361x382

162541541412.png

🧵 I find hard-surface modeling based on poly meshes absolutely revolting.

Anonymous at Tue, 19 Oct 2021 11:49:57 UTC No. 857265

It is clunky, feels archaic and most importantly a giant fucking waste of time. It is especially disgusting when people use it for static models, background items or design studies while wasting more time on half-assed, broken boolean tools and getting the topo right than actually being creative. Fuck that bullshit.
Embrace CAD, embrace the NURBS.

Anonymous at Tue, 19 Oct 2021 13:27:43 UTC No. 857276

i do think production-level auto-retopo is a solvable problem (you'd need maybe 10% of your existing modelling staff to review the meshes), so in the grand scheme of things, op, you are quite correct.

the age of the meshmonkey will end within the decade. concept chads will rule supreme.

Anonymous at Tue, 19 Oct 2021 13:39:58 UTC No. 857278

>>857265
>Can't into basic stuff. Writes cope-piece seeking recognition.

Why do you post gigachad when you are gigaweak Op?

Anonymous at Tue, 19 Oct 2021 15:52:49 UTC No. 857300

>>857276
This desu. All the fundamental problems in remeshing are already solved and have largely made their way from research papers to production tools. One click high quality results are simply a question of refinement, technical modelers (except the PS1 graphics autists) will be out of jobs within 3-4 years after next gen tools arrive and studios get comfortable with them.

Anonymous at Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:03:35 UTC No. 857317

>>857300
What is a “technical modeler”? A hard-surface prop artist? Maybe modeling will become less technically challenging, but that’s only one part of the prop pipeline, you still have to UV, texture, and sometimes even manually create LODs, lightmaps and collisions. I do however wish for all of that to be gone some day.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Oct 2021 18:11:45 UTC No. 857882

>>857317
>all of that to be gone some day.
no doubt

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Oct 2021 18:13:27 UTC No. 857883

seethe harder, sculptcuck

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Oct 2021 06:22:52 UTC No. 857978

>>857265
why not use both?

Anonymous at Fri, 29 Oct 2021 00:22:06 UTC No. 858928

>>857978
only a few programs support them