SpudFiles

Argh! I modeled another gun...

Looks lovely

Only bit I'd change is the trigger guard. Many question marks over that in my book

i would call that one awesome job!

Looks great! Does it actually shoot anything or just look great? Theory of operation? Damage? Airsoft? BB? Brick?....

I agree with Hotwired, that trigger guard is a menace to society, causer of bloody hands and fingers, torn and ripped articles of clothing and furniture.

starman wrote:Does it actually shoot anything or just look great?

Well, normally, CGI images don't do anything other than look great in my experience, but you never know...

Ragnarok wrote:

starman wrote:Does it actually shoot anything or just look great?

Well, normally, CGI images don't do anything other than look great in my experience, but you never know...

Good point Rag. Maybe we should open a whole new Forum Discussion: Unlimited Fantasy CGI Cannons, where your imagination is only the beginning and no real damage ever occurs......

Looks good except for the trigger guard. If you are going to put pointy spikes on the trigger guard make'm big enough to be useful.

starman wrote: Good point Rag. Maybe we should open a whole new Forum Discussion: Unlimited Fantasy CGI Cannons, where your imagination is only the beginning and no real damage ever occurs......

So.. uh.. you were under the impression it was real for a minute there?

Necrosis wrote:So.. uh.. you were under the impression it was real for a minute there?

Don't consider that I'm speaking for him, but I think he may have assumed it was a design for a future project.

It's damn good art, but not so good that I could see people mistaking it for real - mind you, achieving "real" without serious money is nearly impossible, although some of you may have seen the very impressive work of PixelGod. It doesn't achieve "Real" - but for something he did in Paint...

Now, in my opinion, the biggest problem with your image is that the shading and highlighting need some more work, in places they're too clean cut to look right, and in some places too vague - and sometimes in the wrong places. This mostly shows on your edges. Hard edges give a clean reflective line, duller ones have more grading in the shading.
There are some edges that should have a harder lighting on them, but you've missed.

Your lighting direction also seems a bit indistinct. There are highlights along the top edge of the barrel cover, but the bottom edge of the cylinder, all your edges seem to have highlights, and the shading beneath the pistol relative to the pistol's size would indicate a light very close almost directly above the pistol (i.e. essentially in front of the camera view), but the shadow of the muzzle would imply a light source somewhat in the middle of the bottom right quadrant of the picture (which would conflict with other shading). Not to mention that this close lighting proximity would create harder edges, both in highlighting and shading.

It's almost like your lighting is projected from a halo/ring source around the camera. Although this works for miniature painting, and indeed, it's the primary technique, it is done here because the models are 3D, to be viewed from many angles. In your fixed viewpoint CGI, a single source light, and possibly some mild ambient light would create a much more convincing image.

I'm also unsure just what the black circle at the front base of the cylinder is meant to be, and it throws the image off somewhat.
The textures are also imperfect, but I'm not going to blame you for that.

Great! Now you just need to try something like this:

http://www.eatliver.com/i.php?n=3677

That's not how you do it! You draw a picture that you value at OVER the money in question, then demand change. If they reject you, moan, and say you'll disregard the change if you have to.

Also, who were the two sick people who want their wife impregnated?

Ragnarok wrote:

Necrosis wrote:So.. uh.. you were under the impression it was real for a minute there?

Don't consider that I'm speaking for him, but I think he may have assumed it was a design for a future project.

No, I admit, I was fooled. I also admit originally not opening up the larger picture to view it more closely. The larger pic shows some obvious CGI artifacts.

Even though I deal with artists, designers and engineers almost every day through my IT work, I still relate modeling to, well modeling. Old habits die hard sometimes...

starman wrote:I also admit originally not opening up the larger picture to view it more closely.

Actually, I'll share that sentiment - the smaller picture is more convincing, although still a bit off if you see what I mean, partly an artefact of the odd lighting angles - and to be honest, photos don't look like that.

Also, most spudguns don't look like that, and those that do warrant further attention...
I wouldn't personally mistake it, but I can understand it happening.