Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Arts & Talents => Topic started by: Carl on January 07, 2003, 02:32:03 pm
-
(http://www.artistsfriend.com/47078/images/pst01.jpg)
:nod: :nod:
-
:doubt::nod::doubt::blah::doubt::nod::blah::doubt:
It's odd. :p
-
It looks rather pillowy and ... well....like it's made of water.
-
http://www.medievalweaponart.com/images/p/8112-roman-helmet-red-hair.jpg
-
It's crap, son. Nothing's that reflective. And it's hot quite high-poly yet. And there's no background to look at, so the reflection looks bad. And it's poofy. And the crest looks like it was made of that cheap carpeting they put in office buildings more than any kind of hair.
-
you know, there's a big difference between constructive criticism and insults.
-
Sorry. Pissed. Never mind.
Reflection a bit lower, earpieces should be concave. And reflection is only really cool-looking if it's reflecting something- stick something behind the camera somewhere, doesn't have to be anything fancy since you won't see it clearly, just gives the image another layer.
-
it's okay. i do that when i'm pissed too.
and most metals are actually almost completely reflective, but you don't notice it alot. this helmet is 90% reflective, which isn't nearly as reflective as some other metals i.e. silver: what's used in mirrors.
the background isn't supposed to do anything except show that the metal is reflective, otherwise i'da made the background black. it's not supposed to be an art piece, just a material/model test.
-
nice roman centurion helmet.. :nod:
-
[looks around for a metal object, short of a mirror, that reflective]
[fails]
I think they're only that reflective when you polish them to an improbably high sheen. Well, your call, I guess. Maybe if the person wearing it goes to battle on a really bright day, he can even the odds when fighting facing the sun.
-
bald people do it all the time :wink:
-
If you want to do some serious reflectivity tests, kill all your lights, all the ambient lighting, and all the backdrop. Then use an HDRI image and raycast from it. That'll give you a much more true-to-life reflection (and look one hell of a lot better).
-
Don't ask, but I thought it was a glass dog/frog for the first 3 seconds fo looking at it..
needs to be way more gold and less reflective. :nod:
-
Very nice, but I'd really like to see the new less-reflective version. ;)
-
i think it's too clean is the problem. posting new one today.
-
version 1.1
(http://www.artistsfriend.com/47078/images/pst02.jpg)
-
Much better.
-
:yes: :yes: :yes:
-
The cheek gaurds are hammerd so the inside should be concave otherwise it looks like a solid block of metal. and that one looks clean, and sand blasted. leave the bump channal alone and use reflection color spec and difusion to simulate dirt.
look at the ring
(http://www.jimburton.com/images/cuffkey.jpg)
-
Ugh. The bump channel is happy where it is. Never go without a bump map, unless you're doing something that absolutely has to be perfectly smooth.
-
reality and I disagree with you about the bump.
found these at museumreplicas.com
oficers
(http://store.museumreplicas.com/isroot/www11650/ProductImages/mrl9478.jpg)
type "H"
(http://store.museumreplicas.com/isroot/www11650/ProductImages/mrl9479.jpg)
standard
(http://store.museumreplicas.com/isroot/www11650/ProductImages/mrl9786.jpg)
fancy nonesense helmet but a good example of material
(http://store.museumreplicas.com/isroot/www11650/ProductImages/mrlnew.JPG)
type "G"
(http://store.museumreplicas.com/isroot/www11650/ProductImages/mrl8079.jpg)
-
See one without bumps, scratches, or anything else? Damn few things in real life are absolutely featureless. Unless you have a point, I'm fairly sure you know where you can shove your meaningless snide comments.
-
do you see one that looks like it was sand blasted? a couple nicks scratches and dents are one thing. I'd retort by telling you where you could stick you head but it's obviously allready there.
-
I see it. You'd need a bump map to simulate that.
Sorry kid, but that's life. There are damn few cases where you'll be able to get anywhere close to realistic without bump mapping. Every surface has some texture or other- in fact, even perfectly smooth ones do, if you care to look that close (for modeling, this is unnecessary- that's what decreasing the specular value's for).
This argument is beyond stupid, anyway. When and if you try rendering on your own, you'll eventually find that I'm right. Or not- who knows? In either rate, if you want a fight, you'll have to look elsewhere. Like an IM channel or warez kiddie forum- I'm not the hormonally-imbalanced type, and neither are most here.
-
Amusing. your little out burst has brightened my day. you should try improving your reading ability or maybe acctually reading the posts before you comment on them. where did I say that no one should ever use a bump channel? Nowhere! They shouldn't be used in place of soft reflections or to simulate tarnish. I told carl he should turn down his bump channel becasue the metal doesn't look right. he was using it instead of his soft reflection system becasue of the render time cost.
Loved the werez kiddie bit! Truely hilarious!
do you have one?
(http://www.jimburton.com/images/dongle+oranges.jpg)
-
Stryke, Nobilis is right. the bump map on mine makes it look rough. I was using it instead of the soft reflection shader becasue it took too long. it's not what I want but it's a step in the right direction.
-
lookin good carl!
-
Originally posted by Carl
version 1.1
(http://www.artistsfriend.com/47078/images/pst02.jpg)
That's tops. I especially like the feather-things up the top. :)
-
Eh. Whatever. I liked it.