a real tough struggle. Bay is one of the hardcore avoid N-gons in your final model if possible guys though. I mean he obviously uses them in his modeling, but I think he changes as many as possible to quads for final output.

AdamT

07-12-2002, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by Kaiskai

Bay is one of the hardcore avoid N-gons in your final model if possible guys though. I mean he obviously uses them in his modeling, but I think he changes as many as possible to quads for final output.

Oh absolutely. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

As for edges, I don't miss 'em much since we have Arndt's plugins.

LucentDreams

07-12-2002, 06:31 AM

You have to remeber there is something we can do that n-gon's apps can't with arndt's plugs, extrude an edge that is non solid. man is that an awesome tool.

ThirdEye

07-12-2002, 08:20 AM

Kiwi wrote:

With LW I believe they have one undo?...if thats right I dont know how they model that way

_____________________________________

In LW modeler there are as many undos as you prefer, In LW layout there's only one undo.

Kaiskai wrote:

You have to remeber there is something we can do that n-gon's apps can't

_____________________________________

For example?

LucentDreams

07-12-2002, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by ThirdEye_01

For example? [/B]

well forsome reason you quote the one line without reading the rest as that is the example, no solid modeling system can extrude an edge like arndts does, arnd'ts actualy pull out a new single edge without affecting the surrounding geometry, and create new flat single sided polygons (maybe not the best wording there but hard to descrbe in words.) which n-gon systems are incaplable of

ThirdEye

07-12-2002, 08:40 AM

oh sorry, I thought there were other things apart from this :hmm:

LucentDreams

07-12-2002, 08:51 AM

thats just regarding arnd'ts plugin edge extrude, there are manythings that can't be done all regarding the simple fact that they can't have holes in their geometry. of course they have plenty all regarding the fact that we can't have more than four sides to a poly.. Its a trade off. can I say I like one more than the other, overall no, the thing I like about nendo/mirai over all other apps is the intuitive desings of the apps and navigation. it simply makes you far more efficient. I like XL because of everything mirai doesn't have.

ThirdEye

07-12-2002, 09:03 AM

ok Kaiskai sorry for my ignorance and correct me if i'm wrong:
n-gons can't have holes and 3-4-gon can? Isn't it possible to delete a n-poly and have a hole for example in XSI? :surprised

another thing: what about edge working? no n-gons no edge selection? Or they're indipendent?

Thank you very much.

PS I discovered that Lightwave has n-gons but you have to make 'em become quads or tris if you wanna use a subdee cage. It seems a good compromise...

LucentDreams

07-12-2002, 09:26 AM

will have to reinstall the xsi demo to make sure, but you need to keep in mind that many apps are supporting both arghitecture like max. but the reason n-gon in winged eddge systems are also refered to as solid modlers iws because of that issue, they must remain solid

Roger Eberhart

08-05-2002, 01:17 AM

Actually, Max's n-gons don't have to be solid objects. You can create holes in them just fine. Only the older n-gon modelers have that limitation. I'm not sure about XSI.

neilyb

08-05-2002, 11:04 AM

I have heard that Max doesn't have actual N-Gons but it fakes them instead (ie it groups a 4 side and a 3 side together, giving you 5...but subdivides them as a 4 and 3 ) is this true????
Personally I do somethimes use 3 sided polys, when I can avoid it...such as adding veins to a creature...and see nothing wrong with it for pure modelling where no animation is involved to skew the mesh......or am I a bad modeller?

Here is an example, this is a test mesh as it were and there are many holes, creases and 3 pointers due to my attemps at definition. BUt I wish to draw attention to the veins as this is the area with unavoidable tris... After inner extruding the area I want, I then place the polys closer together as I need them and use cutter to give me a single row which can be moved outward to make the veins. I have tried with inner extrude but the results are not a rounded and nice......but the method leaves a tri at the beginning and end of the vein....is there a better way, do I have to define an edge loop for such details?

PS, this post has been an education, THNX!:applause:

AdamT

08-05-2002, 11:51 AM

This doesn't help in every situation, but if you haven't seen it you should give it a look: http://www.bmc.med.utoronto.ca/c4d/addingres.html

neilyb

08-05-2002, 12:00 PM

I am aware of it thanks! This page also helps a bit http://maxrovat.sns.hu/subdiv/

But as said, not always the answer and sometimes those stange shaped quads cause more problems than they solve....

Cheers!

Grey

08-05-2002, 04:55 PM

One thing I'm curious about...

I haven't yet seen the real issues regarding Texturing and Triangles subdivided...

Bunk made a very big deal about this in Meissie, but I can't seem to figure out why it's so huge a problem...

Roger Eberhart

08-05-2002, 04:56 PM

Max's n-gons are broken up into tris when they render. You can edit how they are triangulated. However, the poly-objects introduced in Max 4 subdivide much cleaner than the old mesh-objects. I've seen some pretty nice models from Pascal Blanche and others that seem to model with almost no concern for maintaining quads. Meshsmooth just seems to handle n-gons really well.

Also, Maya has really good n-gons that don't have to maintain solid objects. I think Lightwave can handle n-gons as non-solids as well. So that pretty much shoots down the n-gon modelers have to maintain solids theory. The plain truth is that C4D's poly modeling is pretty dated.

I'm think C4D is really falling behind the competition, even with release 8. Maya Complete has better modeling tools, better UV mapping and painting tools than Bodypaint, extremely good dynamics and character animation and a very attractive price. I don't see how Maxon can hope to compete with that.

Grey

08-05-2002, 05:03 PM

how it can compete? easy. It's doesn't crash :D

AdamT

08-05-2002, 05:32 PM

And it doesn't take a 4-year course to figure out how to use it.

Grey

08-05-2002, 06:00 PM

yah! what AdamT said :D

AdamT

08-05-2002, 06:14 PM

Oh yeah, and it has a much better/faster render engine built-in.

Roger Eberhart

08-05-2002, 08:23 PM

I guess C4D does compete quite well in most markets. I work in the game industry, so that's the perspective I come from. For me, the renderer is not that important, since my work will be rendered by a game engine. I care most about modeling, texturing, and animation tools. C4D 8 may pull even with v8 as far as animation goes. They're still lagging in modeling and texturing. Try Maya PLE and judge for yourself. I've found the software extremely easy to use. The animators on my team picked it up in a couple of months. As far as stability, it seems quite solid. I haven't crashed it yet.

AdamT

08-05-2002, 08:30 PM

I agree that if you pull the renderer out of the equation C4D doesn't fare too well. For that reason I don't think it's used much in the gaming field. Hopefully v.9--or better yet, v.8.5--will address some of the glaring holes in the modeling department. That would seem to be the next logical step: v.6--Interface+++; v.7--render engine and textures; v.8 animation....

LucentDreams

08-06-2002, 05:59 AM

I am just curious Roger as to what you feel is wrong with the texturing (Iknow what is wrong with the modeling) and BP for UVediting and painting.

neilyb

08-06-2002, 08:49 AM

If I can comment on Grey's last model:

Having loaded it I can see straight away that is is way too subdivided, way too many cuts....my Pc is having a hard time on Hnurbs level 1.....I would also recomend starting over man and follow those loops.......trust me, I have been there before!

neilyb

08-06-2002, 08:53 AM

Er...well....actually I am still there....but slowly getting there...if you know what I mean?:rolleyes:

Roger Eberhart

08-06-2002, 03:36 PM

As far as UV mapping goes, there are much better tools to be found in Maya and Max 5 (which basically just copied most of Mayas tools). There are a lot of automated unwrap tools. The program will show you which edges are connected and can automatically stitch them together for you. The big one for me, you can change the center of the transform when you scale or rotate the UV's. You can copy UV's between different faces of an object. You can add or delete edges without screwing up the UV coords. I'm probably forgetting a few things. Check out Max 5's UV tools at the following link: http://www.cadcrafts.com/framesets_3dprod/3ds_max_5_frame.htm.

As far as Bodypaint goes, the two big annoyances are: 1) No projection paint. This means if I'm painting across a seam in the UV map, and the two sections are scaled differently (which is often the case), then the brush size changes. This means you can't easily paint out seams. You can do this in Maya, DeepPaint, or even ZBrush. 2) You can't get to the color picker without changing tools. It should be a hotkey like Photoshop (hold a key, grab a color, let go of the key, keep painting). Instead you have to switch to the color picker tool then switch back to the paintbrush. It might not seem to be a big deal, but for people used to painting textures in Photoshop this is how they expect it to work. DeepPaint specifically worked with Adobe to make their interface work like Photoshop.

Grey

08-06-2002, 05:16 PM

whenever I start working with UV, I always start with this program:
http://www.uvmapper.com

UvmapperPRO is $25 and is perfect for doing making sure scales are the same at the seams. so you don't have to worry about things like scaling brushes.

After UVMapper I'll bring it into BodyPaint and hand edit the polygons.

UVMapping is an art unto itself, it's what I do and I consider myself very good at it. It involves a lot of planning that no automated function is going to be able to do.