It's so simple yet looks great.
I'm gonna cheat and use un-subdivided PS2/Production quality meshes.
It honestly depends because there's so many situations where the term lowpoly specifies a different threshold on the polycount of a model.
In terms of film industry speak lowpoly could be used as the term for a production ready model that has been converted from a model that has millions of polys, made from NURBS, or non-implicit surfaces.
In terms of the game industry in game production low poly is the version of a model that has been baked down from a high poly source that is used in the game. I prefer the term "game poly" since I think it communicates the idea across better and using that instead of low poly would help alleviate the cluttered number of meanings low poly already has.
In terms of an artstyle low poly means literally a model that uses as few triangles (tris) as possible, typically the sweatspot for the amount of triangles used is under 1,000 tris. Generally when it comes to appeal a model that uses as little tris as possible coupled with the lowest resolution necessary while still carrying across a clear and strong design is considering more technically impressive because the art comes from the optimization, mastery, and creative use of limited resources that's a call back to the days of the PS1, N64, and Saturn days of early 3D video game graphics.
One last thing is that there's another definition that low poly (a fake kind of low poly or "faux" low poly) has kind of like in video games but usually more commonly seen in film and abstract art. The style of low poly is more like a kind of minimalism kind of like those 3D renderings of abstract landscapes even though the amount of triangles might actually be pretty high the idea is to create abstraction though simple shapes to create a kind of minimalist or impressionist style seen in fine art.
The thread turned into a low-poly thread?
The old thread was a waifu thread, which included both low-poly and higher poly stuff; it's quite different.
If anything, I'm no longer welcome here since my stuff in the thread was definitely far from low-poly
Playing around in maya trying to get it to render without AA too replicate the viewport look. Not much luck so far.
I like that one. Looks like a kids toy and reminds me of my childhood.
The texture sizes on the model looks ridiculous for that kind of model. I would rather add more detail with a few polygons than have so big textures because thos big textures kinda defeat the point (lowest resource usage possible with best result)
Hey guys, I'm the dude who made the picture OP used. This is my second attempt at making a low poly character. How am I doing now?
Also if you guys have any tips on how to make a decent toonline, it'd be greatly appreciated too.
I should specify that since I'm not home, the shitty texture is made on MS paint (blame my shitty laptop)
UV map before rigging
Basically you want to UV map with your model in it's default pose to minimize texture stretching or squishing, so it's a matter of the state of the model than if it's rigged or not
But let's say you modelled in a really retarded pose, you might want to rig, then pose it to a proper T, A or whatever pose that's more proper, then UV map it
Basically UV map when it's at it's least stretch and squash, usually meaning T or A pose
How Sexy can Low Poly get?
I want to make a game with a simple low poly graphics but I also want a character with high sex appeal
I can fap to it
Just looking for some examples on how to make low poly sexy
I recall some guy I think from here made a Shy girl gif which was pretty hot
This is some good reference, not sure about the tri count, but fuck the tri count, I'm sticking to the original "waifu" thread, not the suddenly "low-poly" thread
Guy is MS901 on tumblr, and he basically makes shit out of the blight of the 3D industry that is the uninspired droll that is RWBY
Being a fucking RWBYfag aside, his shit is pretty cute and effective
>tfw he's probably enjoying all this simple but fun character modelling, and then you're stuck with modelling production shit you don't want to model and is more of a job than the original fulfilling hobby you signed up for
Don't forget side-boob, especially the ever so rare from-behind variant...
I'm sure many people rubbed one out to the strippers in GTA
This can be really neat if all 4 leg animations are timed differently, instead of both of each side completely in sync. It will make it look like it's walking naturally and not marching.
Interesting, though you might want to work on your texture a little bit. The pixels are looking bold and sharp, and that not brilliant (for example in the palms of the hand and the feet)
There's a great reference for pixel art here: http://nexgensprites.com/threads/pixel-logic.50/
Are you baiting or legitimately retarded?
You do realise that they're modelled in quads, like any fucking game, then triangulated, right?
Some models are required to be triangulated prior to being made an asset in an engine, and some (most modern engines) triangulate it in engine itself (quads in, tris out)
Did you purposely triangulate your shit for no reason? Do you understand why some models are triangulated in the first place? If you were trying to decrease tricount on a crate or something from quads, yeah sure I'd see what you're doing, but holy shit sounds like you either modelled using triangles like a madman, or triangulated the mesh for no fucking reason
They are using triangles as they are not doing any deformation of the face. Download the model itself, on the back there is only triangles.
Yes an engine would triangulate quads, but that still doesn't mean that the model isn't using triangles.
So you take back your point then? They DID use quads for the model? Aside from the face, are you trying to say that they're not following quad topology as so it can deform properly?
>I swear to god they did not use quads when they do animal crossing models.
Which I swear to god, is the dumbest thing I've read on /3/, so far
Also post an image of the topo then, and I'll be sure to point out how wrong you are, or how badly worded your original phrase was
Take a look at these. The cuteness comes in from the facial proportions with the eyes-nose-mouth-head combo. Disney characters look cute because the part starting from the eyes to the top of the head is exaggerated and looks bigger like a toddler. Realistic proportions make them look less cute.
So I'd say just play around with the facial proportions like so.
Well thats basically the recipe you need if you wanna get your characters looking cuter and younger.
It's also the space between the mouth and the nose. if you look at the cuter characters like Elsa, Anna, Rapunzel and Cass, you'll see that there is a really small area between the mouth and nose. Also the mouth is relatively smaller.
You should just make these small adjustments and see what it looks like.
some of those are really good
some like the one from tangled or brave or what ever it was called not so much
But entire bottom row is a huge fucking imrpovemnt
Seriously how do I learn Low Poly?
Every time I try to go it I end up going over board and start Sculpting
I want a cute Low poly art style
I don't know if this will be helpful but I tend to think of it in terms how little you can get away with to achieve a certain silhouette from any angle.
So for starters go into it with some 2d art of your character/object and make sure you have a very defined or exaggerated silhouette before you start modeling. Even if I am working form reference and not my own work I will usually draw or redraw a turnaround to make sure the character look distinct with out any fiddly detail. This is good design in general but it will help with making the placement of vertices more obvious.
On top of that I would recommend taking your turnaround and sketching the way you plan to distribute your polygons over it on another layer. That is not strictly necessary but I think it is good practice because your goal to make ever polygon count.
Also its kinda a given but sculpting should not even be in your vocabulary, this is box modeling all they way. So think about best practice for hard edge modeling, like maintaining quads (bullshit but it can help with organization) and thinking about the angel of edges and smoothing groups.
You must think in terms of reduction
Think of the base shape, then try to reduce it to the most primitve shape, which maintaining topology
For me, I learned from having modelled a high poly character and rigged it. From it, I understood how skin weights worked, why edges were where they were, and what was required in a model.
From what I now understand, the new lowpoly model's goal is to be as simple as possible (while retaining what shapes I want) and lowpoly as possible (getting rid of needless edges.
Of course, lowpoly in it's aesthetic won't have a lot of detail, and you'll probably never touch sculpting in a normal case, so try to do it entirely with poly modelling.
Simple simple simple. Keep it simple. Super simple. SImplicity. Keyword. Simplify.
new to cg. How much does triangles fuck up compared to squares when you animate/deform? Making a model, and it has triangles in places that would deform when animated.
English isn't my first language.
Does this count as Low Poly?
I think it looks really good and want to animate like that
according to whom? source please. you plucked a completely arbitrary number form the air and are calling it a standard. Low poly by today's standards would be something used in a phone game, for example, which could be a lot more than 1k.
>Realistic proportions make them look less cute.
Did you mean: less potato?
Your edits are so much better! Literally every single one of your edits is a massive improvement.
Your work wins you a free ticket to >>511093.
P.S. Where did you get the original Disney 3D files from? Are you a wizard? If they are pure 2D morphs, why is there no background distortion?
>P.S. Where did you get the original Disney 3D files from? Are you a wizard? If they are pure 2D morphs, why is there no background distortion?
>If they are pure 2D morphs, why is there no background distortion?
I can't believe I have to share a board with a fucking lost /b/tard
>You turned Disney into Dreamworks.
Seriously??? If anything, Dreamworks is even more potato.
>none of them look any attractive with correct proportions.
Picture: obviously your idea of "attractive".
>being attracted to sharp octagonal asses and pixelated boobs
Low fidelity leaves room for imagination. Reality is often disappointing. The world looks better out of focus. This is why I don't wear glasses.
Wtf? What he actually took home was a lot haweter than what he thought he took home. Can you imagine having intercourse with a woman who's head is the same size as her fucking torso? With limbs that would snap like twigs if you plowed her to hard.
You don't even need a good computer even to do current generation shit. Creating graphic assets for games can be done on a computer much to slow to actually run the game in real-time. Like a single 100000 polygon character will fly trough even a 10 year old computer no problem.
Cute low poly shit can be done without a hick-up on any computer from this century.
I guess I've got brain problems then
I started messing around with low poly in blender but never figured out the best way to render it so just ended up doing full scale cycles renders. low poly, huge textures.
Pic related was copying another persons work while I learnt to use blender, I mainly want to do photorealistic architectural and product renders, but low poly 3d stuff if I were to make a game.
Any tips on making stuff like this? mainly what programs to use and how to render it. I have blender, 3ds max, z-brush. [Only learnt how to use blender but also know how to use inventor and sketchup]
I love shit like this
Here's the original
My computer is an i5 @ 2.7ghz
8gb ddr3 ram
1gb vram [amd 6770]
Moving to nvidya for CUDA cores
Those are just shadeless materials. To make a shadeless material in Blender internal renderer, just check the shadeless option. In Cycles you only need to use an emission node, unless you want to have your mesh in a shaded environment so you can cast shadows and whatnot, then you'd use a node setup like this. But as the image shows, it runs into problems with reflections and transmissions.
>Take care of proportions, they look very different from source, the arms are so tiny and the legs are huge
>I'm pretty sure your left leg being black means your normals are reversed
>Use shadeless material (diffuse, no shadows, max ambient, something like that)
>could i make it work with low-end computers
Yes. As >>511974 said. By '4ram PC', do you mean 4GB? That's more than enough. Do you really think they made N64 or PS1 graphics on 4GB ram machines?
Running the 3D application isn't that intensive in itself, it's the rendering that requires a decent setup. If you're not using lighting or any shaders except flat, this will run fine. Even then, if you're not rendering many animation frames, it's a totally moot point to worry about.
In short, your PC will almost certainly be able to run Blender.
Would this work as a low poly model and if so how would I go about creating it?
I was thinking of exactly that but I've gotten stuck when I realized I have no idea how, after the model is made, I can't use this image for a skin, which seems like a horrible shame.
Right now I am searching for a good video which would help me with accurately skinning this robot.
Welp... I guess I'll have to make a low poly waifu sooner or later.
Okay I made a quick and dirty texture map and I've noticed a problem.
I made this in 3DCoat and I'm rendering in Daz Studio. I used symmetry to create the UV map but for some reason the right side of the model has a distortion on the leg. The distortion isn't where the UV seam is either.
Any idea what's going wonky here?
I redid the the UV maps still no luck.
If I do a bilinear subdivide on it, it gets a little better.
The problem is that when DS goes to render it has to triangulate the quads (all polygons are tris when it's time to render). DS randomly chooses where it will divide each polygon so the symmetry of the model will be broken when it's time to render.
With a high resolution, subdivided model chances are you won't notice the random distortions in the texture map, but the lower the resolution of your model the more apparent the texture map distortions will be because of the random triangulation.
In every 3d program I've used, triangulation has no effect on the UVs as long as none of the verts are moved. Is DAZ different in this respect?
If that's really what's causing the issue, >>512537 might want to triangulate it by hand and then mirror, or use a rendering engine that isn't complete shit.
The triangulation matters to the texture map of the further the corners of a quad are offset from the same plane. If the 4 corners of your quad are square and close to being on the same plane then it won't distort no matter which way the plane is triangulated. But if you have a non square quad with a non planar surface the angle of triangulation will determine if the quad is convex or concave. It's called sheering and the more the sheering the more the texture map will be displaced. The lower the number of polygons the more likely you are to have non-planar surfaces in you're modelling in quads. So if you've got a large non-planar quad in a low poly model you're best to choose for yourself where you're going to triangulate it depending on whether you want the surface to be concave or convex.
Here's a demonstration of planar sheering with identical quads that have been triangulated differently. If the quad is a planar then there is no distortion of the texture map based on the angle of triangulation. If the quad is planar then the texture map distorts depending on whether the triangulation makes the quad convex or concave.
Okay now that I know I have to be extra mindful to planar deviations I was able to correct my geometry. So it turns out the fault was mine.
Man, people aren't kidding when they say low poly modelling isn't as easy as it looks. Now that I got that fixed I'll see if I can't optimize my geometry some more.
Nigga, treads just need to be a texture, don't model each little part.
I made a few low-poly things earlier last year for a game, but never ended up making it.
Having played Rigs of Rods a lot, i am somewhat familiar with ogre.
the dialogue box, text, and logo are on a UI composed of tris in a fixed position in front of the camera. if each section is 2 tris each that only leaves 2 tris unaccounted for, maybe an empty UI element?
The jagged eyes are irritating to look at. You can't really skimp on eyes. If you can't raise the geo there, you should do like they do in video games and use an alpha-masked texture for the eyes.
Really getting an early Seth MacFarlane vibe from those eyes and I don't like that.
Came back to this and fiddling with the textures since I wasn't really happy.
Different girl, cuter face (I think).
just started modeling a month ago and made my first character yesterday loosely based on OP's character. Please give me some advice on how to get better. One thing I have no idea about is UV mapping but it seems I didn't need it after all on this project.
made in maya with toon shader
Working on this in my free time, how do I go about adding clothes, extruding edges?
Quick UV grab
Is it just the edge going into the armpit?
its like skrillex or whatever
so I just realized there are 3k tris on this. I do have a lot of geometry that can be cleaned up but I like the way It looks now so I'm not gonna mess with it too much.
How would I go about removing the middle seam from the leg without using tris?
Also how the fuck do I model boobs?
breasts deform nothing like bags of sand, and you need to consider their shape, where they sit on the rig cage, the position of the nipple, how far down the chest the bottom of the breast attaches. These all contribute to the shape of a breast.
You guys got any references or tutorials on how to have super expressive, low/game res cartoony faces? On both the modeling and rigging side.
The character seen primarily in this video is the style of "cartooniness" that I'm asking for.
Probably only mildly relevant, but morph targets are pretty good for cartoony faces.
Failing that, give them big googly eyes. That's how Rare did it.
New Wow models are much sexier than old Wow models.
Who /towergirls/ here
May or may not model her sister next
It's a CYOA waifu chart you can find a general of on /tg/
If I'm not wrong, Gen 1 - 3 is designed and drawn by Gats, which I must say, has one hell of an eye for character design
Simple and effective designs, give it a look
They all have big fat titties anon, unless you mean Dragon Princess III, who is the biggest fattest tittiest dragon
got myself into another game jam, but im liking how this is turning out
I box-model and make a quad-based base with my rough polycount in mind, but I just get the shape and edgeflow and stuff like limb deformation loops in. Then I basically just keep reducing the polycount by welding things and using more tris and adjust as I go until I'm happy it's as low as I can possibly get it while still keeping the shape I wanted and it still resembles the "guide" topology I used as a base.
You can also view it via Sketchfab, along with a .gif turnaround on Artstation
(Viewing the wireframes on Sketchfab will be a bit odd since the outlines is a duplicate of the mesh, resulting in double lines, but you can examine it more intricately then)