Great links man! So many thanks ! (once again, a lot/tons/loads of informations ).
Since your first suggestions on this topic, I have of course and still, understood the usefulness of the bevel tool but avoid using it because of the possible generation of ngons and tris on a somewhat complex mesh (generally, which exceeds a cube with 6 faces :)), or, to use only on a relatively simple basis. But I probably lack practice.
Let's close the parenthesis and move on to subsurf:
If I avoided use it until now, and stop me if I'm wrong, but it adds a lot of weight to a mesh in the final result, and, don't blame me, but I still have this old way of thinking about saving system resources, and I've just seen what it already means about the simple shuttle model I'm trying to present above. Because yes, the purpose is still to create a game, it is not to present any pseudo-artistic works (at my level), on all the « social » networks of the planet (including forums).
Yes, you can tell me that there is still the more or less automated solution on Blender. A high poly mesh (1 million to "n" million polys), even translated into low polys (while keeping attractive modern shapes of course), will always be a problem in terms of rendering, regardless of the engine involved. So I could be wrong, but as long as you do a single mesh in a 3D scene, everything is fine in the best of worlds, but complicates the scene a little bit, and it becomes exponential in terms of system(s) consumption.
For the same reasons, I don't want to use particles (although the feature seems to me to be very rich in possibilities).
You could tell me, at some point, I'm going to have to make choices, I can only confirm, but I want to be able to say that I've exhausted all possibilities before using these solutions, which remain, in my humble opinion and once again, far too greedy.
An ex-developer once told me: "Even if at first you don't have much choice, it's good that you develop on an old machine, because you won't have any problems at the first releases and the distribution can be wider".
I tend to trust her, I believe very sincerely that she knows what she's talking about.
Indeed, and looking at the long term, I don't really see the point of releasing a game where only 8% of the machines can manage it without problems (useless to give names?)... or else, we reserve ourselves for an elite? Not my type and to be lowly venal, there are economic processes that worked in the 90s, but it's over, we'll have to make a reason (very personal opinion, of course)
So, and to try to finish, whatever the discipline, artistic or not (I also consider, the development of games as an art in its own right), our wishes largely overestimate reality and be honest, we are all indies here, we do not have the means of large productions (AAA style)... Even if we all dream of it of course :)
@Megalomaniak said:
you will likely have a lot of questions so don't be afraid to ask away.
Sure I will, thanks !
All this brings me to the last part:
edit2: also since it is clear that you have an active interest in hard surface modelling...
The reality is the modelling hard surfaces appeared more easy than design "biologics" for a beginner. So I effectively focused on this first.
Of course, I have already watched some of the work (the free stuff) presented by Gleb and Aidy, but sorry, the entire series does not fit, for the moment, into my budget, even if it seems little compared to the information obtained, it remains an expense that I can hardly afford for the moment, I have other priorities. But yes, let's be honest, it would be a huge source of knowledge to add.
For now, and to learn various techniques, I have referred to the various and numerous tutorials on Youtube. I learned a lot from them, but Gleb and Aidy's work would be like a cherry on a cake (even if it was underbaked) :) .
Edit:
....t seems to be in Italian however the images should be rather self explanatory:
Should be translatable with this:
DeepL Translator
