Jump to content
  • Advertisement


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Liacart last won the day on June 9 2018

Liacart had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

13 Neutral

About Liacart

  • Rank

Personal Information

  • Role
    3D Artist
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Liacart

    3D animation pricing

    Depends a bit on the quality of the work, since you said you're not a professional. I'm not sure how it is for France, I'm from Switzerland, which is probably more expensive. As a student I charge 200 CHF (175 Euro) per day. People I know who are fresh out of university charge roughly 400 CHF (350 Euro) per day. People who have been in the industry for a while and have experience and a lot of skill charge 800-1'000 CHF (700-875 Euro) per day. So you'll have to probably ask yourself how many days you'll need to finish this animation, and then see what your skill level is at. Also don't forget this is Swiss salaries. If we go by average income, the average salary of a French resident is roughly half of what a Swiss resident makes. Not sure what that means for pricing. In the end you have to ask yourself: How much are you worth? Be reasonable about the estimation but don't sell yourself short either. You must have some kind of expectation of how much you should make for such a job. That would be your starting point.
  2. The axe looks lovely! The following feedback is purely from a stylistic perspective. The texture painting you did looks very good the way it is now. What I might try if I were you would be to make the scale of the textures fit better with the silhouette of the axe. The wood looks almost a bit too detailed, the grain shapes are very small. If you keep the textures at that scale I'd maybe add some geometry details to especially the shaft and make it vary a bit in thickness, maybe also give it a light curve in the shape. Alternatively you could just exaggerate the detail size a bit. Attached I have some quick sketches, maybe those help illustrate my point. Basically increase the beveling on the details, scale the scratches up and reduce the fiber count on the wood. I also added some dents to the metal, as important as scratches are, it's nice to alternate between scratches and dents. But again, the axe looks very good as is and is very well done.
  3. Liacart

    animation from XCOM2

    Its hard to say what the development tools were without having worked on it. What do you need the info for? If it's for modding all the information you need is in the link you shared. It's unlikely they worked with Blender if FBX is their main export format, so my bets are on either Maya or 3ds Max. The industry standard for animation itself (strictly animation) is Maya. Both softwares are by Autodesk, which is also the company that is in charge of the FBX format, so it's likely it's one of those, even more likely Maya if you're talking about just the animations. I'm not sure what you mean by how their animation system was produced or structured.
  4. I like the hammered metal a lot, looks very nice. You could add an occasional scratch or dent in the metal parts, to give it some variation and make it look used. The wrapping on the handle falls a bit out of place - the white lines on the leather look very sharp an thin, while the other materials of the sword look softer and have more exaggarated/thicker edges. I'd maybe try losely painting over those white lines with a similar color, or maybe a brighter leather color, simulating some highlights. The gem could be a bit more subtle. What I'd try is to give it some darker areas, as if the dark metal tones were shining through the transparency of the gem (just painting-wise, I don't mean actually making the gem transparent, that would probably look weird). I then would also add some white highlights, and make some areas brighter and others darker, to articulate the 3D shape of it a bit more. Of course that only works given you stick to the current diffuse-only look and don't plant to make this a PBR material at some point, or giving it a spec map or something. Here's a nice way of painting gems by conceptcookie. I really wouldn't be afraid to go all out on the painting and adding shading etc. directly to the texture.
  5. Liacart

    GIMP vs Adobe

    Photoshop offers more functions, but GIMP is definitely not bad. Artistic workflows are very similar in both softwares and it comes down to the skill of the artist, not the software. They both have very similar drawing tools and they both have customizeable brushes. There's not much more you need for art, other than knowledge and skill. But that's solely speaking Photoshop & GIMP. You're mentioning the Creative Cloud, which is an entirely different caliber. Photoshop is only one of many available softwares in the CC. So depending on what kind of softwares you need you might be much better of with the Creative Cloud. If you just need some 2D illustrations - go with GIMP if you don't have the money for PS (alternatively look into Fire Alpaca (free), or lower budget software like Clip Studio or Painttool SAI etc.). If you need more than that - look into the Creative Cloud. But there is also a lot of Open Source software compareable to the stuff CC offers, so you might not even need it then. Personally I use both. I used to only work in GIMP years back for the same reason - no money. And it really doesn't limit you artistically, you can do almost the same things and there's a workaround for pretty much everything. Photoshop (or the cloud in general) does come with some perks like better customer support, regular updates, bigger pool of learning material etc. But it really depends on how much you value these things. Nowadays I mostly use Photoshop, but that is primarily just because the industry wants me to work with PS. So if you're just making 2D graphics for your own game you can literally choose whatever you want. I'd also consider that not all softwares are good at or for the same things. So depending what kind of 2D graphics you're making GIMP/Photoshop might not even be your best choice. For that I'd recommend to try a bunch of softwares and see what fits your workflow best.
  6. I'm merely supporting a different opinion. Which, I hope, is appropriate on a discussion board such as this one. The reason I said it's a bit unfair, is because both the low-poly and the non-textured approach can very much be an appealing style, as many games have proven before.
  7. I think that's a bit unfair. Low-poly can be a very nice aesthetic if approached the right way. Textures aren't always a must to achieve a nice and atmospheric visual language.
  8. I do quite like the low-poly style. I'd make sure that it still looks diverse enough. For example the crater on the far left looks like a simple extrusion and inset, I'd give it some more uniqueness in shape. What I don't really like are the super basic shaders on the planet and the asteroids. The smoke, however, is nice. You could also try and experiment with some vertex coloring to create mild gradients. I'd experiment a bit with different spec colors and weights and try to get away from that plasticy look. One question would also be what these models look like in relation to the actual tower defense assets themselves. On colors: You have a lot of orange. That in itself is a nice color, but you could try putting some complementary/cold-warm contrasts in there, maybe have the sun be blue, or the tower defense assets more in the colder color areas. Or maybe both. I think the stars are good in a round shape, just to touch on JoeJ's point. It creates a contrast to the low-poly look, which is nice, in my opinion. If you go for square stars you'll kind of end up with a minecraft sky. Edit: Oh and one thing I would consider is making the asteroids more lowpoly, right now they look a bit out of place, especially compared to the blocky look of similarly sized objects like the smoke. A neat technique for low-poly asteroids/rocks is to quickly sculpt a nice silhouette, and then decimate the poly count to something very low, it's quick, looks natural and gives you nice variation.
  9. To add to what Scouting Ninja said, with spherical objects it also sometimes makes sense to use icosahedrons, rather than the classic quad Sphere. The one on the left here has 480 tris, while the one on the right has a mere 160. You don't really lose any strength in silhouette on the right one but lose a lot of polys. While I totally agree that you'll essentially work faster and get frustrated less if you finish a full asset before going on to the next one, I'd definitely try to block out the full scene with simple primitives, to get a sense of scale, composition and mood. But I think that also comes down to your personal comfortable workflow.
  10. I'd say you definitely don't have to be "born to be a musician", talent is just finding enough personal joy and interest in a field to pick up more information and spend more time on learning it than someone who isn't quite as ambitioned in it. The same thing applies to music. Now it certainly makes a difference whether you grew up in a musical family or not, because that will give you a better basic understanding of what music should sound like. Often times people who grew up in families with no musical connections whatsoever have trouble hitting the right tones or understanding why something should sound one way and not the other. But none of that matters in the end, if you're just determined enough to give it your all and learn a lot as quickly as possible. I think the absolute best place for you to start is to simply learn playing the piano to at least an intermediate level, so you can play with two hands, improvise in simple chords etc. That of course includes some music theory like reading and writing notes, learning harmonies etc. Once you can comfortably improvise on a piano you don't need all too much more to write those improvisations down. Composing kind of comes natural while playing an instrument. Personally I play the violin and the trumpet, and I end up improvising small snippets of stuff to warm up. Improvisation and composing is similar. The main difference is that you write your composition down. So one doesn't have to exclude the other. I'd learn the piano first and foremost, and write down ideas as they come to mind.
  11. Hi! There's different approaches to this: You can, of course, just use the tools you have now, grab a piece of (musical sheet)paper and a pen and write down chords, notes and harmonies you like and bring them together to a full musical piece. There's some software where you can do that digitally as well, the pro of those is that you can hear what you enter, which is especially useful if you have more than one instrument, for example, so you don't have to ask someone to play it with you. Those are softwares like Notion 6, MuseScore 2 etc. I'm sure you can find one that's free, even. For recording you might not need anything fancy, in that case I'd quickly download Audacity, it's simple software and it's free, so trying it doesn't hurt. The more high end recording software I usually use is Pro Tools, but that gets really expensive really fast, however most professional recording studios have that software at hand and their equipment resonates best with it. But that might be something you want to consider further down the line. Normally every DAW (Digital Audio Workstation) also has a recording function. And that gets me to my next point: DAW's those are fully equipped digital studios. Personally I use Propellerheads Reason, but other big names are Logic Pro (Mac only), Ableton, Cubase and FL Studio. A DAW usually costs quite a lot (200-1'000 range) and it costs even more once you need more plug-ins (VSTs/Rack-Extensions). Some DAWs are usable without any plug-ins, Reason being one example, other DAWs are basically an empty shell without them and you'll end up spending another 1'000 bucks or so, just to get it to a good, usable state. What are DAWs good for? Well, they let you achieve believable and good sound without (m)any real instruments. You have a wide range of synthesizers you can program and big sample banks of professionally recorded instruments and sounds that you can use to create your musical piece. DAWs are always compatible with Midi keyboards, so you should be able to use your DGX-205 with any of them and directly play on the instrument you have selected in your DAW (given you have the PC Driver for it). My personal recommendation is: Use free software like Audacity and a sheet music software first, and if you reach your limit, then consider buying a DAW. It all really depends on what kind of music you want to make aswell. If you want to compose a complete orchestral score you'll need a DAW eventually, unless you have the money to mobilize an entire ensemble. If you want to produce electronic dance music or modern pop music you definitely need a DAW. However, if you just want piano music with a bit of singing on top you don't need any fancy tools, then it just comes down to your own idea and execution. There's a number of musicians who became successful by recording something in their bedroom with just their guitar and voice. I hope this helps at least a little. Good luck on your musical journeys!
  12. Liacart

    Could I get feedback for my portfolio =)

    Hey! It looks pretty decent so far, but there are some things I would look out for in the future. The first thing that caught my attention is that it's not really clear which content is made by you and which content is used from a library or made by someone else. For example in your submission "Character Design Lord Drakos and Sir Marrok" I definitely recognize some of these assets from libraries, and it's generally really hard to judge what exactly it is you are showing us with that post. What did you make? What is your work? If you apply at a company they will put a lot of value in knowing what exactly you were responsible for in a project. There is absolutely no shame in writing down what you needed help with and who helped you, and it really helps the recruiters know where your specialties lie. Now regarding the art itself: Everything looks very busy, in my opinion. I don't really know where to look. In general I'd try to reduce details a little bit and put more value in the overall silhouette of an asset, aswell as composition of the entire scene. Another thing is that almost all the bright contrasts come from light sources - create some contrast within the assets themselves, they don't need to all be black, even if you want to portray a dark environment. I'm mostly talking about the Jade station here. Regarding that work aswell: The scaling doesn't make sense to me. You have a character in there, but the textures and assets are all scaled to make a much smaller impression. So it doesn't really add up. Here's an easy fix for one of your submissions: The Dragon - use a different Matcap. This current one makes it look way too busy. In general I would suggest this: Update the descriptions of your works so it's clear what exactly you worked on in which project, and give according credit to everything you didn't make. This is just to create clarity on what your skillset is. Everything else I'd leave the way it is now, other than the Dragon, of which I'd take new screenshots with a different Matcap. I'm sure this portfolio can land you an internship or even a junior position in a small local studio. Once you did some work there you'll have a newer and improved portfolio anyways, so I wouldn't worry too much about this first one. I hope this didn't sound too negative, overall you're on a very good way! Good job and keep going!
  • Advertisement

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!