[WIP] Fast scope rendering...

[Leiukemia]

Whatever method yields the best results with the least amount of effort for the modeler in question is the best method.quote]

Yeah, except yours isn't yeilding the best results. Sure it's all fine and good to use whatever modelling style to get good results. But to put it simply, your method is NOT getting good results. It's too blatently obvious that it's a bunch of peices mashed together. Learn to use a better program without a bunch of primitives that look like you've barely even modelled.

[Phopojijo]

Yeah, except yours isn't yeilding the best results. Sure it's all fine and good to use whatever modelling style to get good results. But to put it simply, your method is NOT getting good results. It's too blatently obvious that it's a bunch of peices mashed together. Learn to use a better program without a bunch of primitives that look like you've barely even modelled.

You quoted the wrong person... that was my post. He just had a glitch quoting me using the forums.

I don't know... I see that model and I used Rhino many many times before.

Its completely possible to make a really really decent scope using the NURBs mesh he created with the nonvisible faces culled.

Hate to say this, but from what I've seen around the forums is that most people cannot visualize what geometry will look like with proper textures. Remember: No-one sees wireframe. Sometimes the most proper wireframe for a task could end up looking like the most ugly one. Many people add too much detail in the geometry... textures is where all the life gets added. You only need a good enough mesh to not distort on animation, and provide an accurate representation of the silhoutte of an object.

I *really* need to make a compare/contrast video of this.

[Leiukemia]

You quoted the wrong person... that was my post. He just had a glitch quoting me using the forums.

I don't know... I see that model and I used Rhino many many times before.

Its completely possible to make a really really decent scope using the NURBs mesh he created with the nonvisible faces culled.

Hate to say this, but from what I've seen around the forums is that most people cannot visualize what geometry will look like with proper textures. Remember: No-one sees wireframe. Sometimes the most proper wireframe for a task could end up looking like the most ugly one. Many people add too much detail in the geometry... textures is where all the life gets added. You only need a good enough mesh to not distort on animation, and provide an accurate representation of the silhoutte of an object.

I *really* need to make a compare/contrast video of this.

Alright, I didn't see that was your quote. And yes I'm sure it is possible to make a decent model with nurbs. He jsut hasn't done so, and I think he would get better results with a differant method.
I don't think you know what you're talking about with the wireframe. If you have a messy mesh on your end product, it means it was messy the whole way through. If you keep it clean, it makes everything easier to change and improve as you model. Wasted polies also come from an imperfect mesh. Smoothing groups can be better applied on a clean model as well. If you keep it clean all the way through, you'll end up with a better end product.

[Reaper Man]

Ooh, NURBS, awesome. I haven't touched NURBS geometry in a while.

[Phopojijo]

Of course it is. This is NOT an example of such. of course, with proper textures, it's much easier to accomplish if it's a continuous mesh, rather than things placed through each other, and you know that.

Yes... but using Rhino the easiest method to make a continuous mesh is to start of exactly as he did... then delete the intercepts.

Used Rhino for 3 years... thats how you do anything with that program.