[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/3/ - 3DCG


View post   

File: 237 KB, 880x800, D2C-crFUcAATbxp.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
771084 No.771084 [Reply] [Original]

who was that one autist that procedurally generated a vagina? did he ever finish that project?

>> No.771095

who cares, it looked terrible.

>> No.771103

It was just ripped from daz/poser

>> No.771109

>>771103
Wasn't is a Substance Designer project?

>> No.771126

>>771084
What a waste of polygons
if the camera never got that close normal map alone will give same result

>> No.771130

>>771109
I was assuming you were talking about that HL2 mod that spawned the "FULLY DETAILED" meme.

>> No.771146

>>771126
The Jap who makes these has more skill in his left pinkie than you will ever have over the course of your entire "career".

>> No.771151

>>771126
why wouldn't the camera get up close for such a coombait model tho

>> No.771153

>>771126
link to your artstation pls

>> No.771168

>>771146
>it is jap therefore it is good
another fried dopamine receptor weeb coomer

>> No.771169

>>771126
There's no waste if you stay within the required parameters. This model is beautifully efficient in its topology.

>> No.771183

>>771168
Nope, just an expat.

>> No.771196

>>771183
*sexpat
ftfy

>> No.771209

>Where's the model in the picture from OP?

>> No.771220

>>771169
not that the model is bad but at op pic level of detail textures aren't even needed since everything was drawn by polygons
a nice showoff model but definitely not production pipeline friendly

>> No.771222

>>771209
his models are not public

>>771220
shut up brainlet

>> No.771224

>>771220
>MUH PRODUCTION PIPELINE
Who asked you, wageslave. Go compete with the Pajeets.

>> No.771227

ITT: Coomers band together against established practices and common sense.

>> No.771235
File: 69 KB, 960x540, zq3yhbd88c621.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
771235

>>771222
>>771224
why are you so sour?

>> No.771237

>>771222
Does he have any socials or dose he post somewhere?

>> No.771238

>>771237
just reverse search the pic

>> No.771245

>>771238
Already tried

>> No.771253

>>771235
Is that your skill level?

>> No.771258

>>771237
https://twitter.com/sakuramochiJP?s=09

>> No.771259
File: 181 KB, 390x414, sexpat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
771259

>>771183
>>771196

>> No.771267
File: 789 KB, 200x200, 1595631654862.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
771267

>>771258
>english coomer comments on every of his posts

>> No.771277

>>771224
its true tho

>> No.771278

>>771224
whoa, easy there mr. one-man studio

>> No.771280

>>771278
wagie wagie get in cagie

>> No.771321

>>771245
I mean yeah, it's the third result not the first one but come on

>> No.771343
File: 9 KB, 468x60, 1596898995974.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
771343

>>771280
t. a living meme

>> No.771387

>>771220
>production pipeline
RTX technology
Ampere 3090

Yeah, baking normals will be a thing of the past. With 8k gaming doesn't matter how high rez your normal maps are, the illusion will instantly fade once you're dealing with that level of detail.
Same problem VR has.

Normals will still be useful for fine dirt particles and such but for actual model geometry like OP's pic... no.

>> No.771389

>>771343
I don't work in 3D

>> No.771792
File: 123 KB, 1220x990, BLADE.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
771792

>>771387
2018
"Steam survey shows PC gamers are still mostly playing in 1080p and lower.
Valve Software’s latest hardware and software survey for July 2018 reveals that 63.72 percent of Steam’s registered members still play games with a 1,920 x 1,080 resolution (aka Full HD). Even more, 13.33 percent of Steam’s gamers play at 1,366 x 768 (HD) while only 1.14 percent are playing at 3,840 x 2,160 (4K). Only 3.12 percent play at 2,560 x 1,440 (QHD)."

1.4% play in 4k. Nothing will change for such a small minority of already overspenders and loyal paypigs. Besides, model in OP's image is fine, albeit wasted on such a trash texture job/shading.

>> No.771798

>>771792
You have no idea what you're talking about.

Content creators have to be 1 or 2 generations ahead of what the consumers have.

The shit you said was also said back when baking was implemented in the pipeline: "but most consumers don't even have the hdd space to keep all those textures!!".

>> No.771800 [DELETED] 

>>771798
>no idea
>1 or 2 generations ahead
>normal baking was implemented post 2018
You're beyond clueless and retarded.

>> No.771801

>>771798
>no idea
>1 or 2 generations ahead
It's over, games will no longer evolve. Modelling has plateaued in terms of polycount. It's all shading, light and other doodads and frill from here.

>> No.771840

>>771801
>Modelling has plateaued in terms of polycount.
Maybe, but Cinematic models are still 10x - 100x more complex than realtime models. There is lots of room for improvement.

>> No.771844

>>771801
>plateaued
This is bullshit tho, the goal is and will always be movie quality.

>> No.771856
File: 14 KB, 480x474, 1591392928879.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
771856

>>771844
>movie quality
giving a shit about what the pozzed (((movie industry))) thinks or wants, lmao

>> No.771867

>>771844
Video games are already movie quality, IE they are unoriginal pozzed shit. The popular stuff nowadays has n64 aesthetics and graphics.

>> No.771868

>>771801
You sound like my mom back in 1995
>we don't need more game consoles its all just games on a flat screen how good do you expect it to look?

>> No.771870
File: 410 KB, 1920x822, app.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
771870

>>771868
She made great breakfasts in those days... but I digress. In 1995, there was a lot of room for progress and improvement, not anymore. Geometry is already plateaued, as mentioned. It won't get any better than TLOU2. It's literally all aesthetics from here.

Barely any difference between TLOU2 overmodeled original and the x2 unsubdivided one.

>> No.771873

>>771867
Explains why AAA downright suck. Just like the movie industry. Pozzed faggotry.

>> No.771874

>>771868
In terms of geometry, he's not wrong. Diminishing returns, it's the same with sound quality or screen resolutions. Something that's ten times higher isn't necessarily ten times better. We get 8K TVs and it's an improvement, sure. But we could have 16K TVs. Or 32K TVs. Then 128K TVs. Then 4096K TVs. Or we could upgrade from 60Hz displays to 144Hz. But why stop there, why not 300Hz displays? That's old, why don't we make 2000 Hz screens? Why not 13,000Hz? Surely there is a limit somewhere, past which the human eye cannot see a difference, because it is literally physically not equipped to do so.

The missing step we need for photorealism is lighting, and being able to simulate it in realtime. Then the focus will shift to VR, body suits, neural implants and all kinds of scifi shit, theoretically culminating with the ability to transform yourself into a program running in a simulated universe indistinguishable from ours, where we can bend the rules for the sake of entertainment. And even that has a limit, because theoretically biological life and humanity can have a perfect form, past which there is nothing to improve and nowhere to go.

>> No.771875

>>771874
Lighting and simulations, I should say. Perfect skin deformations and fully destructible environments that adhere to the laws of physics are still a pipedream.

>> No.771876

>>771870
That's wrong. You didn't do anything with the new polys on the subdivided head so it's just a smoothed version of the original. If you did you could emphasise the boney landmarks even more. You could also add more shape to the eyes and mouth, make the ears more anatomically correct, and even use polys for eyelashes and eyebrows.

>> No.771897

>>771876
The left is the original with no modifiers.
The right is unsubdivided twice.
Middle is both combined.

>> No.771903

>>771840
I really think at one point 3d folks need to branch out and do movies. Games are already way too focused on how they look instead of gameplay and story.

>> No.771910

>>771856
>imagine thinking the political motivations of a field have nothing to do with their technical possibilities and competence
>>771867
>already movie quality
either you don't play games, don't watch movies, or have no eye for rendering quality

>> No.771911

>>771910
>nothing
anything, excuse my ESL

>> No.771913

>>771910
Movies are shit, hence games are movie quality. I'm not talking about graphics.

>> No.771914

>>771913
agreed. but I was only talking about graphics.

>> No.771927

>>771126
fuckking luddite retard

high poly is the future, and that model isnt even high poly
normal maps are for garbage games, besides OP is an artist not a fucking wageslave studio drone that worries about "production"

>> No.771929

>>771927
>normal maps are for garbage games
You just outed yourself as absolutely clueless.

>> No.771931

>>771126
I wonder where this anon think 'normal maps' come from.

>> No.771936

>>771929
nope

not everything needs to be sub 100k poly garbage for games. normal maps have some place, but they are not an excuse to use low poly models.

>> No.771943

>>771936
You need a lot more than 100k poly to achieve any kind of fine detail on an organic model, even a million doesn't come close to what a normal map does. They will never go away or be replaced, it would be illogical and stupid. It is working as intended.

>> No.772058

>>771943
>They will never go away or be replaced
Now I know you're a zoomer and a bullshitter

>> No.772066

>>772058
ok boomer

>> No.772070

>>772066
>assblasted zoomshit
Your 16k normals and 16k displacments yield only diminishing returns. At this point it's better and more feasible to do it with proper geometry.

>> No.772075

>>772070
Proper geometry isn't even available to the movie industry you doodoohead.

>> No.772081

>>772075
Are you retarded?!

>> No.772082

>>772081
he's right tho

>> No.772083

>>772066
>>772070
>>772075
>>772081
>>772082
You're all dumb and you smell bad.

>> No.772084

>>772082
No, are you retarded too?!

>> No.772085
File: 290 KB, 600x600, get_a_load_of_this_zoomer.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
772085

>>772066

>> No.772087

>>772075
elaborate a bit?

>> No.772503
File: 189 KB, 1024x1024, you.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
772503

>>771126
>urgh durr, maps dont use resources, uvs dont require work.

1 - game engines can already easily render that real time
2 - no normal maps
3 - no color maps
4 - no UVs
5 - can be used to generate maps for lower poly model if necessary

>> No.772514

>>772503
The way he rests his hands on they keyboard always gets me.

>> No.772540

>>771798
>"but most consumers don't even have the hdd space to keep all those textures!!"
Is that why every shitty AAA title takes up 60+ GB now? Shit sucks for load times and SSDs still aren't cheap enough to buy a TB for every dozen games in your library.

>> No.772542

>>772503
>tldr: Any means b justified if it looks like a pussy
Man, fuck polygons let's do colored dense point clouds

>> No.772546

>>772542
This but unironically. And the penis entering the vagina should be a finite element simulation.

>> No.772574
File: 425 KB, 1363x708, DosLwnbVsAAGBLr.png large.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
772574

>>771126
SEETHE harder

>> No.772583

>>772574
Leg anatomy on the inside is wrong. It would take a minute to correct it with sculpting but probably take this guy 30 mins with modelling.

>> No.772589
File: 1.37 MB, 366x556, body.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
772589

>>772583

>> No.772883

>>772589
You got one for face and hands?

>> No.772909

>>771259
>tfw you will never be a jealous leftdroid american english teacher upset that other non-mutt whites are getting laid and not moving to another part of the world to whine about the lack of niggers outside redlight districts

>> No.773930
File: 749 KB, 1918x1020, 1526225549114.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
773930

>>771084

Yes.

>> No.773931 [DELETED] 

>>773930
which app is this ?

>> No.774097
File: 254 KB, 348x365, movie quality.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
774097

>>771844
>>771856
you may not like it but this is what peak /3/ looks like

>> No.774106

>>771874
in all honesty, Higher resolutions only thing they have to offer is highlights, like stars, anything else is wasted as humans notice contrast above all else, and 4k at reasonable viewing distances already vastly outshines our ability to see detail.

from 8k and forward, the they have to focus on quality as resolution is no longer a selling point.

for refresh, military already did tests, humans can distinguish up to 400fps accurately, and while higher refreshes may be noticeable or perceivable, they are dick waving contests. but this was done with VERY high contrast again.

>> No.774113

>>774106
Not to mention that filling an 8k canvas with meaningful detail is getting really exhausting. Our small studio did the 8k switch comparatively late and it's nothing but a struggle since then.

>> No.774122

>>771084
I remember hearing that he got arrested or something for it.
But there's also that one anon that was doing something similar a few years back >>773930

>> No.774133

>>774113
for movies, there is merit in going passed 8k because its what, a 50-100 foot screen if not bigger? but home media, anything over 4k is wasted outside of highlights.

>> No.774168

>>774133
Not really, it depends on the distance to the screen and eyesight. If you sit in the middle or back of a big cinema with an 8K screen you might not see much more than 4K. A person that sits closer to the front might see more detail, but looses sight of the whole. Humans have a very small focus point were they can see everything clear and sharp - the periphery is always blurry and put together by the brain from less image data. Individual eyesight might become the biggest deciding factor, everything above 8K will be a point of diminished returns when taking in context with average eyesight.

>> No.774176

>>774168
I sit back row in my theater, I notice they have to unfocus the projector to try and hide pixels, and given the detail I see in skin, im putting money down on them being 4k.

granted that's my theater I use to go to, if you have bad eyesight, glasses can typically get you to 20/20 unless you are legally blind.

granted, in motion, 24fps imparts so much blur that you see fuck all for detail, I personally see frame rate if they did no post blur on digital, but a shot of a face slow talking, I see the pixels and it annoys me I paid something along the lines of 25-35$ for a worse picture then my tcl 4k at home.

>> No.774185

>>774176
I've never seen actual pixels in a cinema and that's all 4K, 2K even. According to my Doc I have excellent eyesight, but I have to admit I never really see those kind of artefacts unless I concentrate myself on it or something is off (the VFX, the compositing, projection, etc...).
Even the 24 frame stutter on wide shots rotating around is something my brain can filter out. I guess this has to do with state of mind and perception - if I am captivated by the movie or out of. But usually with digital projection in 4K I have no problems with the visual quality.
You probably have good eyes, a great TV and shitty cinemas around you.
Just stay home and keep the money...25-35$? Haha.

>> No.774217

>>774185
yea that's what I've been doing
my eyesight is I thing 20/80 and 20/120, so not great vision though glasses get me to 20/20
that said, I can see 60hz flicker on active shutter glasses, so I notice all the problems with 24fps, and while blur does help, its not killing it.
its one of those things where everythings in motion and its a blurred out mess so it takes me out, or when I notice that there have been 80 cuts in the last minute, I start notice the flaws way to well

but yea, nothing looks like its worth going to the theater for anymore even if we weren't on pandemic time.

>> No.774281

>>774122
I haven't been arrested but I have now bigger plans using Houdini, just don't find the time for it

>> No.774345

>>771126
>normal map alone will give same result
a normalmap would have compression artifacts
vertex and phong interpolation is much cleaner

>> No.774352

>>774122
>Arrested
Why would someone be arrested for that?

>> No.774357

>>774352
Violation of Mathematical Decree regarding Subdivision Surfaces, from 1978-11, aka "Quad Laws".

>> No.774419

>>774352
Creating unchristian works with 3DCoat

>> No.774470

>>774352
I think one of the dudes was in Asia or the Middle East where looking at vaginas is a crime and the lawmen caught on to it and shut that shit down real quick and put the dude in jail for breaking morality laws.
At least that's what I remember hearing. These things can get distorted over time.

>> No.774500

>>772087
>thinks the models used in movie CGI are the highpoly ones modeled down to the skin pores

>> No.774501

>>774217
Imagine, 20/20 is average eyesight

>> No.774509

>>774501
20/20 is what the majority of people see, not the center of a bell curve.

>>774500
yes and no
If it's available to them and there is render budget, they will typically use a mesh so dense that that at the output resolution in wireframe you see nothing but mesh. there are no gaps.

however if blur is attached to it in any way, they go lower poly because it anything they do will be hidden and render times will be lower.

there are some other things that happen, but I can't remember the full process off the top of my head.

>> No.774973

>>773930
Imagine being this autistic about making digital vaginas just for it to look this bad

>> No.776238

>>771084
Source on pic?
Who's the artist?

>> No.776241

>>774973
That's pretty realistic. Most women don't have perfectly straight puffy vaggos.

>> No.776523

>>776241
>Most women don't have perfectly straight puffy vaggo
yeah but they also don't look like whatever the fuck that is

>> No.776528

>>774500
They have a standard everything below a certain size is a bump texture, everything above it needs to be modeled.

>> No.776804

>>771927
How do I learn this power?

>> No.776830

>>774281
Why can't you just cum to something normal

>> No.776867
File: 170 KB, 922x756, Eg1sxVgUYAAvtkq.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
776867

>>771258
>>771084
Call me a noob, but aren't tris bad for animating characters? how come this is pretty much only tris, nonexistent loops, and still it deforms and contorts really well? Is it because of the high polycount?

Still, this guy's stuff is top tier. literal 3D dream level, I wonder if he does straight smut only for himself

>> No.776868
File: 377 KB, 1376x480, DkAj-H7VAAETXIW.png large.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
776868

>>776867
The way this guy only uses vertex normals for shading and no normal or bump maps is pure SOUL.

>> No.776869

>>776868
Agreed. It kinda makes it feel like blender is just useless, how can you compete against something like this?

a-are we never gonna make it, blendbros?

>> No.776870

>>776867
everything gets triangulated in video games
when people say don't have triangles for animation is because in film/animation they subdivide models at render time and having triangles for a model that gets subdivided is what's bad.
Also having stretched out (long) triangles are bad even in games unless it's on a flat surface and doesn't move.

>> No.776877

>>776867
high polycount helps, people keep saying that edgeloops are a must, edgeloops and quads make it easy to control and predict subdivision results, its nice and clean to read, this dude obviously doesn't care too much cause hes not afraid to fuck up the model to get results.

>> No.776879

>>776868
Nah, that's essentially manual, poly-by-poly dynamesh.

>> No.776900

>>771084
This guy has both artistic and technical understanding...which puts him ahead of 99% of other weeb modelers

>> No.776932

>>776879
>>776877

Yeah, now that I'm looking at it a bit closer, it feels like he adds subdivs when and where he needs them. What I'm wondering now is, does he plan this all in advance or is this some type of sick trial-and-error? if it's the latter, I wonder how many cool models he's fucked up beyond repair

>> No.776933
File: 205 KB, 1080x1145, 027BA451-755B-4B00-8F65-0B7B580C89C0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
776933

>> No.776939

>>776932
trial and error is what brainlets do. This guy really understands edge flow.

>> No.776942
File: 67 KB, 233x217, 2Q.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
776942

>>776933
>another "It's coom so it's bad" post

>> No.776944
File: 122 KB, 304x304, 1593136124602.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
776944

>>776939
>This guy really understands edge flow.
Are you trolling, or do you really see some reasoning behind his work?

>> No.776945

>>776867
it's bad if you use subdivision in render

>> No.776946
File: 94 KB, 304x304, 1593136124602~2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
776946

>>776944
Major lines are fine, it literally doesn't matter if half the edges are not hidden the topology is fine. It's obvious that the modeler doesn't need perfectly readable quads to see whats going on with the mesh.

>> No.776947

>>776946
Those are not unhidden subdivision lines, but actual edges partitioning quads. What's the reasoning behind that?

>> No.776973
File: 12 KB, 215x322, 1602017470688.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
776973

>>776944
>t. brainlet

>> No.776974

>>776973
Great demonstration of your knowledge, mate.

>> No.776976

>>776946
>>776944
Post your work here so I can make side-by-side comparisons. You have 72 hours. After that you will labeled as eternal bullshitter and whiny bitch.

>> No.776978
File: 2.00 MB, 378x430, ezgif.com-video-to-gif.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
776978

>> No.776985

>>776976
Totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.

>> No.776988

>>772589
Ah this must be the most efficient way ?

>> No.777003
File: 17 KB, 559x556, 067.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
777003

>>773930
>Pussy_generator

>> No.777008

>>776978
Fuck that's nice deformation

>> No.777009

>>776985
Whiny little bitch

>> No.777012

>>776978
Jesus.
Fuck the tits, I could coom to that deformation alone.

>> No.777019

>>777009
You are the only one whining here, buddy.

As for me, I'm waiting for somebody knowledgeable to explain what advantage there is in modeling like this >>776944. Genuinely curious.

>> No.777026

>>774281
I am serious, please keep us updated. I want to know how far your progress is.

>> No.777042

>>777019
post artstation

>> No.777070
File: 30 KB, 327x280, 1599802428226.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
777070

>>777042
>PoSt ArTsTaTiOn

>> No.777077

>>777070
filtered