ATE SuperHind Mk.III / Mil Mi-24

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

REPLY TO THREAD
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 06 June 2013   #16
Oh wow, just wow!

Fantastic!
 
Old 06 June 2013   #17
you sir, are insane! 0_0
__________________
hao cui
www.haobot.com

WIP
 
Old 06 June 2013   #18
Originally Posted by molgamus: Oh wow, just wow!

Fantastic!


Thanks ^_^

Originally Posted by c0ldf1ame: you sir, are insane! 0_0

Aren't we all a little insane to be here? This place is a crucible. Via the application of intense heat and pressure our gleaming essence is exposed and we reach our best. I would never be modelling at this level without people like André or the hard judgement of other members, and of course major thanks to Leigh for having created this place. A little determination is also necessary.
 
Old 06 June 2013   #19
So, this is the external fuel tank PTB-450. It looks a bit like a bomb, and is all welded rather than riveted together.






I tend to use geospheres where I can because I get the same level of curvature for half the number of triangles. No poles either. Even though this is a high-poly model I don't like waste. Just because you can throw a hundred million triangles at a problem doesn't mean you should. Exploiting the leeway gained from efficient modelling can mean the difference between a mediocre work and an amazing work. For example, compare the quality of PS3 launch titles to those released in its final few years. Sometimes I slip up due to now having plenty of RAM, but old habits die hard, and it's a habit i'd like to maintain.

Not sure where i'll go from here; there's still so much to do.
 
Old 06 June 2013   #20
I think that sounds like a nice habit. Also, keeping the poly count down a bit might make is easier to select the loops you need?
 
Old 06 June 2013   #21
Originally Posted by molgamus: I think that sounds like a nice habit. Also, keeping the poly count down a bit might make is easier to select the loops you need?


There is that but it's not my primary concern. Perhaps it's just because I have become so used to using older equipment that is far less forgiving of bad topology and crowded edges than the current stuff. Someone coming into 3D nowadays has a lot more creative options and doesn't have to worry about topology or poly counts very much, but I still maintain that it is important. Also I have a measly graphics card that already gives me poor frame-rates without using viewport degradation. I'd love to know which affordable graphics card gives you the best bang for buck in terms of edged-faces performance.
 
Old 06 June 2013   #22
As a lighter I'm always pleased when I get geometry that's not super dense and easy to handle. In this case, let's say I receive a squadron of seven animated hinds. Could easily fill up all the RAM resulting in very slow renderings.

On a second note, do you ever use creases or do you bevel all your hard edges? Last time I checked V-Ray didn't support creases which is a shame.

I think the GTX660Ti is good card, not too expensive either.
 
Old 06 June 2013   #23
Wow, another crazy Mi-24 model. It looks very good, but I have a couple of suggestions.

First, I find you have some extra polys where you don't really need them. For example the main shape of the wing looks like it could use half of the resolution and still look very good because the curvature there is very minimal except on the edges.

Second, well this one is rather something I don't understand rather then a suggestion. I am confused with all the booleans for holes everywhere. They are cut out and left as N-gones, but at the same times you have lots of extra loops that split those holes, but not enough to make them quads or triangles. Could you explain why you do this?
 
Old 06 June 2013   #24
Originally Posted by AlexSarakapudaff: Wow, another crazy Mi-24 model. It looks very good, but I have a couple of suggestions.

First, I find you have some extra polys where you don't really need them. For example the main shape of the wing looks like it could use half of the resolution and still look very good because the curvature there is very minimal except on the edges.

Second, well this one is rather something I don't understand rather then a suggestion. I am confused with all the booleans for holes everywhere. They are cut out and left as N-gones, but at the same times you have lots of extra loops that split those holes, but not enough to make them quads or triangles. Could you explain why you do this?


Some of those wing panels are actually sub-divided, and so it looks denser than it actually needs to be, I could probably tune it down to save some polys. Some of the holes are booleans but many are manually created. While making them I noticed that the automatic triangulation led to unpredictable and undesirable results; edges would bunch up or just cause some sort of shading artefacts. The edges I added act as a kind of guide that keep the automatic triangulation from becoming too chaotic and messing up the appearance of the surface. The underlying geometry becomes more regular with fewer long thin triangles. There are just enough edges there to keep things in check. The holes in the rocket pods are also entirely hand-made, no booleans. Those took a long time.

EDIT: I should probably clarify (since I often forget how exactly I made a part a few weeks after making it >_<). Those holes on the rails I think were made manually. Made a cross representing the centre of each hole, chamfered the vertices (to create a diamond/tilted square) then worked from there.

Last edited by Telemachus : 07 July 2013 at 04:01 PM.
 
Old 06 June 2013   #25
Originally Posted by molgamus: As a lighter I'm always pleased when I get geometry that's not super dense and easy to handle. In this case, let's say I receive a squadron of seven animated hinds. Could easily fill up all the RAM resulting in very slow renderings.

On a second note, do you ever use creases or do you bevel all your hard edges? Last time I checked V-Ray didn't support creases which is a shame.

I think the GTX660Ti is good card, not too expensive either.


I don't normally use creases. I selectively bevel edges if I am sure they look like they are bevelled in the real world object i'm trying to create. Routing extra loops to support bevels is sometimes a nuisance in which case i'll use a workaround. Some real world objects are crudely cut or punched and so lack a bevel in practical terms. The 660 sounds good; i've got a 560Ti 448 and it's not close to good enough, but it's all I could afford.
 
Old 06 June 2013   #26
Originally Posted by Telemachus: I don't normally use creases. I selectively bevel edges if I am sure they look like they are bevelled in the real world object i'm trying to create. Routing extra loops to support bevels is sometimes a nuisance in which case i'll use a workaround. Some real world objects are crudely cut or punched and so lack a bevel in practical terms. The 660 sounds good; i've got a 560Ti 448 and it's not close to good enough, but it's all I could afford.


That's quite interesting - so do you tend to try and avoid turbosmoothing where possible?
 
Old 06 June 2013   #27
Originally Posted by MisterS: That's quite interesting - so do you tend to try and avoid turbosmoothing where possible?


For parts that have a regular shape I will tend to avoid it unless there are other reasons to justify it. For things that have an organic shape turbo-smoothing is often the easiest way to quickly get to the shape I want. The gun camera at the end of the wing is a good example of that. I will manually bevel stuff without resorting to sub-d if I can. Some people will make every single part a sub-d surface, even objects that are essentially primitives, and that's something I don't really understand.
 
Old 06 June 2013   #28
Your model looks great. It doesn't seem to have any reflection issue, I would like to check the unsmooth wire frame if possible. I'm not completely familiar with the aircraft, would you share some refs to provide feedback? This will be for sure a hardcore portfolio piece when done.

Keep it up!
 
Old 06 June 2013   #29
great job buddy, I hope one day reach that level.
 
Old 07 July 2013   #30
Man that level of detail That's going to be the most detailed Mi-24 model ever! you are by far more patient than I am.
Which part are you working on atm? I am dealing with the landing gear which is kinda annoying because there are barely photos showing the interior of the bay :-/

Looking forward to see more!

Cheers
Andre
 
reply share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (1 members and 0 guests)
AlexSarakapudaff
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.