Almost everything. Sometimes sculpturing has the same result as bumpmaps, so you prefer bumpmaps. The same thing applies to textures. Usually, if you have the time, you prepare both 3d and 2d (bumpmaps, custom textures), and see if result is almost same. Then, you choose in favour of 2d.
I don't know the method you're using to "add" polygons, but I suggest you to avoid a smooth modifier above the entire mesh...I know, this is the fastest way but the less efficient in terms of polygon management. Try to use more polygons only in specific areas, where the low poly method get you too squared results and considering the real size of the part you're working on. Using a modifier on the entire mesh get you a ton of useless polygons, especially where you already have a lot of edges/cuts. You don't need 200 tris for a bolt...or 2500 for a small grid...unless you are thinking to put a camera with a macro lens for every single part of the car... So....60K triangles (you're counting quads, but you've to set your viewport statistics in tris) just for the basic bodyshape + engine could be an exaggeration (I think you can go for 10K for the entire bodyshape and something more for the entire engine), considering you've to model suspensions, tire groups and cockpit interiors...that usually deserves a bit of detail to look nice and smooth. BTW, great job! I love it...
It seems like your project has gone into render quality modeling instead of game modeling. However, there is nothing wrong in it. It's just that for games you have to have little bit different mind set. Or then just forget what I said and later on use aggressive LODing like what is done in AC and pCARS. Looking sharp And yes, wheels and body is pretty much all you need to get your car into a game.
Thank you more experienced guys for coming with hints and explainations! I use nothing to add polygons, I've listen to what you said and other guys have said to me earlier (and reading in other threads). In the beginning I used turbosmooth for the entire body but that was wrong. I deleted it and I have used no more turbosmooth or meshsmooth since I simply build my objects with as many polys I think I need (probably too many anyway) and then chamfer edges and apply a smoothing group. Is this the correct way? Ooops
Now this is the wireframe. I made the windscreen today. Is it to many polys? If I make it less poly it will look really angular even with smoothing group. Like the edge of the main body I have marked with the smaller circle... it is quite angular (the whole body is viewed from front or back). Is this a problem?
First of all, nothing is 100% written on stones...so feel free to try different methods and solutions to get the best compromise between performance and quality. BTW....of course smoothing groups works just on the surface shading (It's a light trick, but do not add anything in terms of resolution) and if you have a shape described by 5 polygons...you'll see 5 polygons on the edge of the mesh...as your last shot. So..it's your call. If you want a smooth windshield (and Imho everything is a part of the cockpit deserve more quality), you've to use more polygon resolution, and your picture is ok for me. For the back of your car you could try to use more polygon for the entire side, or just for the last part of the body. I usually prefer the second...but depends on the bodyshape.
That is definitely enough to bring it in game. To get a car on track you need one main body and 4 tires. In the showroom scene you can load everything. See this very early pic I uploaded for another thread of my mod in game: View attachment 3273 It is just the cassis and the bodywork and i added 4 simple wheels and an oval element as steering wheel just to see if it works. And believe me: its a good feeling to see it does. Adding more instances or changing geometry is no problem, but I think especially for your high poly mod it will be interesting to check the performance during the development. Maybe in the end you can tell us all which amount of polygons the rf2 engine can handle with recent hardware. This could be very interesting.
Because I never put a car into game I don't know how to compromise between performance and quality. But it's my first car and I learn things all the time. In almost all your posts I learn something new Anyway, I set my viewport settings to "selection" and selected the two parts of the body: nose and main body. Statistic says: Polys: 1445 Tris: 3197 This seems a bit low, but when you see the wireframe in the pic below, do you think it could be correct? Is it clean enough? If it's correct. Then my engine must be even more messy than I thought. Because total tris is 70k with the simple tires And if you see something that looks strange in the wireframe, please let me know View attachment 3276
I can see by myself wireframe looks strange in the nose.. But the nose is dublicated to have an inside and you see it trough. And something looks strange right above the air intakes but wheen zooming it disappears. I also made the inner copy of the nose less poly because it's not as important as the outside.
Hey, Nothing is wrong in your statistics and in your modeling style. The basic bodyshape (nose+body) is so linear that you don't need much more polygons to make it, so yes...it looks correct for me. You can push a bit on the resolution, but honestly it looks good as it is. I don't know your polygon target....but imho for a body like this you can go for less than 10K tris...but check what you need to complete this part, as bolts, rivets etc...because could be a good touch to keep the resolution as it is...using this polycount "bonus" to put some nice 3D detail around the bodyshape. I don't see nothing wrong in your wireframe as well. Those edge artifacts are by the viewport, so don't worry about it. Check your car engine polycount, and try to optimize the budget...but I see a very linear and easy design almost everywhere in the bodywork (easy and linear shape = less polygons), so you could keep a good resolution for those mechanical parts that representing the most "sexy" areas for a car like this... I suggest you to proceed to close the car, saving procedural stages, then (when the car is almost 100% finished) you can start to worry about the poly calibration for the LOD0. Keep it up!
Looking at your screenshots...the only thing I can suggest about modeling...is to close by yourself the quad to triangle design when you have different cuts in the same loop. The way you're using get you an "auto" triangulation (you can see it turning off the Edges Only option in the istance proprieties), but if you want to keep the final control on how the car have to look with its own smoothing group, I suggest you to close those quads into tris by your hands.
Every time I pop into this thread I`m quite amazed and astonished that you`ve only been doing this for such a short time Hedlund. It`s really coming along very well indeed.
Thank you! But I don't think its very well done... I have learned 3ds max quite well now and feel like I can create pretty much what ever I want, BUT it's big difference between modeling good-looking cars in the 3d software, and get them to work well ingame. Problem is I have to much polys already. I didn't know what bump maps was until now and I thought I had to model every single part if I wanted a really detailed car. The car body is OK but the engine...it's totally messed up. But I will finish the model anyway. Do the rest as clean as I can and then deal with the engine. Probably redo the entire engine. Anyway, have you tried 3ds max yet?
I'm not sure I fully understand... Well, I understand what's wrong in the model but not how to solve it? I really am a beginner and some terms are hard to understand I'm not sure how to "close those quads into tris by your hands"? For example: the area right beside cockpit you marked... You mean I should move vertices and weld them to get those small quads to triangles? I will attach images. If you want to and if it's possible, maybe you could paint how the wireframe should look like? Many thanks in advance. View attachment 3309 View attachment 3311 View attachment 3310 In the second picture, should I weld the red marked vertices together, and then weld green marked vertices together? The third pic is how it looks when I've done it. Am I doing it right or totally wrong? I might have misunderstand you What I understand is that I should avoid to have more than 4-sided polys?
And it was a correct thought, especially looking at new standards, like pCARS or Assetto Corsa. The time for bump for body cuts, for bolts, rivet, screw etc...is gone. Of course these tricks are still working, but IMHO we can look forward to push into the detail...if we want a step ahead between the previous sim generation and the next one. I'm not talking about modeling almost everything is hided by the bodyshape (like pCARS), but for a car like this I would like to see a lot of details on mechanical parts and almost zero bump maps to fake a lot of parts and extrusions around the car. I really don't want to confuse you but seems like you're going to take the wrong direction, after a pretty good job made on this car. Ok, if you want to re-model the engine, but - PLEASE - do not fake it to much with bump maps. You can make a bolt with 18 tris (6 top + 12 side and a open cap for the bottom), a screw with something more (maybe you can fake just the head)..you could use less polygons for cylinders rotation segments etc etc...you can do a ton of optimizations before starting the with the old standard. Of course these are just my opinions...but thinking about this...
Aah I understand. I easily get confused because I don't know exactly how it should be done and know nothing about modding My 6-sided bolts probably are 14 tris then, because I don't think I deleted bottom on most of them. Yes I really think I can do tons of optimization but I probably have to redo many parts.
As already said, your modeling style is good for me. Nothing to say. Everyone of us can improve, day after day, and almost everything could be done better and better.... but things I saw are pretty nice. If I see a clean modeling I can't say nothing more, especially when you say this is your first car modeling...This is going to be a PRETTY GOOD JOB. Talking about quad and tris, if you let the choice for the triangulation in the software hands, you could get bad surprises in how some parts will look into the game, due the triangulation, especially above non planar faces. We've just to find the better choice to close into triangles, avoiding bad looking in those areas after a smoothing group has been applied. So, i can't say you what is your better choice without put my hands in your model. Usually I try more solutions before choose the smartest one (especially when we get tons of tris sharing the same vertices). Don't let the software make the job for you, especially for most complex parts. Try different solutions and check the output in shading mode and ingame. If it looks good at every light and camera angle, you get it. Of course I'm just talking about those parts...You don't have to triangulate everything by your hands, because if you have a quad you already know this one will be "subdivided" into 2 tris.
BTW....I know all this s***t can add just confusion, so you don't have to worry about EVERYTHING at this stage. Try to close the car, THEN, worry about how to make the model cleanest as possible for the game. You already have the talent to make the job...so focusing too much on every single micro step get you the risk to lose the motivation. Don't listen too much our blah blah...Do it!
OK, thank you I will try to get the car into game as it looks now. I will have to read the tutorial how to do it, again. I read it when I had just started my model, but I was totally confused about it so I decided to leave it and continue modeling instead. But now I'll make new try. I'm sure I will come here again, soon, and ask for help how to get the car in game
