My first tries with Godot and Blender: Page 4

My first tries with Godot and Blender

keltwookie

@Megalomaniak said: SubD modeling became viable in late 90's so having an older system is probably no excuse to explore it...

I did not know, so yes, you are right and I have not been precise enough on this point and apologize for it., but what about the graphic card ? If we consider Cycles for example (I just tried Eevee, and I wouldn't say the same thing), having the impossibility to choose GPU computing instead of CPU computing, could make the whole thing more difficult to render, am I wrong? And this is my case, and in the case of using a subsurf, which I also set to 2, I lack fluidity when I rotate around the mesh in the 3D viewport. So I think that logically it consumes more, am I wrong?....

it was only a recommendation it's not a requirement. I didn't understand it like that, indeed, even if Space VFX Element deals with the subject that interests me, I'm sure I'll find another tutorial that will deal with about the same subjects at one time or another, it will just have to be adapted to a space game, it just requires, in my humble opinion, a little imagination and practical sense.

Megalomaniak

@keltwookie said:

And this is my case, and in the case of using a subsurf, which I also set to 2, I lack fluidity when I rotate around the mesh in the 3D viewport. So I think that logically it consumes more, am I wrong?....

It's probably because your spaceship is all one object/mesh. That's not how we normally model things. If you look at the video I linked earlier it shows that the car was modeled in multiple pieces just as a real car would be.

Also do note that this would be the high poly object that later gets baked as details/bump maps to low poly game assets.

keltwookie

@Megalomaniak said: It's probably because your spaceship is all one object/mesh. That's not how we normally model things. If you look at the video I linked earlier it shows that the car was modeled in multiple pieces just as a real car would be.

To second what you're saying, and just to get back on a good basis with sub-surfacing, I've just started a new mesh and by doing some tests, I realize that doing a whole mesh in one piece is truly not he ideal solution. Indeed, there comes a time when the use of subsurf is not desirable. Otherwise, I get a mesh similar to what was done in the 70s in terms of design (disco style, you know what I mean?). It can be interesting but it's absolutely not the goal, so yes, separating the mesh becomes a necessity. Another thing about the modifier itself: The Cumul-Clark enabled by default in Blender is not necessarily the best solution either and a « Simple » subsurfacing could in some cases be the appropriate method.

Also do note that this would be the high poly object that later gets baked as details/bump maps to low poly game assets. Yes, absolutely, and it was already a fact in my mind, and if I lose some relief and shadow differences in the low poly version, it can of course be fixed with bump and normal maps correctly edited (I have already made some tests on this subject).

Megalomaniak

@keltwookie said: Indeed, there comes a time when the use of subsurf is not desirable. Otherwise, I get a mesh similar to what was done in the 70s in terms of design (disco style, you know what I mean?).

It's not disco style (thats dance & music) but sure, I know what you mean. There was a lot of horrible experimental art and design done in the seventies. But also some of the greatest designs of all time game from the seventies, for an example the Barcelona chair.

That chair can be really good practice for subdivision surface modeling, now that I think about it. :)

@keltwookie said: Another thing about the modifier itself: The Cumul-Clark enabled by default in Blender is not necessarily the best solution either and a « Simple » subsurfacing could in some cases be the appropriate method.

Yes, the simple subdivision surface can have it's uses but most of the time you really will want to work with Catmull-Clark. Ideally we would all want to work with mathematical curves really for their accuracy but that would get expensive very quickly. CC SubDiv is a reasonably good compromise.

Schuster

Hello, @Megalomaniak is right...to model assets like some machine, the car, the space ship,etc....always in multiple pieces :) .....but as for SubD workflow...I personally would not use it for none assets in the game....why?.....in my opinion....poor workflow....too heavy for real-time models,stretching issues, with a slower computer unusable....it fits more for static things, highpoly models, animated movies....in the game industry, it's hardly ever used ( mostly use a displacement driven tesselation ) ...I recommend you use manual modelling with big help with NURBS surfaces-curves, convert to mesh,bevel,offset edge slide,extrude,inset face,booleans(BoolTool addon),mirror,Auto Smooth,etc. .....you then get model ready for bake ao,additonal detailed normals ( for example scratches),cavity

....start with curves or create curves/profiles in Inkscape and import svg to Blender .....extrude edges ....add another piece :) .....(optional)delete unnecessary faces

Schuster

....continuation :) ....join this part....but it could also be a separate part ....you get this...do not forget to turn on and set Auto Smoot...I have it Angle on 20 ....also check if you do not have somewhere double vertices and check the normals! .....after a few hours of work....it could be the front of the ship...additional parts and smaller parts of the spaceship can be added

.....as you see, you have full control over how the resulting model will appear in the game and how many polygons it will be .....if you want to ask something, so happy to help.

Megalomaniak

@Schuster said: @Megalomaniak is right...to model assets like some machine, the car, the space ship,etc....always in multiple pieces :) .....but as for SubD workflow...I personally would not use it for none assets in the game....why?.....in my opinion....poor workflow.... too heavy for real-time models,stretching issues, with a slower computer unusable....it fits more for static things, highpoly models, animated movies....in the game industry, it's hardly ever used ( mostly use a displacement driven tesselation )

As we already covered, the high poly models wouldn't them selves be used in the game. They are for baking the details to low poly game assets. And this coupled with sculpting for more organic shapes/models is a very typical workflow in the game industry. As for stretching issues(if I understand what you mean correctly), those come up if you don't know what you are doing.

Schuster

"As we already covered, the high poly models wouldn't them selves be used in the game" It is clear :) but...when we talk about SubD workflow then it must be said that the industry professionals go and manually create all the shapes and make it high poly details without subidivision or turbosmooth (3ds max) and get very awesome results and usually a lot better than subdivision....and twice this applies to organic sculpting and retopology. .....each procedure has its advantages and disadvantages...but it's up to everyone to choose their workflow :)

Schuster

.....also mark the sharp edges

keltwookie

@Megalomaniak said: ...It's not disco style (thats dance & music) Haha, yes, of course, but that was the first analogy that came to mind. I don’t know the true name (if any ?).

for an example the Barcelona chair. ... That chair can be really good practice for subdivision surface modeling, now that I think about it. :) Very interesting, thanks, and same views here about practice :)

@Shuster Hey ! Nice to see you back here. it is always a pleasure and another point of view is always welcome. Many thanks for your detailed answer You talk about tools I never used but « extrude », « inset face » and « mirror » are familiar and think I now master them. Concerning Auto Smooth, I ust it on all my works but I never realized that there were more option than just « auto smothing », I will check this quickly.

Schuster

Thanks :) .... it's better to try out all the options and decide which one is the most suited to you and is the fastest for you with a satisfactory result...I've never used the Subdivision Surface Modifier except for the small exceptions and I'm not his big fan :D

keltwookie

@Schuster said: .... it's better to try out all the options and decide which one is the most suited to you... That’s why I like much having several points of view, like this, I can have my own later, indeed.

...I've never used the Subdivision Surface Modifier except for the small exceptions and I'm not his big fan :D After some reflection and some tests, I am not his biggest fan either hehe... But it is still interesting to know the method and to know that it exists. That's what I like about Blender, it's that there are many possible ways to achieve his goals.

keltwookie

...

Schuster

Looks good....but still I do not see very sharp edges...the ship still look very organic....is it the final lowpoly version?....can you show the wireframe?

keltwookie

@Schuster said: ....but still I do not see very sharp edges...

...the ship still look very organic....is it the final lowpoly version?....

Yes, very true. I don’t kow from where came that influence but when I analyze the few models I made until now, they all looks rounded, so yes, more « organic » than modern 3D models. I currently working on something else and will try to fix this a bit.

Having said that, and maybe I’m wrong, but what It looks like what was made during 70’/80’ in terms of design. I say this because if you look at modern starship models, they seems like an assembly of squares, awsomely made, of course, but still squares. Another notice I can do is that this shuttle could also look like what was made into X3 Terran Conflict (Egosoft), almost all of the ships over there are more rounded that anything else.

And no it is not the low poly version.

Edit: For reminder, this ship is planned to fly in atmosphere too :smile:

keltwookie

About polygons count for games, I found two interestinfg topics on polycount

http://wiki.polycount.com/wiki/Polygon_Count https://polycount.com/discussion/141061/polycounts-in-next-gen-games-thread

Yeah, great website for modelers !

Schuster

Yeah, ....you're right I've looked at screenshots of X3 Terran Conflict and yes,..more rounded "organic" shapes....and I think your model matches this design. Yes,...polycount is great...a lot of professionals from the industry.....I hope maybe in the near future(year or two? :) ), there will be a section with Godot engine.

keltwookie

After having read the topics mentioned above and just for curiosity I started doing some tests with the decimate modifier.... For the moment, everything is fine and once the low poly operation is done, my models remain (if I have calculated correctly : Around 40k polygons) in the average that can be supported by an engine like Godot. But strange: The first time I exported a first model, I didn't pay attention to the quads/tris conversion and Godot displayed the mesh without problems. Would that mean that Godot uses quads for rendering?

Schuster

No..no..every engine converts to tris...GPU...needs triangles for a realtime calculations...I think :) ( I'm not an expert on GPU )..but when you export model....so watch out for the Ngons....the engine may have a problem ,mainly bad lights reactions/shadings or unexpected holes can do in these places....so triangle only Ngons or change topology on these places.

keltwookie

@Schuster said: No..no..every engine converts to tris...GPU...needs triangles for a realtime calculations Ah okay, it is automatic, nice ; But still, and I suppose you already tried Eevee, (I did… wow!), but in case of a real time rendering on Blender, does the rendering engine do the conversion ? Or is it another problem ? Sorry for this silly question I’m just curious.

....so watch out for the Ngons.... Yep ! Magolamaniak and you already warned me earlier in this topic if I remember correctly ,). Since then I check regularily.

...the engine may have a problem ,mainly bad lights reactions/shadings or unexpected holes can do in these places... Copy that...and logical Also, one of the topic on Polygon says that it could generate issues on normal maps.

Thanks again for your time and patience.

« Previous Page Next Page »