EDIT: lol, didn't read entire threadLooking great thus far, keep it up.
EDIT 2: Your renders make the gun look high-poly where it isn't... why don't mine? And, are you using seperate objects in parts that aren't for animation (like with the sights)? They don't look attached from that wireframe... Detached models ftl, unless it's a model that's supposed to be blown up. :|
Last edited by Ingulit; October 17th, 2006 at 09:42 PM.
Maybe it is.
OH SNAP
You obviously don't know much about modeling, ingulit. You need to accept other ideas and styles. My renders aren't fancy, just clay with an omni light, but an efficient use of smoothing groups (and lack of them). Anyways almost done:
you see, ingulit, the sights are rotatable and nearly everything can be used for animation. Regardless, "sticking objects into objects" reduces polycount whilst in this case achieving exactly what i wanted to, not to mention it really helps the uv mapper, especially when doing seams.
Why so low poly, is this going in CE?
BF2...
Awesome stuff, man. You never cease to amaze.
By the way, ever finish the AS50? I remember seeing it like half done ages ago...
is the inside curve of the handle supposed to be unsmoothed, or have you just not got around to it yet?
Awesome. </slobber>
I wasn't trying to say interpenetrating objects were a bad thing... I know you need them for animation, I do that all the time. I was saying that the top part that I called the sights--the rails, maybe?-- looked as though they weren't attached to the gun when they appeared to be a stationary part that wouldn't be used in animation. You didn't think of the right part when I said sights... I'll post a picture with what I'm talking about circled when I get back from school today. Sorry if I sounded confusing :o
-Ingulit
I'm confused then.. why coudn't this be posted at a BF2 forum?Originally Posted by rossmum
Are you questioning... Katarn?
[cue gasp]
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks