http://www.precise3dmodeling.com/

[Shinigami]

now why do you want a good 3d model for free? this way you demonstrate you have no respect for their work. i can't stand people who want things for free. everything must be paid(with the exception when the author works for free on purpose). it is a lot of work in creating such a model, alot of time spent and you take their work for free..nobody is a slave

 

Men you don't have to be so rude, I was just asking.

 

Also I only wish you that you alwai have money in your pocket to pay for everything

 

On the other hand it seem that my culture is different than your's cause for me giving something that I have and somebody needs is very gratifying. If it cost me work is even better cause it has much more value. I also cat stand gays like you that want money for every thing they do for other. For me is more important to gain a firend than to charge for something that I do.

 

And as I told it was for a fanart movie, in fanart movies you don't charge for see it you do it for the joy of seeing your mates like it and enjoy it. That's way I don't have money for doing so. Is only for fun.

 

Shinigami Out...

 

Sorry my english

[john_X]

yes we are very different as culture. in my country we are not paid for our work, as in other countries the average salary is paid in thousands of euro, in my country the salary is numbered in hundreds, 2-3 more exactly. that's why many persons coming from this part of the world think as i do, and that's why we put so much price on not working for free. so i'm not overreacting if you see me in the real situation i'm living in, although it may seem strange for guys like you. anyway i don't blame you for this so don't bear grudge on me

[213]

those helicopter models are too detailed. i think they will be used for the normal maps. will they make also high polygon ka50 for upgrade black shark normal maps?

 

it looks like it has specular map, but no normals right now. same for some of the other high res vehicles.

 

maybe they will take existing model subdivide polygon for added detail and derive normal maps from that.

[TOMCATZ]

Very good work - That F22, isn`t it? That guys allways be a good benchmark and inspiration I think.

[DetroitDieseL]

Very good work - That F22, isn`t it? That guys allways be a good benchmark and inspiration I think.

 

I agree with you 1000%- They have pushed me to better myself-

 

Seeing this Raptor only makes me feel like I have a ways to go............:book:

[john_X]

the model itself from precise3dmodeling is very good and anybody can reach that level by making a very-very realistic texture. of course the 3d model is an important part of the job too, but i think that an accurate low-poly model that has a realistic texture can easily look like that. in my opinion texture is 70% important in making a model look realistic and only 30% is the 3d. one advantage they have and we can't reach is the rendering engine that is limited in fc2 because it doesn't allow bump maps and specular maps. of what i've seen DCS has this option but i'm not sure.

[TOMCATZ]

I`m totally agree with johnX : The texture is the most importent part for a good model.

[Mugenjin]

Also lighting is very important to make something look realistic.

[aaron886]

texture is 70% important in making a model look realistic and only 30% is the 3d.

 

That is just not true. A critical eye is going to see the lack of detail in the shaping, distortion in the reflec lines, and unshadowed parts of a model that attempts to use texturing or bump mapping in place of polygons. They are devices for reducing poly count because you MUST, in order to achieve smooth real-time rendering. There is a reason why professional companies that produce these models for big-name clients to use in still renders and movies use high poly counts... because they can, and it produces the best result.

 

"Low poly" all too often becomes an excuse.

[OldCrow]

In renders like these, the materials helps you alot aswell (reflections, refractions), along with global illumination. And ofcorse, polycount isnt really an issue in that cenario. I recently started working making renders for a company that designs ships, and its not uncommon the poly count will be quite high indeed, in fact to the point where you will see the result on rendering time. But thats also just about what limits the poly count in that situation. Textures helps alot ofcorse, but they are more important in a game then in a render I would say. For some of the ships I've rendered, we've only used materials alone, and it gives quite good results depending on the rendering engine. Then again, panel lines, weathering etc etc wasnt really an issue in that situation. I guess what Im trying to say is that textures are very important for a game, but so is a detailed 3d model. If you lack one of them, the result may be poor.

[213]

the reason you can paste these models under carefully blended lighting conditions onto a real picture and have it look almost indistinguishable from the real thing is because of both the texture and the incredible detail put into the models. putting a percentage like 30:70 ratio is a bit silly imo. it's really not quantifiable.

 

you cannot get something to look photo realistic if you're missing a certain part or if the edge of one section is too sharp due to lack of polygon.

[john_X]

recently i observed 2 models. very good models. one of them had about 15k polys and the other was 120k both having modeled all the parts and a very accurate shape. the differences between them were the details that the second model had and the realistic and accurate texture that the low-poly model had. the first model, with a good texture and lowpoly but accurate was way-better than the other, looking closer to the reality. for making game models i believe that details (like screws) are not necessary because they aren't visible, you can include them by texture and have even a better result. for professional renderings they may be good but even there you must take a very close shot to see them. in reality details are there but you won't see them in a flying f-16. you know those details exist but you are only able to see them only at an airshow in the parking area where you can touch the plane. and by trying to model all those details, i've seen models who had parts oversized just to make them visible(unconciously). i'm sure it's vaery hard to scale a small piece to be proportional to the real model.

Edited July 3, 2011 by john_X

[TOMCATZ]

Yeah johnX - Thats absolutely my philosophie. Well, today the main processors have a very good architecture and can handly a lot of informations in real-time. And the graphic-cards are very strong today- So if there enough RAM and data bus , models which have arround 100k faces and two or four 2048x2048 the most PC-systems will work with it without problems. Higher counted models should be used for renderings nowadays.

 

In my intention ist it not a big deal to create models while using hundredthousands of polygons. The real artists are able to create very good looking models with a low numbers of polygons. And the old ED models are very very good- The Hornet still the Masterpiece...

 

 

 

My very best wishes,

TOM

[213]

you can optimize a high polygon model down into a low poly one. this is how models are done for modern games. a high polygon model is an absolute must as they are used to bake normal maps which contribute greatly to how light interacts with it.

 

that comment about "real artists" is totally wrong. without the guy making high polygon stuff, none of the rivets and details of the a10 would show up in normal map. you'll have a perfectly flat plane like in lock on.

 

besides, in those comparisons you provided, the canopy of the hawk model looks so much better than the lock on version. explain how textures will help if they made the canopy all flat and boxy when it should be round and smooth?

 

also: nice textures, but poor model. this is what happens:

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd251/biggunner1945/2009-4-10_13-34-47-86.jpg

Edited July 4, 2011 by 213

[aaron886]

that comment about "real artists" is totally wrong.

 

Have to agree. Tom, you make some respectable models and generously do it for the community for free, but they're not always the paragon of accuracy or efficiency, regardless of whether they're low-poly. There's a fine line between modeling low-poly and under-modeling. There has to be some level of accuracy met at the cost of polygons, and it's going to be somewhere near 100,000 faces for the highest LOD by today's standards. Anything less than that for a primary scene object is probably under-modeled and needs more care. The key to efficiency isn't just modeling everything low-poly... good performance is a factor of careful LOD creation.

 

(Purely intended as an unbiased critique, of course!)

 

To me, the nose of this F-15 is an example of under-modeling. Rather than just cutting polygons from everywhere possible, more careful arrangement of the mesh will give you a smoother, more accurate model. (This nose suffers from misshaping and bad shading/normals, but with a minimal addition of polygons, if any, it could be made more accurate and smoother looking.)

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/7095/screenshot177z.jpg

 

 

The Fishbed in this screenshot is a better example of low-poly modeling, although more detail is not going to hurt, assuming LODs are used. There are no smoothing errors readily apparent on the model, but more modeled detail would improve that sense of immersion. (The Hornet is both inaccurate and mis-shaped, but that's neither here nor there.)

http://seveng-f18.com/images/23.jpg

 

 

This is ~100,000 triangles/80,000 polygons (at the highest LOD,) and while not perfectly efficient or accurate, I think it's a fair example of a balance between efficient polygon usage and detail/accuracy.

 

http://www.virtualblueangels.net/ftpmain_members/beaker/screenshot_422.jpg

 

If LODs are carefully made, the second LOD might only be about 75,000, the third 25,000, and so on. The full 100,000 might only be seen in close exterior views and in formation, where the detail is a must. In terms of professional-quality work in 2011, any detail less than that is just not enough for an object that is going to dominate any scene it's in. 5,000 triangles might be enough for an aircraft model in a first-person shooter, but not in a flight simulator.

[TOMCATZ]

Hi aaron,

 

yes- youre right. The nose of my old F-15 model looks terrible. It is a good examble. I think my latest model looks a little bit better as the older ones ...

 

This is an examble for a 60k faces model. Damage model plus weapons plus squadron markings in the result around 100k polygons.

 

 

 

 

Works very well. I tryed the brandnew ED-F15 StrikeEagle. 280k faces per model so my frames scated down to frames per year ( a short battle: four Strike Eagles against four Eagles with shadows, fog, clouds, enemys , fired missiles) However: 100k should be good and okay- I agree :thumbup:

Very nice Hornet model - I like the canopy -looks great.

My best wishes,

TOM

[aaron886]

That does look much better. The shape of the nose is still a little off but the smoothing is much improved! Nice detail on the radome.

[DetroitDieseL]

I agree that textures do have alot to do with selling a realistic model- although I also agree that if not used in a game engine- unless it is a powerful engine that high poly models are better for rendering or animations-

 

These guys obviously strive for highly realistic models and maybe did not want to sacrifice that detail in thier models for this engine-

[john_X]

the reality is that you must find a middle way. my f-16 is 25k polys without damage model but i think you won't find a better model because in the enitire time that took me to model this i tried to put those polys exactly where it was needed. the thing is you will put your polys on the round areas and more important ones like next ones: nose, cockpit canopy(which it has a reflection that stands out lack of polys), wheels and any other rounded parts. where you have a flat part is useless to insert them. this way you won't get off 50k at most, and this for a big airplane.tomcatz if you put a wire with that MD from a side view i'll show you some things...

[aaron886]

my f-16 is 25k polys without damage model but i think you won't find a better model

 

:doh:

[TOMCATZ]

Hi,

 

everybody still have his own philosophie- I respected it all alltimes. However: If you create a fuselage with 70k polygons, your options for damage model, markings , pilots and all the other things you need runs out. So when somebody create a model with all that things and has at the end a result about 100k polygons at all : he did a good job.

But you still have to use tree or four LOD models as well. Otherwise you will hit the hardware or get a system chrash while flying with other fighters through the clouds or taxiing to runway.

So back to precise3dmodeling : The Su35 model looks very cool and have arround 34k faces- That model is useable for DCS or LOMAC. Including damage model which somebody have to implement the count of faces should grow up to 80-100k. Thats okay.

The Globemaster is outstanding! With arround 97k faces it could work in DCS but you have to use a lot of LOD`s too.

 

So overall: It isn`t a mistake to hold the polycount down but we can go up to 100k or more while using a lot of LOD`s nowadays.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1240753#post1240753

My 2 cents and sorry for my grammar...

best wishes,

TOM

[HungaroJET]

http://precise3dmodeling.com/

 

[aap_flanker]

the reality is that you must find a middle way. my f-16 is 25k polys without damage model but i think you won't find a better model because in the enitire time that took me to model this i tried to put those polys exactly where it was needed. the thing is you will put your polys on the round areas and more important ones like next ones: nose, cockpit canopy(which it has a reflection that stands out lack of polys), wheels and any other rounded parts. where you have a flat part is useless to insert them. this way you won't get off 50k at most, and this for a big airplane.tomcatz if you put a wire with that MD from a side view i'll show you some things...

 

I agree :thumbup:

[EAKMotorsports]

Precise3dmodeling

 

http://precise3dmodeling.com/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyone knows about this company if they want to make some models for DCS

Edited October 4, 2013 by EAKMotorsports

[SkateZilla]

Im pretty sure they've dealt with them already