Posts from Modding

Here is the helmet that was in that archive, already processed.
https://yadi.sk/d/gQltgaWptEjm8g



However, it is somewhat angular.

Just the other day, I was editing the model of Archers and their variations and "borrowed" the helmet from the Crossbowmen; it is more... streamlined... Just in case, I will post it.

https://yadi.sk/d/AoBHSKuQa_DZbw

Let me share a secret: these models have the same angularity. There's one peculiarity with psatkha's models – the polygons are shaded diagonally, which makes the model look angular (not all models have this problem). When I was making the Ifrit, I stole the head model (I often do this, and I feel guilty about it). Then I processed it in Maya, and MIRACULOUSLY, the polygons stopped being shaded! It must be a bug in the program that the model was processed in.

Let me share a secret: these models have the same angularity. There's one peculiarity with psatkha's models – the polygons are shaded diagonally, which makes the model look angular (not all models have this problem). When I was making the Ifrit, I borrowed the head model (I often do this, and I feel guilty about it). Then I processed it in Maya, and lo and behold, the polygons stopped shading! It must be a bug in the program that the model was processed in.

Because of their angularity, I don't particularly like the models by psatkha (seriously, I had the impression that they either reduced the number of polygons or disabled smoothing), but I still don't understand if it's possible to convert the model without angularity?

If you don't like it, don't use it! No one is forcing you to use my models! By the way, where exactly in the GAME (not in the editor) were clearly defined edges noticed?!

Yes, Alias Maya 6.0 has a smoothing mode! By the way, where exactly in the GAME (not in the editor) were clearly defined edges noticed?!

Here are 3 examples: 1 with mirror reflection, 2 and 3 with gloss reflection. With gloss reflection, is the angularity not noticeable at all? On the other hand, the angularity is not noticeable when no reflection is used at all.

Here are 3 examples: 1 with mirror reflection, 2 and 3 with gloss reflection. With gloss reflection, the angularity is not noticeable at all, right? On the other hand, the angularity is not noticeable when no reflection is used at all.
[/IMG]
[/IMG]

Let me share a secret with you: these models have the same angularity.

but I still don't understand if it's possible to convert the model without angularity?

Well, you could say that they have the same number of facets (except for the horns and the crest) - that's true, but the helmet of the Archers has smoother facets, and it's not even about the shading. And they also have almost the same number of polygons (due to the crest and horns, the second one has slightly more).

For comparison

I resaved the helmet using Maua, and the shadows normalized.

now I'm going to nitpick

the crossbowman's helmet can't be smoother because it has the same height, width, and polygon count as the other one; they are identical. the problem lies in the shadows. if you take a screenshot and remove the shadows, you'll get almost the same picture (not counting the horns and crest sticking out behind the hexagonal hemisphere).

Has the number of vertices and faces changed?!

I don't need you to try to prove that a square and a cube are the same shape because there is a difference between them, and there is also a difference between these helmets...

Without shadows, the helmet with the crest looks more streamlined; there's no arguing that, but its polygon-defined shape remains the same.

Just enlarge the image and look carefully at the arrangement of faces on one helmet and the other, at the arrangement of polygons and connections; their geometric shape, although not drastically, is different.

No, it's the same helmet; I just resaved it (I'm a complete novice in modeling; I don't know how to add faces or cut off unnecessary parts).

There are indeed differences; it's a matter of preference – I sometimes neglect small details, which is why I might treat a cube and a square as equivalent.

Well, of course, it's obvious, I just forgot that it's a favorite activity of the forum participants :smile52:



There's no need to try to prove to me that a square and a cube are the same shapes, because there is a difference between them, and there is also a difference between these helmets...

Without shadows, the helmet with a crest looks more streamlined, there's no arguing that, but its shape, defined by polygons, remains the same.

Just enlarge the image and look carefully at the arrangement of faces on one helmet and the other, at the arrangement of polygons and connections, their geometric shape, although not drastically, is different.



Otherwise, each of us will stick to our own opinion, I don't see the point in discussing it, especially since footman just asked to process the model, which was done.