[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG

4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]

4chan Virtual YouTuber Contest - Submit Designs Here

Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks Make sure to check your spam box!

[Catalog] [Archive]

File: designer.jpg (166 KB, 837x399)
166 KB
166 KB JPG
I'm following a basic(ish) tutorial for Substance Designer, and I immediately noticed that while in the tutorial the viewport is returning a very defined material, mine looks flat and barely shaded (looks like his has AO and self-shadowing), yet our graphs are pretty much exactly the same (flat colour into colour, clouds with gradient adjustment into normal and height map). So what gives? I've looked all over for options I may have missed but I haven't found anything, the only thing that kinda helps is turning it to iRay rendering, which both takes ages and doesn't make it even half as sharp as his is anyway (and it's not that anyway as his is real time).

Turning tessellation on didn't help either, even pushing it to max didn't change anything, the issue seems to be one of shadows, normals, and AO.
1 reply omitted. Click here to view.
Tried that, sadly did not help much, my material still looks very flat. I think it's something to do with AO or self-shadowing, as the height info is definitely there and can be seen with tessellation, but it still looks flat.

There is also that his material has no base colour yet looks like in the OP, yet mine without base colour is way too dark to see anything properly on it, but I assume that's just something to do with his being an older version, possibly they changed the default look of a material without base colour.
File: Capture.jpg (20 KB, 701x559)
20 KB
This is what a completely empty material looks to me in the latest version.

To me it looks like the only real difference for images in the OP is height amount and light angle.
File: help 1.png (3.9 MB, 3424x1382)
3.9 MB
3.9 MB PNG
Not related to op's problem
But anyone know why i get the white bar over the picture when i render in Substance Painter?
Maybe try tweaking normal intensity? There's also a possibility you're indeed doing something different than the tutor.
Tried all that, nothing, nada. Today I start up Designer again, and it looks way better, I fuck with the lighting a bit, and sure enough it's fixed (doesn't look as sharp as the tutorial, but I think that's down to some more tweaking).

Thanks, something I did in there must have changed whatever the issue was, and I guess rebooting my graphics drivers led to it displaying properly now.

File: 346643363636.jpg (104 KB, 800x400)
104 KB
104 KB JPG
Are you using the sculptis pro feature in Zbrush (2018)? People have made it sound like a gamechanger
5 replies omitted. Click here to view.
Meant for >>642607 of course.
Fucking rageposting because I loved that program and still do.
It's like notepad for sculpting. Just straight to the point without any bullshit or distractions. Light and super fast.
yeah its pretty fuckin good man

That's normal. Zbrush is the industry leading sculpting app, of course they'll put the best tech they own into it instead of kepping it exclusive to their blendlet-tier freeware only moralfags use.
You'd probably also sell your mom if it was normal in the industry (and she was worth anything)

What was deleted.

Also that story is fucked up, Every time i try to get in zBrush i get a headache from the nonsense UI.
So making Mudbox work, it getting voxels now is nice, the only major thing missing to make it a tad better is merging stuff.

Anything to get closer to dynamesh in a way.

I'm asking because I wanna do something like this for a game.
16 replies and 3 images omitted. Click here to view.
Shut up you meme loving fuck
File: 1385478848390.gif (1.01 MB, 400x296)
1.01 MB
1.01 MB GIF
>being this DONKED
ZOOMER detected
>gets triggered from playful banter spawned only within this thread and nowhere else on 4chan
reading comprehension suffering a little bit there, my guy
Posting to get a "donked" response lol.

File: fachada frontal.jpg (34 KB, 800x450)
34 KB
Hi guys, what do you think about this render ?
Needs particle grass. There are some tuts about using hair particles to make realistic grasses. Also, add some displacement to the ground and the top of the exterior stone walls. Natural objects shouldn't be flat or straight.
Make your sunlight or HDRI brighter.
Stop using biased renderers
the materials, textures and modeling seem good.

what i don't like is the render resolution, the noise and the flat lightning. the background should get more attention as well.
like that guy said, try to play around with your exposure. but that might be a cheap-out when it comes to lightning a scene. - i suggest you make a day and night versions, this will improve your overall ability to make atmospheres.

File: qstgr.jpg (52 KB, 782x543)
52 KB
been creating all the generals myself edition

previous: >>633468

This thread is for any simple questions you might have about [technique] or [software]. If you think you have a question that deserves its own thread, such as thoughts on [new technology], etc., by all means go ahead and create your own! Otherwise, please post in this thread.
312 replies and 76 images omitted. Click here to view.
> What are the best asset marketplaces to throw your assets on, Preferably ones with lots of users and smallest cuts of the profit.
No, just crack it
File: Poke1.jpg (116 KB, 944x395)
116 KB
116 KB JPG
I have a question about Corrective keys/Drivers/

On this character, I have a corrective key to fix the leg, however. when I rotate the Pelvis its incorrectly moving the shape key. But I have the bone correctly and the driver. but I dont know if I'm doing it right.
Small update. I havn't found the solution. but apparently. it does this when you have a bone constraint on the shape key.
sorry my guys didn't realise we hit bump since this thread was so slow
refreshed here: >>642999

File: a38.jpg (40 KB, 1024x962)
40 KB
How hard is it to learn 3D modeling? I have absolutely zero experience on it, i'm just interested in it because it seems fun
22 replies and 3 images omitted. Click here to view.
if by "look just like that" you mean twice as good then yes
>3d modeling is the easy part UV wnwrapping, rigging, and shaders are the hard part.
This is stupid, you have to consider all these things while modeling, it's all one thing.
File: wisepepe.jpg (21 KB, 320x320)
21 KB
I'm no pro, but the biggest challenge for me is managing my expectations. I often set the bar way too high for myself. My suggestion is to set a reasonable goal for yourself. What do you want to be good at modelling? For me, I want to be able to make high quality military aircraft models. I'm a long ways away from realizing what I call "high quality," but that's the goal I've set for myself, its the prize I'm working for and it keeps me on task.

The reason I say all of this is because 3d modelling encompasses a great number of things. Do you want to make characters? Look at sculpting. Does hard-surface (vehicles, firearms, objects) appeal to you? Then look for tutorials on box modelling and topology. Whatever goal you set for yourself, the skills you learn achieving that goal can be transferred to what you want to do next. You aren't locked into hard surface modelling because you want to make cool cars. Much of what you learn about topology will be very useful in other aspects like character design. And, needless to say, you can experiment with modelling other stuff.

The point is, anon, that 3d modelling is only as hard as you make it. If you set reasonable learning goals like: "I want to make a coffee cup for my first model," you will learn the skills to do that and be able to work towards a higher goal. But, if you're like me and set goals like: "I want to make a photorealistic F-22 in 2 hours, you'll disappoint yourself."

The processes of learning is as much about shaping polygons as it is yourself.

Either way, Blender is free, so there's no excuse to not download it and give modelling a shot. It can be incredibly rewarding, my dude.
It's easy as fuck to learn basic modeling. Being actually good at 3D modeling is hard and applying your skills and learning to become proficient at creating really impressive shit is difficult and time consuming.
It's easy to learn stuff when you have an actual objective, so find something you really want to model and do it. e.g. a model for a videogame mod.
half life 2?

File: 1458063413058.png (3.02 MB, 1920x1080)
3.02 MB
3.02 MB PNG
Newbie here.

Just installed 3ds max, opened it - everything looks glorious, but Im looking at it like an indian, but really excited. Im about to watch 15+ hours worth of tutorials from lynda.com just to learn the very basics. I know it wont take me a day or a week to learn, I will study and practice for a year even if it means making the perfect sphere or a donut.

My question it, I really like this as a new hobby to learn, but as in every hobby you want to get better and maybe monetize it when you start achieving some decent results. Other than gaming and film making, where else 3d art can be used? My wife is a designer, designing kitchens but she is mainly drawing by hand. Can 3ds max be used to design furniture, interrior etc., or it is mostly for the gaming niche? Also, what other directions there are to choose?
Please, advice a beginner on everything you wish you knew when you were starting. Yes, I read the sticky, and Im going to be looking all the images in the sticky thread.
7 replies and 2 images omitted. Click here to view.
>What you want to do is check out and learn the core principles of 3D, get a grip on them and slowly incorporate all of it in your work.

As a noob Im really having a hard time understanding from where should i begin. I just started learning the program itself as a tool and mostly watching tutorials on what it can do and what I can do at my noobish level so far, so I can practice with the tool and stuff ive learned.
I am totally up to learn the core principles of 3d first, thats why I posted a thread so you can hint me where and with what should I start, maybe post some authors or names so I can start from A-B-C not from D-E-F

You mentioned to pick small projects, where can i pick them?? is there any workbook or place with tasks for beginners to do in order to get the hang of the things and learn while in the process? Or should I come up with the tasks myself for now?
>Im kinda confused now as to what program should I use
I will give you a honest answer.

As a basic rule of thumb: It doesn't matter. Absolutely nobody gives a flying fuck what programs you use if your final product is good. The only thing that matters is what YOU feel comfortable with.

Which leads to a different point: People tend to use different programs for different stages of the production. You sound like a not so dumb guy with the ability to acquire knowledge yourself, so I'm positive you will learn about all the programs in time. You will also quickly learn that in 3D you will constantly need to learn new programs, new interfaces, new techniques etc. because it is an evolving field. As in any art practice, there is no 100% right or wrong. You can achieve the same result in a dozen different ways. It just so happens that some programs have been used for decades, while others are fairly new and thus there is bias and preference wars.

If you really feel shaken by the number of options out there, maybe take some time out and first get an overview of what options you have, what you want to achieve and the easiest way to do so. Generally 3D has become a lot easier and beginner friendly than it was 10 years ago. Anyone can do it today. If you're dedicated, you can create shit on a pro level within a year or so.

Don't be discouraged. You've already discovered the key forward: Practice, practice, practice.
forgot this:

>maybe post some authors or names so I can start from A-B-C not from D-E-F
If you want to get into Zbrush, I highly recommend Michael Pavlovich. He has a Youtube channel with tons of beginner classes and IMHO he's an awesome guy since he offers quality education for free. Check him out only to get a grip of what Zbrush is and what it means to sculpt.

Most importantly have fun.
Pretty good for first two days.
>Used boxes and spheres to create that, I cant imagine how hard it is to create more advanced things like characters. Rocket science indeed.
Starting with basic shapes like that is fine for many things, however characters and other organic objects are typically made using entirely other methods, such as sculpting, which lets you get the shape you want without really having to "model" per se, because most sculpt packages today let you create things without having to worry about how they mesh is constructed, they do it for you.

>As a noob Im really having a hard time understanding from where should i begin. I just started learning the program itself as a tool and mostly watching tutorials on what it can do and what I can do at my noobish level so far, so I can practice with the tool and stuff ive learned.
The thing is that Max, like many other content creation programs, encompass an incredible amount of different fields of 3D to fulfill everyone's needs, so you do have to really consider the type of work you want to focus on, because otherwise you'll end up pulling yourself into more directions than you can handle. Even if the average 3D artist nowadays utilizes 3-4 different programs, each for their specialized tools, you're only ever using maybe 10% of their full toolset, the ones you really need.

Also, /3/ tends to be slow as fuck, so I'd suggest you join a discord group if you want more immediate feedback, (3D discords are still slow AF), but here's one of the larger ones: https://discord.gg/fuZfX9x
Thanks, I joined the group. Im glad I dont need to study and practice animation if this is not my final goal in working with this program. The possibilities in the program are indeed enormous, the only limit is your phantasy.
Also cheers to the anon who recommended Michael Pavlovich, he really got me into zbrush and i installed the program, but compared to Max its really confusing so im reading a guide to it.

Meanwhile, Im still practicing in max. Thanks for the support anons. With every new thing learned Im liking more and more this.

File: Darwin.png (328 KB, 385x502)
328 KB
328 KB PNG
Hi there i'm looking to obtain a downloadable 3D model of charles darwins bust from this model (that is non downloadable) https://sketchfab.com/models/57a034ef11ce40449f7c95653c370cc5 help will be appreciated.
11 replies and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
How do you open that file? I get error that it is damaged.
would you be able to upload the file pls? thank you for contributing
i just downloaded it on chrome and it opened i'm not sure but yeah there are artefacts
Can it be done with any Sketchfab scene? I tried downloading it by finding it in the network tab in dev tools, but it doesn't won't to unzip correctly.
is not zipped, just delete the .gz extension: model.bin.gz is actually model.bin

File: RENDER_TIME.png (744 KB, 1920x1080)
744 KB
744 KB PNG
Does anyone know how to speed up volumetric rendering in Blender?

I have this client project rendering, but holy shit, it's literally been going for 30 hours now. I know the biggest culprit is the volumetrics in the scene, which also prevented me from using my GPU as less than half way in to rendering, I would get memory errors each of the 3 times I tried to render it over night.

This guy loves the volumetrics in scenes and I know he is going to want more for the other stuff I make for him. I can't do this 30+ hours every render for him. Especially now that it's Monday and I have other clients waiting on me for stuff. I don't know if I should kill the render now and waste 30 hours to keep other clients happy and potentially figure out something to speed this up or let it run the other 15 hours it says it needs and just do what I can to keep my other clients patient. I am already dreading what this can do to my electric bill as I have never had to wait longer than 7 hours for something to render before, im usually pretty good about keeping my scenes somewhat optimized.
21 replies and 2 images omitted. Click here to view.
File: 1503442890238.jpg (2 KB, 119x125)
2 KB
>What is this, 8px per CPU?
Offload the render to the cloud. You can rent 30 hours on a 8 core virtual machine for like 10 dollars (if that).
>I've figured out a workflow for making pixel art from renders
Can you tell me? I'm interested
You are rendering with your CPU. Get a decent GPU or two and watch it fly.
The hell you talking about? If it's a single frame render you use the zdepth map in Photoshop, a cloud texture and you paint a mask over the areas you want it. Then you use overlay and paint some light cones or whatever light sources you want to get that effect. Use a dust texture before it to add an atmosphere and your light will look even better

File: model.jpg (260 KB, 1000x563)
260 KB
260 KB JPG
rate pls
7 replies omitted. Click here to view.
>rate pls

You have a good base. Now start working on the details. Chamfers, bevels, (door handles ?) then start texturing and work with normal maps.

The front looks good but the sides and top frame looks off somehow. The most glaring 'mistake' is the overtly apparent dissonance in detail between the tires and the car. The tires look pretty much perfect, but the car is too plastic-y.

Also is that supposed to be the Initial D car?
... oh and just for the record, I was only talking about the model itself. The materials are absolute ass, but I take it that's normal at this stage.
the model doesn't look great. post wires and a few angles to get a more detailed critique.

also remember that a mediocre model with great lighting accomplishes more than a great model with mediocre lighting. that's not an excuse to suck at modeling, of course, but your overall scene is very weak. the bright floor with a drab grey back wall + the stark, sharp soft box edges scattered haphazardly across your reflections screams amateur hour.

don't get discouraged, though. if you keep at it you have the potential to gitgud
Like jeez, I'm not good with materials either (part of why I never really post things on /3/), but the glass looks too shiny for how transparent it's supposed to be. And as >>642400 said, the backdrop could use some more work to it too.

File: Mastery.jpg (40 KB, 614x514)
40 KB
Is there such a thing as Mastery with 3D.

Is this field merely a technical stepping stone, part of a greater whole of a greater entity?

After modeling buildings-military planes finally sat down to do characters only to find i had to not only stop to learn human anatomy but to draw. using it as a means of studying structure and form, using it to prototype ideas before even needing to sculpt.

This suggests to me 3D is just a small part of the larger field of "Art", The good 3D artists all know these things and are experienced 2D artists as well.

Are we wasting our time learning more and more technical application specific information; instead of learning Art fundamentals and merely using 3D quick tool at the end?

Why didn't you tell me /3/ !
1 reply omitted. Click here to view.
>Is there such a thing as Mastery with 3D.

no, plain and simple
hmm, well said.
The main issue is makign a career of it from scratch, I don't see anyone in the threads telling new guys to learn to draw properly etc.
No one's a master everyone is learning everyday
No, that's why 3D generalists are poor bastards who will never have a single minute of freetime for their entire careers. 3D as a whole is simply too complex and diverse for one person to "master" everything.
MFW is generalist, only now i'm realizing that i should have been a specialist with animation and paid some shmucks to model and rig shit for me.

FML i've done more modeling than animating all year.

File: Neuromancer_Square.jpg (1.42 MB, 2000x2000)
1.42 MB
1.42 MB JPG
Ok, this guy made some impressive shit with Blender

12 replies and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
>only final result matters
>mind blown
A lot of artists do not understand this.
>>only final result matters
>ironically posting Marcel Duchamp's performance
how original of you anon
That's a photograph.

File: Cheeto.jpg (1.11 MB, 2000x1429)
1.11 MB
1.11 MB JPG
As soon as you add hair particles, render times go to absolute shit. Thought all the CUDA faggotry would have fixed that.
17 replies and 3 images omitted. Click here to view.
Mind the hardware limitations.
Approximation, dumbfuck.
yeah because it takes longer shithead
Yeah, the fact that some shots may take more than 32 GB in RAM doesn't have any weight.

Every worthwhile GPU renderer has out-of-core memory systems, the VRAM argument is dead.

File: afs.png (575 KB, 578x749)
575 KB
575 KB PNG
Looking for a free .PDF copy of this book, but it's been pretty nasty to find. Do any anons have?
It's on Library Genesis.
this website is 18+
File: 1234567890.jpg (349 KB, 3840x2160)
349 KB
349 KB JPG
have a look at cgpeers
This time try with your brain turned on.

File: body.jpg (807 KB, 1920x1325)
807 KB
807 KB JPG
so I noticed a lot of people going straight into z-brush for modeling. I still use box modeling for my models. Pic related. What would you recommend: creating a model via box modeling and then add some details in zbrush or start straight in zbrush? Or leave out zbrush completely?
2 replies omitted. Click here to view.
I find scaling a few spheres and boxes into place in Maya first then taking into Zbrush, dynamesh and start working is a bit faster than doing it all in zbrush. Still very clunky to do simple xforms in that program. I don't try to do any sort of topology before the sculpt but a little box modeling to get things going is easier for me.
so does it not matter if you do boolean operations before sculpting from the resulting mesh? Would I need to have sculptis pro to not worry about my base mesh topology, or I can use something in Zbrush Core?
Topology is irrelevant for something you are going to dynamesh. Dynamesh is in core so you're fine doing it that way.
ok, sounds great, does dynamesh merge parts of sculps? like if I have e.g. toes really close to each other, would they get melted and welded?
Yes, the way dynamesh works is similar to voxelization, so at lower densities features close to one another will merge, you would have to use higher density values increase mesh accuracy. This is still pretty useful in situations where you actually do want to merge together meshes, because it means you can just bash together shapes and it will unite them for you.

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.