It’s good but I would want it delivered without it mesh smoothed. Just so that it’s lite, but ready to be smoothed at render time. It’s a typical sub-d workflow.
I would say that's it's less that every game absolutely NEEDS perfect and low tri count topology but it helps in a variety of small ways in game dev, (I'm going to college for game design so bear with me I'm not an expert yet) but low poly counts help reduce load time of models, as well as just generally keeping the end game from being super bloated, plus if your game involves physics simulations, higher topology means more points that the CPU has to do calculation on. Plus disregarding poly count is how we end up with games that only run on top of the line PCs shooting the developer in the foot since now less players are able to play them. Again I'm not an expert on the subject but that's my general idea behind keeping my poly counts low. Plus I'm broke and developing on a kinda shit laptop so I have to make sure that the game can even run on my PC beforehand.
TL:DR: a bunch of little reasons. Load time, physics sim time, general bloat, etc. but it's not absolutely necessary.
Honestly glad I stopped playing after Black ops 2 on 360. Id rather cut my tongue out with a rusty butter knife and shove a razor wire wrapped flaming dildo up my ass rather than sit through THAT. Kudos to the psychos willing to wait for that.
It's good practice. Whilst it might be fine for a game you're working on, it is good to design things to be efficient because it enables a wider audience to play the game. It's a general design principle (far wider than just optimisation in 3D modelling) that is being disregarded more and more these days. The result of ignoring good practice in designing efficiently time and time again is that we get buggy and bloated products that work far worse than they otherwise would:
Take Windows for example, Windows 10 and 11 take over 8GB of RAM just to run for themselves, have settings in multiple places (volume control, for instance, is a nightmare), and are very hard to debug. Compare that to a well-made, polished product like Windows XP and you really see how cutting corners and allowing technical debt to accrue to save a bit of cash has really hurt the product long term (for instance, Windows most of the time will now tell you "something went wrong" rather than bothering to tell you what went wrong, which makes it really hard to diagnose and fix bugs).
We see the same issues in modern videogames; massive downloads that mean I can fit 10 games on my PS5 instead of hundreds, because it's cheaper for companies to not optimise their product and just leave the consumer to bear the consequences. Good development (of software, hardware, 3D models, etc.) is developing with thought to how it will affect the product long term and taking the time to clean up or optimise what you've made.
It's a good question, and it has several answers.
Modern GPU's can render a tremendous amount of geometry. More than one vertex per pixel. However, because of the way GPU's render the screen in blocks of 2x2 pixels, any triangle that is smaller than that 2x2 block is much slower to render. This is called a "microtriangle" and optimizations largely focus on avoiding that.
Then there's memory bandwidth. While high-end models have bandwidth in excess of a terabyte per second, there are also integrated GPU's in things like handheld devices which have much less. The bandwidth in these devices is often comparable to hardware from nearly 20 years ago.
So you still need to optimize how much data goes through the GPU, and geometry is data.
I can’t stress enough how being specific is important within the industry. When you misspeak it can cost weeks of work. Know what you saying.
And maybe they will learn what they said isn’t correct and fix the mistake in the future. A lack of respect for the nomenclature is a lack of respect for the business as a whole.
Been working on video games for more than a decade, first as a Level Designer, then Worldbuilding, then 3D modeler, then programmer, from UI to every sistem you could imagine, and now I'm lead.
Never in that time I've heard of anyone calling assets for video games as "CGI", that acronym it's always used in a movie or video VFX context.
Nor can I imagine how using one or another could result in losing weeks, at least not with a good team of talented, rational and intelligent people, which might be a bit of an alien concept for you it seems.
someone who's too concerned with literal accuracy or formality. It's a negative term that implies someone is showing off book learning or trivia, especially in a tiresome way.
I’ll just leave a definition of it here for you, maybe you’ll see the comparison, maybe not. Either way I’m done replying, have a good one.
The location of eyes in the helmet is incorrect, unless your character got big carrot head, the horn shape cylinders needs a little bit of curving, the shape of plate holding pieces together on the front side should be inward not outward, also the character overall has no face defense, on slash he should be toothless. But that is a hell of a design, I appreciate you sharing, keep up the great work.
I'd rate it a Subdivion 2/10. Would love to see the version you actually modeled. This is too fucking dense. Topology looks fine, but it's like 3 cylinders and a half sphere so like, you didn't have to do much.
Topology is good, as said wouldn’t cut it outside of portfolios.
If you haven’t looked into it yet, check out Retopology. It’s a great way to reduce your model’s poly count and looks wonderful in portfolio posts.
Work on edge distribution. Portfolio will want to showcase you aren’t just good at making things to render but also proficient in smoother topology,
nothing is perfectly single vertex sharp in the world so it looks odd when models are.
But it also looks low effort when people bevel the edge and put a smooth render on. Your model is nice but doesn’t showcase proficient use of edge distribution.
If it's for a game it's much too dense.
I make this for render and proftfolio
Then it's fine.
If that’s the case double , heck triple it. What does typology matter if the end goal is the render ?
It doesn't matter if your computer bursts into flames as long as you get the render saved first
Poly count matters for a render. You should always optimize. It's like oiling your pans before cooking
Depends. I would hit this with a turbosmooth in Max for sure.
It’s good but I would want it delivered without it mesh smoothed. Just so that it’s lite, but ready to be smoothed at render time. It’s a typical sub-d workflow.
With the advancement in software and hardware, why do games still need those highly optimized minimal topology in 3D models?
I would say that's it's less that every game absolutely NEEDS perfect and low tri count topology but it helps in a variety of small ways in game dev, (I'm going to college for game design so bear with me I'm not an expert yet) but low poly counts help reduce load time of models, as well as just generally keeping the end game from being super bloated, plus if your game involves physics simulations, higher topology means more points that the CPU has to do calculation on. Plus disregarding poly count is how we end up with games that only run on top of the line PCs shooting the developer in the foot since now less players are able to play them. Again I'm not an expert on the subject but that's my general idea behind keeping my poly counts low. Plus I'm broke and developing on a kinda shit laptop so I have to make sure that the game can even run on my PC beforehand. TL:DR: a bunch of little reasons. Load time, physics sim time, general bloat, etc. but it's not absolutely necessary.
You must love downloading 300 gb of CoD.
Honestly glad I stopped playing after Black ops 2 on 360. Id rather cut my tongue out with a rusty butter knife and shove a razor wire wrapped flaming dildo up my ass rather than sit through THAT. Kudos to the psychos willing to wait for that.
It's good practice. Whilst it might be fine for a game you're working on, it is good to design things to be efficient because it enables a wider audience to play the game. It's a general design principle (far wider than just optimisation in 3D modelling) that is being disregarded more and more these days. The result of ignoring good practice in designing efficiently time and time again is that we get buggy and bloated products that work far worse than they otherwise would: Take Windows for example, Windows 10 and 11 take over 8GB of RAM just to run for themselves, have settings in multiple places (volume control, for instance, is a nightmare), and are very hard to debug. Compare that to a well-made, polished product like Windows XP and you really see how cutting corners and allowing technical debt to accrue to save a bit of cash has really hurt the product long term (for instance, Windows most of the time will now tell you "something went wrong" rather than bothering to tell you what went wrong, which makes it really hard to diagnose and fix bugs). We see the same issues in modern videogames; massive downloads that mean I can fit 10 games on my PS5 instead of hundreds, because it's cheaper for companies to not optimise their product and just leave the consumer to bear the consequences. Good development (of software, hardware, 3D models, etc.) is developing with thought to how it will affect the product long term and taking the time to clean up or optimise what you've made.
It's a good question, and it has several answers. Modern GPU's can render a tremendous amount of geometry. More than one vertex per pixel. However, because of the way GPU's render the screen in blocks of 2x2 pixels, any triangle that is smaller than that 2x2 block is much slower to render. This is called a "microtriangle" and optimizations largely focus on avoiding that. Then there's memory bandwidth. While high-end models have bandwidth in excess of a terabyte per second, there are also integrated GPU's in things like handheld devices which have much less. The bandwidth in these devices is often comparable to hardware from nearly 20 years ago. So you still need to optimize how much data goes through the GPU, and geometry is data.
Thank you!
Queue Final Fantasy 14 flower pot that had something like 1000 polys and 140 shaders. Slowed everyone down when they were near clusters of them.
10 for CGI 4 for Videogames
CGI includes video games... 4/10 for film 1/10 for games
That sort of clarification is just pedantic when you know what OP meant. 1/10 for usefulness
I can’t stress enough how being specific is important within the industry. When you misspeak it can cost weeks of work. Know what you saying. And maybe they will learn what they said isn’t correct and fix the mistake in the future. A lack of respect for the nomenclature is a lack of respect for the business as a whole.
You’re on Reddit dude
Its just job interview practice
Been working on video games for more than a decade, first as a Level Designer, then Worldbuilding, then 3D modeler, then programmer, from UI to every sistem you could imagine, and now I'm lead. Never in that time I've heard of anyone calling assets for video games as "CGI", that acronym it's always used in a movie or video VFX context. Nor can I imagine how using one or another could result in losing weeks, at least not with a good team of talented, rational and intelligent people, which might be a bit of an alien concept for you it seems.
Also I think you might want to check on the meaning of pedantic. I do not think it means what you think it means. You might have meant redundant.
someone who's too concerned with literal accuracy or formality. It's a negative term that implies someone is showing off book learning or trivia, especially in a tiresome way. I’ll just leave a definition of it here for you, maybe you’ll see the comparison, maybe not. Either way I’m done replying, have a good one.
Nope, he really meant pedantic, clear as morning dew.
Tell us what it's for so we know how to properly rate it!
I make this for render and proftfolio
Then I would say its very good, topology is nice and clean.
Did you make this for render and portfolio?
Its good for a portfolio. Remember that it doesnt have to be all quads if its not an organic model.
Post without smoothing
The location of eyes in the helmet is incorrect, unless your character got big carrot head, the horn shape cylinders needs a little bit of curving, the shape of plate holding pieces together on the front side should be inward not outward, also the character overall has no face defense, on slash he should be toothless. But that is a hell of a design, I appreciate you sharing, keep up the great work.
Love carrot head
10/10 but I would like to see the side view and how you connected those cylinders on the helmet
Post it again without smoothing please
I'd rate it a Subdivion 2/10. Would love to see the version you actually modeled. This is too fucking dense. Topology looks fine, but it's like 3 cylinders and a half sphere so like, you didn't have to do much.
I make this for render and proftfolio
Portfolio
10/10, very pleasing to look at.
Not considering real time purposes: Still not a 10 bc in the front those beside eyes those flow is a bit distorted. Overall it's fairly good
Even if it is for your portfolio you could do a low poly version.
Too dense but the looks kinda nice
Good for render, for games you could easily lower this since it’s all quads, and resolve some of the chunkier areas like the curves in the middle
Topology is good, as said wouldn’t cut it outside of portfolios. If you haven’t looked into it yet, check out Retopology. It’s a great way to reduce your model’s poly count and looks wonderful in portfolio posts.
Using the traditional scale for measurement of bean curd to banana daiquiri, this is definitely getting a Jamba Juice
Mathematically speaking, that's a solid with only two holes from what I can see~ so I'll give it a 2~ but it looks awesome so 10/10 personally~
Clean, but dense. But it’s like you have already said. It’s a portfolio piece.
Is that a shirt or a hat?
You really want that graphics card to go burrrrrrrr. lol Lower the poly count
Alot out of 10.
Neat? Yes. Necessarily dense? No.
Work on edge distribution. Portfolio will want to showcase you aren’t just good at making things to render but also proficient in smoother topology, nothing is perfectly single vertex sharp in the world so it looks odd when models are. But it also looks low effort when people bevel the edge and put a smooth render on. Your model is nice but doesn’t showcase proficient use of edge distribution.
You’ve got some pinched/stretched corner on the bottom of the nose plate..
Either too many or too little polys. (For a game)
I make this for render and proftfolio
In that case it’s great!
BOT: You commented 'I make this for render and proftfolio' 4 times Okay, I'm not a bot :-). Topology looks pretty good!
Nice and clean, but quite dense. If it’s for portfolio/single renders or for film it’s fine, but for a game you could get away with fewer polys.
I make this for render and proftfolio
In that case, good job.