Do you ever think you'd release this for people to make renders or animations with? I've got your NS Dalek blend file from Project Dalek and I absolutely love it and would love to make some renders with this!!!
I've not tried it myself, but in theory it should be possible by exporting to FBX from Blender and then importing the FBX into Unreal. The main body uses PBR texture maps which should work fine provided they're converted into the correct formats for Unreal. However certain Blender-specific features wouldn't carry over, like the rigging controls, procedural materials for the eyes, & the multiresolution modifier, so it wouldn't be a 1:1 conversion and some work would be required.
Wow I’m really impressed and shocked to how cool and detailed this is!👏🔥But how did you lower the vertices since it was at a high number before? (Asking since my model has high vertices and I can’t put it to automatic weight unless I lower it.)
Thanks very much! To do that you add a Multires modifier to the object, then press the 'Unsubdivide' button and it will attempt to create a lower subdivision level. This only really works on subdivided quad meshes, so if you have used dynamic topology you will probably need to retopologise it manually.
@@BenJewer ok thank you so much! Plus I really want to try and pose it so now being able to use and put armatures to automatic weight can really help!👋👍
I saw a poster for 'An Astronaut' in one of the editing booths at Minghella, and found your channel after, your work is astounding! I love the use of the Dreamchaser for the spacecraft, it looks almost flawless.
Brilliant! Love how the simplest component of this sequence - the typography, just pulls you in at the start and then leaves you both moved and feeling a sense of wonderment at the end. It goes without saying that your 3D renders are top-notch and inspirational. Cheers from South Australia!
I have no idea how you get your animations to look soooo good, I'm an aspiring animator and film maker on blender and you are a continuing inspiration and aspiration! Maybe someday. Far in the future. A Colab project can be created.
I like this workflow, i usually sculpt my models first before retopologizing. I wanted to try out your workflow, but I don't find the seeting that the wireframes lines are bending and adapt to the shaded mesh. the connection between the vertices is always straight. It seems like it is useful to use your settings. Where can i change this? I hope this question makes sense :D Anyways, great work
There I am just extruding vertices with the E key, moving them into place, and then filling in faces between them by selecting 4 vertices and pressing F.
I love your raptor! I dont often see raptors without feathers from people anymore, I miss those times. And I find it good to see people are still doing this and being creative without feathers. Anyway great video. ^ ^ I will being watching this as I follow along with modeling, as my modeling skills are rusty, I find this a good way for me to get back to it and practice. Please keep up the amazing work and subscribe. ♥
@BenJewer i would love to see a tutorial, with slower moddeling and more explanation. would be aweseome for this raptor. Using this video as a tutorial is too fast, even with 0.25 speed :D
Note how this guy hasn't gone into sculpt mode even once to get this professional-looking model. He solves 2 or three steps at once. - Firstly, his neat box modeling is all square, this entire mesh can be duplicated to use for the retopology later on. ( However, he uses this one and unwraps it before sculpting. I'll have to look into that) So that is a different workflow. - His box modeling is clean, without vertex or vertices being left over from some mistake, or etc. - His box modeling goes down into the finer detail by pulling on vertices. ( after applying subdiv ) - I mean, half the work seems to be done. I can almost say this guy's workflow is 10x better than the one I sorta developed out of knowing the program in part. Kinda funny, Last night, I realized, I should do box modeling down to the details of the muscles and the finer stuff so I can avoid sculpting in those because it is a lot harder to control the deformities. ( Uneven muscles on the sides of the legs, dips, and little hills that occur depending on your brush strength and radius. I did get out a pretty great Triceratops that I still cannot believe I built, but some hours were spent on fixing a very poor box model job. Today I realized my tyrannosaurus head needs a total rework. xD. I got this. Thank you for the vid. You're a pro!
Thank you very much, really appreciated! I do find that box modelling first forces me to get the overall shapes & forms right as it forces you to focus on those, whereas if you start out sculpting with dynamic topology for example it can be tempting to rush straight to adding the fine details. It is more restrictive though as you really need to plan out your model much more in advance, e.g. know where your deformations are going to take place, know where you might need denser topology for more details in sculpt etc. At the end of the day every workflow has advantages and disadvantages. So long as you end up with clean topology and a nice sculpt it doesn't matter what you choose so long as it works for you.
@@BenJewerThat is true. I can definitely say, my workflow had me give it all up for a year or more. Last night I finished modelling a tyrannosaurs based on your way and it never looked as good. I am almost certain, the baking will be much easier. I think if you take the multires, before you apply any subdiv, you duplicate it and keep the duplicate for the retopo later on, the symmetry will match well enough for baking? Or is some space required? After all a retopo build around the high poly, is a little bit bigger. But anyways that way you don't always start from scratch with retopo when you want to bake. Just copy your perfect looking box modelling. aha.
If you don't intend to pose or animated the model then it's not necessary, and sometimes in simple models you can get away with just using automatically generated weights. But in most cases you will need to go in and manually adjust the weights so that the mesh deforms properly.
@@BenJewer Oh, thanks for the info! Already had my first try using Blender yesterday, it was hard, and I still have to learn how to pose 3D models properly
This is an amazing film and fitting tribute for the 20th anniversary. Excellent work. The shot with the stary sky reflecting on the solar panel was epic!
I still hold onto the hope that a Beagle 3 is launched one day Beagle 2s core design is excellent and lends itself well to being a tag along passenger on an existing mission, meaning it could realistically be done once more. the exact cause of the failure isn't known but there are of course contributing factors (thinner atmosphere due to weather resulting in hard landing and jamming), which could be accounted for in a future mission. i just want to see that british flag on the surface of mars, with a camera onboard to show it
Based on Prof Mark Sims' recent 20th anniversary talk on it, it sounds like the most likely cause of the failure was just bad luck. Could be as simple as one of the airbags getting ripped on a sharp rock and deflating too early. So frustrating that an identical model of Beagle 2 might have worked perfectly - it came so close. At least a lot of the Beagle 2 team went on to be involved in ExoMars. Hopefully they are able to launch that sooner rather than later.
@@BenJewer Mars is sadly known to be a graveyard of spacecrafts, with less than half of the missions sent there being successful. For the longest time, it was thought that Beagle 2 simply crashed on the planet. Having landed intact is already a success in itself.
