HOME | DD
ShengDaFlashPRo β Magikarp
Published: 2010-01-18 09:28:04 +0000 UTC; Views: 10473; Favourites: 128; Downloads: 209
Redirect to original
Description
Magikarp from Pokemon.Okay so i took a break from modelling the Barrett M107 and made this MAgikarp (:
For those who are observant enough you may notice there's no scales!! Well... simply put i wasn't bothered to find a way to do them without textures
Anyway, i was testing out Global Illumination and Final Gathering on this one and somehow managed to get a render time of 56 minutes and 21 seconds
I'm getting better at Depth of View
Made in Maya and rendered with Mental Ray.
- enjoi?
Related content
Comments: 64
I was wondeing, if it aint to much trouble, if I could get the actual maya file off you? I am doing a project and need a magikarp, I can send you a completed version of the textures and everything after I'm finished
π: 0 β©: 1
sorry for late reply. its probably too late though
π: 0 β©: 0
Hahaha nice Magikarp. Ironically I was thinking of modeling a simple Pokemon for UV texture practice.
π: 0 β©: 1
thanks!! I'm making these pokemon in maya so i can get a bit of practice modelling organics
π: 0 β©: 1
You'll get better eventually.
π: 0 β©: 1
simple, but works really well!
*bows to the master* xD
π: 0 β©: 1
*splash*
ps. there is a 3D section in fanart
π: 0 β©: 1
woohoo thanks for feature (:
And i'm not sure if this is actually fan art, since it was more of practice for organics modelling cos i suck at it (: Pokemon are great organics for noobs leik me ^^
π: 0 β©: 0
That's awesome. What's the poly count on it?
π: 0 β©: 1
thanks
π: 0 β©: 1
That's pretty awesome for that count
π: 0 β©: 1
OMG!!! SOME ONE SAVE THE POOR FISH!!!
i support fishes rites XD nice job
π: 0 β©: 1
dont worry. magikarp is a tough pokemon 
thanks
π: 0 β©: 1
Nice but too long for render
Have you tried pixar renderman?
π: 0 β©: 1
yeh i know, that's too damn long for a render
π: 0 β©: 0
If you wouldn't have mentioned the scales, I would never have noticed!!! I think this looks great!!
π: 0 β©: 1
yay thanks! you know half way through rendering, i only realised that i forgot his 2 whisker things... and i had to restart the render ._.
π: 0 β©: 0
That's totally long enough man. Since I never setup the GI and the FG.
Cute fish, btw.
π: 0 β©: 1
that is TOO long. no good xD
thanks for fave and comment!!
π: 0 β©: 1
In my case the DOF is boosting the Rendertime enormously. Use a Z-Depth pass instead, needs some photoshop compositing but is still a lot faster.
[link]
For the FG, my common settings are:
Initial FG pont Density = 1,0
-strong FG effect, maybe unrealistic but good noticable
Rays per FG Point = 50
-in the Help file it says low values create a noisy effect, thats why...*
Interpolate Over Num. FG Points = 100
- *...this higher value "smoothens" the noise effect.
- also: a higher Interpolation renders way faster than a higher number of rays.
For the GI:
I barely use it, only to get light into rooms.
Since your scene got no "4 Walls an a roof" your photons fly out into the nirvana, boosts render time a lot. Also, if you use omnis (360Β°lights) instead of Spotlights, lots of photons fly out into the nothing aswell.
If you realy wanna use GI, use the "Merge nearby GI points" option. The GI then is less precise but renders a lot faster and for what else than a photorealistic picture you would need a precise GI? Pokemons ain't photorealistic anyway...
I am not shure if the Mental ray Terminology is the same in Maya, but I hope you can use those tricks
π: 0 β©: 1
so you use 3ds max with v-ray eh? i used that combo for a little while but i failed hard and didn't want to try any further. but i must say v-ray was awesome.
and looking at the link you gave me, i'm pretty sure it's the same thing i'm doing. rendering a z-depth thing and photoshopping it. and i must say that's pretty good coz you get to have some sort of control in photoshop without re-rendering the thing.
I recognise some of the terms you used there regarding FG. In mental ray, there's point density, accuracy (which i think you set at 100) and a bunch of other options. for this magikarp setup i had an accuracy of 64 and a point density of 1.5.
and though this scene may not look like it has 4 walls and a roof, technically it does. i had a hemisphere covering the top of the scene which would illuminate the scene via FG. and i also had 'walls' (which was the ground caving upwards in the distance) to re-reflect the GI photons.
also, i only had 1 area light (not sure what it's called in 3ds but its not an omni light). basically it only sends photons in 1 direction (similar to spot light but a bit different).
and yeh.. i did SOEMTHING to muck up the render time. it just has to be the radius control i messed with on both GI and FG since i dont usually touch those settings. but oh well, all in good learning
this must be my longest comment ever xDDD thanks for your comment and it's good to learn about similar software.
π: 0 β©: 1
I wanted to comment this 3 hours aggo but I got attacked by a evil virus D: Some Fake Firewall message, I just managed to kill that thing a few minutes aggo...
So now here my original reply:
What gave you the idea I use V-Ray? I use MR like you
I never worked with sky hemispheres so far
because I don't know how to set them up and make illuminate a scene.
I always use a Environment/Background Map and a Skylight, sometimes a sky-portal.
Maybe I shall Install Maya after my exams, I heard in Gamebiz it's just as often used as Max
π: 0 β©: 1
LOL viruses.. #@$% them.
WEll that link to the tutorial gave me the idea
and for sky hemispheres basically its a huge hemisphere over the top of the scene with a white (and usually 'incandescent'
I've never used anything different though. no environment maps or HDRI and i'm not sure if theres sky-portal in maya.
and i really dont know what the better software is.. if someone uses maya they'll say maya is better. if someone uses 3ds max they'll say taht's better. But when i used 3ds max for the short while, it seems that it does have better modelling tools but i just couldn't get the hang of navigating around 3d space in that program
π: 0 β©: 0
very long rendertime? what specs have your pc?
please render mew !!!! XD
π: 0 β©: 1
lol i turned the settings heaps up. and i rendered it at a huge resolution. But my specs are 3.2Ghz quad core, 4GB ram.
π: 0 β©: 0
thanx stackjob
π: 0 β©: 0
your settings must be quite high for GI / DOF
there isnt any realy reason that this should take more than 10 mins at the ABSOLUTE MAX (unless your computer is slow)
im making a complex vehicle with about 200 parts and ive given it proper multilayer paint and GI blah blah blah
it only takes about half an hour...
but mental ray can be a bit slow with motion blur / DOF ive found
π: 0 β©: 1
well. i'm not sure since i was experimenting with some of the settings that i usually never touch (radius control). There was just one light (AND OMG I FORGOT TO RENDER SHADOWS I JUST REALISED!!). I think the problem was with Final Gathering. The scene size was pretty big (300 units wide) and i think that made final gathering spaz up. but i'll do some testing. And it's not Depth of Field since i rendered that separately.
π: 0 β©: 1
ah ok
yeah i did look at it and wondered if there were shadows
π: 0 β©: 1
omg how could i forget .__. i always have shadows in my render D:
π: 0 β©: 1
lol it theres alway something you forget, then you have to go back and rerender it... lol
π: 0 β©: 1
man i bloody hate that. but i'm not gonna re-render it again for shadows .___.
π: 0 β©: 1
especially for a 1 hour render LOL
π: 0 β©: 1
yeah lol
that really is weird
π: 0 β©: 0
That is quite a long render time for which seems like it shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes.
π: 0 β©: 1
yep. i'm suspecting Final Gathering that killed the render time. i was messing around with some settings i usually never touch (Radius Control). And i also rendered at a larger resolution than normal but that's no excuse. i'm sure its Final Gathering.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes that can seriously increase render times but to be honest it does not even look like there is GI in this image whereas in your barrett wip images it was clear you used GI.
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>