Proposed Topology thread change.

# 1 31-01-2007 , 07:54 AM

Subscriber
Join Date: Feb 2005

Location: Sunny Ol' Wigan, UK

Posts: 752

Is it worth maybe creating two Topology threads, one that contains solid topology examples for users to reference but not add replies to, and one thats a WIP topology thread, for ppl who are asking for help and guidance in their topology layout that post their current work there for the experienced to guide and photoshop over the top of? Then if/when the topology is at a solid mesh it can be added to the Completed topology reference sticky? Just a thought as I, personally find it beneficial to follow a few proven methods of topology rather than plough it alone then end up with a mesh that I basically have to overhaul. This way the distiction between wip (not completely stable) and finished (great references) is much clearer than currently.

Just an idea.

If you believe in telekinesis, raise my right hand.

Quote

# 2 31-01-2007 , 08:09 AM

Lead Modeler - Framestore
Join Date: Feb 2003

Location: UK

Posts: 6,287

Interesting, but thats the point of having your own thread and posting your WiP hence not ploughing it alone and finishing before youve asked a question, the topo sticky is there for people to pop in and learn, see meshes that may help and ask questions.

Thats the whole point of it being in the WiP section, you can pop in there and have a look and ask, then put theory into practice. Who cares if you muck it up and have to overhaul areas, we all do it. Thats how we learn, NO SHORT CUTS!

_J

Quote

# 3 31-01-2007 , 08:20 AM

Subscriber
Join Date: Feb 2005

Location: Sunny Ol' Wigan, UK

Posts: 752

Yeah, I understand your point but in reference to 'Thats how we learn, NO SHORT CUTS! ' I think it would be foolish for ppl not to use pre-completed topology as references, we use image planes as references to aide with our accurate modelling so why hinder yourself by trying to create decent topology from scratch when you can have readily available references? Obviously once someone is proficient in creating 'their' own style of completed topology then the reference wouldn't maybe be required. I wouldn't drive my car blindfolded because I know the way home without looking user added image

. Not having a dig at your thread Jay. user added image

If you believe in telekinesis, raise my right hand.

Quote

# 4 31-01-2007 , 08:28 AM

Moderator
Join Date: May 2005

Location: Manchester Uk

Posts: 6,300

Right... think I get what you mean, Instead of say a "Place Human Ref Pics Here" thread you mean to have a "Topology Reference Thread" where people can grab a front and side topology pic to use as say reference or even as an image plane?

Edit - Think that you could just go throught the exisiting thread and find pics in there that you could use. I see what your getting at if the aboves right.

"No pressure, no diamonds" Thomas Carlyle

Quote

# 5 31-01-2007 , 08:31 AM

Subscriber
Join Date: Feb 2005

Location: Sunny Ol' Wigan, UK

Posts: 752

Yeah, I just thought it would be of help to a few users, as I know I would have found it helpful when I first started organic modelling, even now I keep open a previous topology mesh in the background to check every so often. Maybe it's just me user added image

lol.

If you believe in telekinesis, raise my right hand.

Quote

# 6 31-01-2007 , 11:23 AM

Lead Modeler - Framestore
Join Date: Feb 2003

Location: UK

Posts: 6,287

j5ive

I know you arent having a dig mate, no problem. But if you had said a references thread in the first place that may be useful.

Well lets do it then!! Where shall we have it? WiP, Lounge?

Also we'd need to specify images etc, cant have copyrighted stuff

Jay

Quote

# 7 31-01-2007 , 12:27 PM

Moderator
Join Date: May 2005

Location: Manchester Uk

Posts: 6,300

Im all for it but the thing is to me is who's going to specify that its "reference Quality"?

Thats the problem that I could see. As everyones topologys different, the basics are the same Loops, anatomy etc but the poly placment, n gons/no n gons, pole positions etc etc, different for different people.

Otherwise, unless its regulated in some way to say "industry Standard" its going to end up being lots of pictures of everyones work (unless this is the Idea) Which would make it a bit confusing, in my view???

Just a thought on the matter.

"No pressure, no diamonds" Thomas Carlyle

Quote

# 8 31-01-2007 , 12:33 PM

Lead Modeler - Framestore
Join Date: Feb 2003

Location: UK

Posts: 6,287

Yeah good point, perhaps more thought on the issue before proceeding, the one we have now is enough for the time being...

Cheers Steve

Jay

Quote

# 9 31-01-2007 , 12:36 PM

Subscriber
Join Date: Feb 2005

Location: Sunny Ol' Wigan, UK

Posts: 752

Yeah, I can see your point gster, if this is to go ahead then maybe to clarify the 'quality' should be a topology mesh that will cause no problems when rigged other than the usual painting weights to resolve, or one that still is a solid mesh when subdivided. The idea of this is not only for facial references but anything organic, like ears which people regularly struggle with, hands, feet, etc.

If you believe in telekinesis, raise my right hand.

Quote

# 10 31-01-2007 , 01:59 PM

Subscriber
Join Date: Jun 2003

Location: stuck in the 90's boston, USA

Posts: 1,871

why dont u ust make a library of generic body parts -like mopst people have- that u can easily use on any character
i still dont get what ur asking...

Image dump

Quote

# 11 31-01-2007 , 02:31 PM

Lead Modeler - Framestore
Join Date: Feb 2003

Location: UK

Posts: 6,287

He basically is asking for completed mesh references of 'good models' to use. So loops are right etc ,to save time modeling and get allegedly correct joint deformation.

My problem is this is not learning as such but merely a shortcut to save time when th hard work has been done.

Jay

Quote

# 12 31-01-2007 , 03:08 PM

Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2002

Location: Plantation, Florida

Posts: 1,568

You don't need a whole section dedicated to reference images. But it's not a bad idea to start a thread for it. Heck, I'll even make it STICKY! user added image

Then you can post links to reference material in it.

I thought we had a thread like that already... Hmmm... Can't seem to find the darn thing.

Ah well...

Dave Baer
Professor of Digital Arts
Digital Media Arts College
Boca Raton, Florida
dbaer@dmac.edu

Quote

# 13 31-01-2007 , 03:50 PM

Acid44

Guest

Posts: n/a

why not just use the existing tutorial and blueprint links forum user added image

EDIT: whered it go???? user added image

Last edited by Acid44; 31-01-2007 at 03:54 PM.

Quote

# 14 31-01-2007 , 10:49 PM

Lead Modeler - Framestore
Join Date: Feb 2003

Location: UK

Posts: 6,287

I'd be worried about reference material having copyright stuff on it, people can be real dickheads over stuff like this even when its as innocent as reference material..

Just a thought

Jay

Quote

# 15 01-02-2007 , 06:31 PM

Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2002

Location: Plantation, Florida

Posts: 1,568

Originally posted by Jay
I'd be worried about reference material having copyright stuff on it, people can be real dickheads over stuff like this even when its as innocent as reference material..

Just a thought

Jay

Originally Posted by

Yeah, you gotta be careful what you're doing when it comes to other peoples photos. But usually, for reference, it's not that big a deal. People won't generally sue you for modeling a car that they took a photo of.

And as far as posting the links here, I think the biggest issue would be bandwidth useage. Of course you would have to post the link to the image, not the image itself linked from the original website.

But other than that, I don't see a problem with it. But Kevin or Dave might want to chime in on this one. After all, they run the site, so ultimately it's up to them.

Hmmm... Where did that blueprints thread go? user added image

Dave Baer
Professor of Digital Arts
Digital Media Arts College
Boca Raton, Florida
dbaer@dmac.edu

Quote