Bullet model

[snake_eye]

Hey , i have made bullet model :)

its high-poly model



Download it here

you can use it and modifye

Mod edit: thumb'd and linked image

[a_slow_old_man]

There are three problems:

1. It's way to highpoly

2. There is no texture afais

3. There is already a bullet mapmodel ;(

[Huntsman]

SWEET.

[Mr.Floppy]

Sorry, but this isn't high-poly, but blatant fubar.

Have a look at the picture below. Both cylinders will look exactly the same, though one comes with insane poly-count and the other one is done right. ;)



You should always (!) keep the polys down to as much as you really need. I guess about 1/3rd of them could be left out with no visual effect, as they appear to be redundant.

I hope the picture helps to understand what I'm trying to explain.

[ExodusS]

So AC barels could have less poly (there are useless forms)

[Mr.Floppy]

Nope, have a closer look. ;)

[snake_eye]

okey:)

[Mael]

Have a look at the picture below. Both cylinders will look exactly the same, though one comes with insane poly-count and the other one is done right. ;)

Is that a section of the bullet model provided in the download link or something you created to demonstrate proper modeling technique? The base of the object in your image appears dodecagonal while snake-eye's model base appears much smoother.

The reason I ask is because your post could make two different, but closely related criticisms about amateur modeling "misconceptions":

1. Dividing faces into unnecessary polygons is a "good" thing.(Makes the model "hi-poly")
2. Smoothing small features to ridiculous detail will produce an improvement in appearance.

Both are incorrect but for different reasons. #2 is the one that applies to snake-eye's model. It is so small that you would have to play at a ridiculous resolution for 80% of those polygons to even show up.

I hope #2 is the only one that applies. If they both apply then that model is seriously over complicated.

[Mr.Floppy]

It's the both of those, actually.