So, i thought i would try something here, and if people think this is a terrible idea, just ignore it and do not post(or post to tell me how i'm an idiot, in the true spirit of the thread).

So its a pretty simple concept, people like to argue on the internet, right? Right, so how about we try and focus some of that energy into a positive use. Now, where this gets a little fun is here:

I would like to encourage people to post in-depth descriptions of their work-flow, this could be any number of things. From how you bake a normal map, to how you start concepting a character to how you only use 16 color animated gifs for your normals. Various people will then tell you why what you're doing is terribly wrong, how they would do it, or tell you to never even think about doing it again.

Ideally i see this thread as a place where people will not get offended when they are called names, told to fuck off, etc. Because it is inevitable. But can actually learn from the collective differences in opinion from our wide range of users. And even if you do get offended, because you inevitably will, that there is enough of a purpose here to keep you posting, keeping the dialog open, and truely offer today's children of tomorrow, a wonderful world, free of outdated misconceptions, where they will be free to frolic in the wild, with the bearsk.

Now, for this to work at all we just need one person to start, so please by all means, if anyone finds this at all worthwhile, tell me how you make a model, or texture a goat, or how you painted a totally sweet portrait of your favorite character from saved by the bell.

my work flow for level design, my modeling work flow is broken. It needs some serious reworking.

- Theme
- collect reference images
- draw out a map
- Look over the map and add a focal structure that the player can easily relate to where there are.
- Grey map the level in the editor
- Game play pass (lead or have others play it)
- Add meshes
- Final visual pass

not sure if this is the correct way, but its the one I've learned from a few lead designers.

Ok thanks, that all sounds pretty reasonable. You've ruined the thread, great job.

Seriously, one of the things that i've always seem a little fishy about that workflow is this:

Don't you run into some major problems when you get to the meshing phase, where as you're adding visual detail, you end up changing gameplay specific elements?

What sort of things do you to do combat this, if any?

Sorry i havent dont much LD work so i cant give a very detailed response here.

I do so many things backwards, hoping to find better ways with experience. That's how it works, I think. But for example, with props, I know most people make their highpoly models first, but I have been doing it the other way around:

1) make lowpoly out of various primitives, cutting and merging, keeping it clean, then unwrap the UVs;
2) duplicate the low and either reconfigure the topology to subdivide and retain shape, or subdivide it directly, split model up...
3) sculpt the highres versions, or model out the detail for functional normals;
4) bake the normal map in sections within Silo and/or Mudbox, composited in Photoshop, previewing it along the way;
5) bake an AO from the sculpt or sub-d;
6) gradient maps on the AO to get material colour started, and carry on into texturing the object with spec and shit in a way that I haven't gotten down quite to a routine yet. (Am still anxious to experiment more thoroughly within this stage.)

For mostly organic things, I start out by sculpting volumes roughly but as accurately as I can and do edge modeling of a better sculpt base to that surface, which I can later further compress to effective game-res geometry. I also like blocking out areas and the location of specific details if doing a very detailed diffuse texture using the 3D paint tools of whichever program, before exporting and refining within Photoshop.

Where I feel the most wrong at any given moment is how haphazard and fucked up my method for generating the high resolution detail has been. I mean, everything is so split up and pasted together, it feels like I'm just tearing the mesh up, doing whatever works to get an adequate result. But it really varies from asset to asset how smoothly this goes; for example, baking the normals to a strap element that wraps around the rest of the lowpoly without actually being attached - how the fuck am I supposed to get that to retain shape and bake properly to the lowpoly? Talking about it here makes me want to go try something though, so brb.

Originally Posted by Vrav

6) gradient maps on the AO to get material colour started,

gradient map on an AO? how does this look like? how does it help?

Originally Posted by alexk

gradient map on an AO? how does this look like? how does it help?

It's sort of helpful to get a bit of color started out for the diffuse texture, though I don't necessarily always use it in the same way (like if I don't want too much AO baked into my color map). Image>Adjustments>Gradient Map, open up the edit window for that and add a couple colors for the different value ranges. Makes it possible to brighten the dark shadows of your AO into simple color variations as well. It might not be necessary, I'm just used to doing it when moving a digital painting from monochrome to color.

IMHO, makes a decent start, if doing your textures in Photoshop. Unless using AO as a base for diffuse is one of those "you're doing it wrong" things, in which case, woohoo, intended use of EQ's thread fulfilled!

Originally Posted by EarthQuake

I would like to encourage people to post in-depth descriptions of their work-flow, this could be any number of things.

So you want ONE thread that covers ALL the topics? That's called a forum. How about you provide some focus instead, you jive-ass mother fucking turkey

Dunno if it fits, but here goes.
Somehow every time I redirect some topology I wonder how other artists go at it. So if you have a better technique, please tell!



This one method works well for me but maybe there is something faster?

uggg i'm noticing my workflow may be totally different as yours,

1. Paper and pencil, dozens of drawings, views, angles, design forms, versions, etc. Too much time for a solid design, and idea.
2. In Modo, i start from a low low poly model for subdivs, having all loops needed for a good mapping (edge flow), rigging and smoothing (i test deforms previously), and then, i subdivide x1. I avoid the need to correct a topology not wanted.
3. I refine details with the sculpting tools in modo (pinch, smooth, etc.), i make the uv mapping, and then i texturize in modo aswell, previewing the results like in real time (all the maps, spec, glossiness, etc.). With some models (those that need a fine detail pass), i use Zbrush to make some textures using polypainting.
4. Once i have all the texture work done and shaders, i export to max and i pose the model. Render and that's all.

All my workflow is focused in Subdiv modelling and for texturing, i bake a lot but i prefer to paint.

Originally Posted by perna

... you jive-ass mother fucking turkey

having missed the 70's as an adult, I think I'm going to have
to start incorporating that into my vernacular!

Originally Posted by Vrav

I do so many things backwards, hoping to find better ways with experience. That's how it works, I think. But for example, with props, I know most people make their highpoly models first, but I have been doing it the other way around:

1) make lowpoly out of various primitives, cutting and merging, keeping it clean, then unwrap the UVs;
2) duplicate the low and either reconfigure the topology to subdivide and retain shape, or subdivide it directly, split model up...
3) sculpt the highres versions, or model out the detail for functional normals;
4) bake the normal map in sections within Silo and/or Mudbox, composited in Photoshop, previewing it along the way;
5) bake an AO from the sculpt or sub-d;
6) gradient maps on the AO to get material colour started, and carry on into texturing the object with spec and shit in a way that I haven't gotten down quite to a routine yet. (Am still anxious to experiment more thoroughly within this stage.)

Yeah you say you think you're doing this a bit backwards and i would tend to agree. It is possible to get some decent results from doing the lowpoly first, but i really wouldn't recommend it. Really the only reason i've ever seen that made any sense to do this, is some people needed to have their lowpoly finalized, uved, rigged, etc before they start on the highpoly. While i can sort of understand why, i really think it is just a bad idea, and much too limiting when it comes to changing forms, and getting an overall quality result in the end.

Being locked into your lowpoly forms can be a really bad move, because to get a good result with your normals, you need to have a lowpoly that is an approximation of your highres. You want edges flowing to match certain elements, all those sort of things. You may find out that when you get to the highres stage, some of your elements were not thought out as well as they could have been, but what can you do? If you change it now you're totally reworking, or redoing your lowpoly, basically doing your lowpoly model twice. Or stuck to a lame shape that was based off of a lowpoly model, because lets be honest, its just a totally different game, working with forms on a simple, lowpoly mesh than it is working with a highly detailed source mesh.

Now what i would suggest here, is making a blockout/cage mesh to start with, try to get all of your proportions nailed down here, do not worry about optimization or any of that stuff yet, just get all of your forms roughed out. When you have everything rouged in, save a copy, because you can come back this, and use it as a base for your lowpoly. You will still have to do a lot of work to match it up correctly with the high, but it should save some time as aposed to redoing the entire lowpoly after the highpoly is done.

Alternatively, you can start from your finished cage mesh(lowest level sculpt, or cage mesh for sub-d) and optimize down from there. I tend to do this a lot, with sub-d stuff it can often be just a matter off killing off some extra edges and doing a little clean up. In some cases, where i have a really complicated cage, that i'm going to project onto a pretty simple lowpoly, i will just tottally remodel it, because its easier. This is done on pretty much a case by case basis.

In the end, the better your lowpoly matches your highpoly, the better bake you're going to have, and the better overall result you'll get. Remember, the whole point of using normals is to emulate the Highpoly model, not to try and conform the highpoly to the low. =)

For mostly organic things, I start out by sculpting volumes roughly but as accurately as I can and do edge modeling of a better sculpt base to that surface, which I can later further compress to effective game-res geometry. I also like blocking out areas and the location of specific details if doing a very detailed diffuse texture using the 3D paint tools of whichever program, before exporting and refining within Photoshop.

Where I feel the most wrong at any given moment is how haphazard and fucked up my method for generating the high resolution detail has been. I mean, everything is so split up and pasted together, it feels like I'm just tearing the mesh up, doing whatever works to get an adequate result. But it really varies from asset to asset how smoothly this goes; for example, baking the normals to a strap element that wraps around the rest of the lowpoly without actually being attached - how the fuck am I supposed to get that to retain shape and bake properly to the lowpoly? Talking about it here makes me want to go try something though, so brb.

As far as the split up part. I'm not entire sure what you're saying, but one thing i can tell you is this:

Always use as many different meshes as possible in your highres, there is no glory in modeling everything as a solid mesh(and its a little backwards a lot of the time, things in life are made up of may differe components). If it makes it easier, split it up, dont even think twice about it, intersecting objects are perfectly fine, and AA will help to bring them together in the final bake.

Originally Posted by pior

Dunno if it fits, but here goes.
Somehow every time I redirect some topology I wonder how other artists go at it. So if you have a better technique, please tell!



This one method works well for me but maybe there is something faster?

For this sort of stuff i tend to just use the edge slice tool in modo, slice out the topology i want, and then go back in and remove the excess edges that are bound to be there.

What i like about this method, is that i could make a bunch of cuts all over a model in one pass, and then in another pass remove all the extra edges. Either way it seems like a similar amount of steps, and you could probabbly do the same as far as doing it in "passes" as well.

Also, fuck you, FRENCHIE

that looks pretty scriptable so? it could work from just selecting the vertex in question, assuming you always have the 2 tris and 2 quads, the tris could be auto turned to quads like presented. or you work from the 2 edges selected as piors original gif.

if you work on this on a single case basis, one could go so far and automatically position the new vertex with the intersection of original mesh and mouse cursor when running the script.

What i've wanted to see for a while, and i dont know how realistic this would be, is a script that would run through a mesh and "smartly" quadify it, using intersections like pior shows.

keep dreaming

nice thread

BUT, instead of posting exact work flow which can be a personal preference thing, i am going to post some work ethics which i follow daily:

*don't be lazy
*don't "always" look for shortcuts and try to make scripts for everything fucking task
*don't try to over analyze art
*when in doubt look up reference
*visualize end result
*work in chunks
*ask for critiques
*details matter, but they mean shit without good form and structure
*contrast and variety matters
*beauty lies in some imperfections (nothing is 100% perfect, neither should it be)
*work hard
*don't be lazy, seriously.

Don't be lazy and post your exact work flow, you fucker.

I'm just calling you a fucker because EQ basically told us to be offensive in this thread, so I'm starting things off right. It's nothing personal, you lazy fucker.

On a more serious note, I like the idea, and next time I find myself doing something that strikes me as being needlessly complicated or slow, I'll post that in here.

fuck you pea!

am i doing it right?

Originally Posted by MightyPea

Don't be lazy and post your exact work flow, you fucker.

I'm just calling you a fucker because EQ basically told us to be offensive in this thread, so I'm starting things off right. It's nothing personal, you lazy fucker.

On a more serious note, I like the idea, and next time I find myself doing something that strikes me as being needlessly complicated or slow, I'll post that in here.

well my work flow is simple and nothing out of the ordinary i think, but it tends to be something like this in short (for character art):

1. take in art direction and look at any concept/reference if available
2. plan out what needs to be normal mapped, high poly modeled, detailed etc(not everything needs to be high poly sculpted or modeled)
3. create clean base meshes, recycle if possible but dont be lazy to create something from scratch.
4. before sculpting, check surface normals of all base meshes.
5. after high poly is done i export a semi-high poly as a ref for creating the low poly
6. UV layout low poly and bake normals and AO
7. create textures and materials
8. fix texture seams
9. skinning/rigging, QA etc.

Originally Posted by pior

i usually do this:



i just cut one of the tri sides in the middle and curve snap that vertex to center to maintain surface normal.

Originally Posted by MM

*don't look for shortcuts and try to make scripts for everything fucking task

I'm gonna go ahead and say you're doing it wrong - sure there are things that it doesn't make any sense to try and make a script for, but I have seen a huge amount of times when artists have been using painfully slow methods to do repetitive actions and just keep on doing it because they are used to it and refuse to consider any alternatives.

So yeah - always look for shortcuts.

Originally Posted by MoP

I'm gonna go ahead and say you're doing it wrong - sure there are things that it doesn't make any sense to try and make a script for, but I have seen a huge amount of times when artists have been using painfully slow methods to do repetitive actions and just keep on doing it because they are used to it and refuse to consider any alternatives.

So yeah - always look for shortcuts.

well you are WRONG

i would not "always" look for shortcuts

i need to edit the ethic to:

"dont always look for shortcuts"

it is a judgment call.

i would script something that would help in the long term and not just something i might need right now.

things like the topology change above does not require a script.
relying too much on scripts makes an artist too handicapped or lazy in my opinion.
i tend to try it the hardcore way and i seen my speed increase tremendously because of that.

I don't see what's wrong with always looking for them ... even if it means you don't find any shortcut and just do everything the standard (or "hardcore" way, is it? ) then you haven't lost anything. If you don't always look for shortcuts then chances are you'll miss something...

well i see it as a state of mind thing.

usually i see people wasting time looking for shortcuts, trying to cut corners, and at the end they have to go back anyways to fix some shit they totally bypassed earlier because they just wanted to take the easy route.

most of the times not looking for shortcuts is the shortcut to getting the work done fast.

There are definitely things not worth the time to script, but I'll disagree because I think the above mentioned task of fixing topology on a particular type of layout is a PERFECT example that's worthy of scripting. I actually still use a few buggy ones I hacked together a long while ago to fix some of the typical geometry. I'd post them if they weren't so specific and sucky

Why is making a cut, deleting an edge, and eyeballing the center of the face better than a script that more precisely does the same thing in one step?