Thanks, i'ts just the text tool with some beveling... they are separate objects.

The texturing has now begun.

Attached Images

NICE
cheers,
Andy

---

Environment Artist @ Plastic Piranha
www.joopson.com

the addition of the screen definately brings out the realness

good stuff

---

Examples of bTraffic - a traffic animation tool for Maya
bFlocking - a tool for Maya 8.5+ to generate flocking and swarming behaviours
Jan/Feb Challenge 2007 Entry and W.I.P
May/Jun Challenge 2006 Entry and W.I.P
Mar/Apr Challenge 2006 Entry and W.I.P
Jan/Feb Challenge 2006 Entry and W.I.P
Nov/Dec Challenge 2005 Entry and W.I.P
Sep/Oct Challenge 2005 Entry and W.I.P
Jul/Aug Challenge 2005 Entry
www.flash-fx.net

I've struggling with the rendering... Can't get it the way I like

However this render is created with a totally white atmosphere and a spot light that only casts specularity, and with FG of course.

Attached Thumbnails

You need to use HDRI... its the one and only way

btw excellent hard surface model
excellent

---

Live the life you love, love the life you live

Thanks

I tried a lot of different HDR images but couldn't get it to look the way I want, but I'll keep on messing with it...

Good job DJ


But...why does everyone have to render their stuff with MR , practilly ALL the time? Sometimes the simplest of ways are the best ways - key light, back light, fill light! I think its always worth pursuing the old ways because that way you'll understand control over lighting situations alot better. My colleagues and I are constantly looking at peoples work who've used MR, subsurface scatter and all the shit and just laugh because sometimes its no better than a 3 point light setup which incidently can render quicker too.

If you arent getting the desired result on the render, basically you need to be looking at the physical properties of the materials on the real thing/reference and the light in the room you're in.

I think its a common fault with alot of people, the 'in' thing is always the way to go, when clearly theres no understanding of basics. MR is great dont get me wrong here, but its only as good as the person using it, as in any aspect.

Sorry for the rant, but needed to have a say
Cheers
Jay

I'm totally with you on that one Jay. Yes, MR and FG is fantastic and produces amazing results, but only when used properly. Before doing any lighting, especially if you are new to it, I would definitely recommend having at least a basic understanding of how proper lighting works, and I'm afraid that there is a bit more to this than just switching on FG! Good old 3-point lighting can produce results just as good, and will give you a much better understanding of how the light is working and affecting your scene, and will render sooooo much faster. We use HDRI and the likes at work, but the lighters still have to place their own lights in the scenes, they don't just check on MR/FG and render away.

I think your Gameboy is looking really nice though, lighting and all. I would love to see Mario on the screen! I thought I saw some n-sided polys looking at your earlier wireframes that you posted, but I'm sure you sorted them later. Nice work

LisaG

---

When in doubt......smile!

https://www.x-menthelaststand.com/

Jay: You got a point there indeed. You could of course get a good (and fast) result without using FG/GI/HDRI but to get it realistic looking you would have to use a LOT of lights, and then there's no point. With just 3 lights, you can have a nice image, but not that realistic. I'm with you though that a lot of people are using HDRI without knowing what it really is.

This is rendered with Turtle however (created by some former students at my school), which I like better than MR.

Lisa: Thanks, I'm gonna stick with Tetris though, snice that's the game I played most at GB. It's actually a bunch of N-gons left on the mesh, but they are at places where they smooth out well, and since there will be no deformation/animtion taking place I don't care about them too much.

DJ

Not realistic with a 3 point light set up? I hope you are joking!! You sound a little misled


I know of a guy who has worked on many a feature film and prior to that was producing photorealistic images with Maya in v3 before MR came along, with a studio light set up as he was contending for work with 'real' photographers. His name is Gary Brozenich, he works for MPC/ Moving Picture Company. Ive saw his ad work and it was truly astounding.

Lisa: Weren't you at MPC? You may have heard of him if this is the case.

You dont need lots of lights, providing you know materials and how light reacts. I would suggest the Digital Lighting and rendering Book by Jeremy Birn. theres a thing or 2 in there that may be of use. In fact Id recommend it to everyone who wants to learn rendering techniques to the max and then some.

Cheers
Jay

Yeah dude... The simpiler the better. And it can look even better than HDRI/FG.

Seriously dude, listen to Jay.

---

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

Hey Jay. I'm still at MPC and yeah, I know Gary. He's one of the vfx sups. I've had the pleasure of him being sup on some of the projects I've worked on. Hes great, and really knows his stuff.

That digital lighting and rendering book is fab, I've got that and it taught me a lot. Very interesting it is.

LisaG

---

When in doubt......smile!

https://www.x-menthelaststand.com/

nice render, however looking at the image i feel that the glow is a bit to bright, you can see a little to much refracting (in regards to the first image)

as for MR vs Software, most people work and render in MR because its alot easier to achieve a more modern feel to your work. yes the downside is rendering times but most people expect quality and with MR its alot easier to achieve that than in software.
there are limitations in regards to how realistic you can get an object to look in software, and need to be a real expert in some of the fields.. e.g. lighting and setup.

---

3D Modeler and Texture Painter (Learning)
"We have limits.... our imagination does not"

Final Year: University of Bradford (Worst place to live and study in the UK!!)

Indeed I agree. Im not disputing MR at all. But my point was that, DJBlazer was getting an unesessary result in MR, to which point I question why MR all the time? I understand the points of it entirely but newbies and other dudes jump straight in because its 'holy shit MR!' when understanding of basic rendering has simply passed them by.

Yes it does take a pro to do stuff properly hence my mention of Lisa's Supervisior of VFX, but its also worth bearing in mind how the hell was something as cool as T2, StarWars EP1 and movies of the same kind of mold done with out it. And those movies still stand out vfx wise (if not story) better than some of the movies produced with MR today.But I would nt say MR is easier by no means, as it works with scene scale and sometime thats a headache to work with. Trust me I know...I think Pixar have it sussed with their renderman software more.

Lisa:Yeah that book is kind of like the bible of Rendering, just excellent. I met Gary many moons ago when he came for freelance work when I worked on the Striker3d football comic, he did the right thing and turned the work down.

Cheers
and happy new year
Jay