[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/3/ - 3DCG

[Advertise on 4chan]

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 49 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks. Make sure to check your spam box!

Self-serve ads are available again! Check out our new advertising page here.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: hardsurface.jpg (811 KB, 2832x2780)
811 KB
811 KB JPG
Why does hard surface design almost always have the same look? Objects made by different 3D modellers yet they look indistinguishable, have no character, and are basically soulless. Despite being actually modelled by different people, it's almost as if they were run through an AI generator.

Can you share some actually good examples of hard surface models that stand out and you like?
>>
The more shit you add, the more you can distract from the fact that you have absolutely no plan for what you're doing.
Most of the time people just make random shapes and go with the flow, when everyone does the same shit everything ends up looking the same.
I like the robot on the top right you posted, it's not that generic and doesn't go overboard with greeble shit, I'd like it more without the honeycomb forehead, that's one of the problems people seem to have these days, just leaving a part smooth can be a nice touch, but the sculptor on this one obviously tried to put some shit everywhere.
The mecha foot on the bottom right seems pretty convincing, that had some thougt put into it and not just random greeble thrown together, can you sauce me the artist?
>>
>>815971
that gun is so awful. The "stock" and handle probably end up breaking your fingers with each shot
>>
File: ying-liu-1[1].jpg (524 KB, 1920x1080)
524 KB
524 KB JPG
>>
File: 1200[1].jpg (93 KB, 1200x675)
93 KB
93 KB JPG
>>815982
>>
File: EfYicn2UwAEXN0x[1].jpg (139 KB, 1286x1333)
139 KB
139 KB JPG
>>815985
>>
File: duckduckpoo.png (213 KB, 499x499)
213 KB
213 KB PNG
You've found out a little life secret, anon. You've discovered that most "artists" are actually just artisans or sadly, just workers. That creation of unique, organic, original ideas only belongs to those who are exceptional and singular minds themselves. There is no learning. There is no becoming. There is no striving towards such a goal as being consciously "original". You are defined by your genetics, and your genetics are defined by your environment, vise versa in a loop. If genetics and the environment are both the same sides of coin, if we are non-living matter and organic life, if we are defined by what came before us and what will come after, then you don't get to choose whether you can be original. You are literally destined by the choices you made before yourself and the choices you will make after. You're defined to be and always will be, the Superior or the inferior. The Winner or the loser. The Leader, or the follower.

You don't get to choose. But when you finally understand that, you can realize that you and everybody else are just copying, referencing, and cycling what came before and what is yet to come. You are able to be enlightened and know you see this for what it is. Not to just say consciously out loud or in your head: "I want to be original." No, you truly, universally, objectively recognize that people are on repeat, and they have been for millennia. Just because our environment changes, just because we garner technologies, just because we find new styles or aesthetics - nothing has changed. People are and want to be slaves.

I can't tell you how to excel your visual library. I can't help you learn to create something beautiful. All I can tell you is that if you follow other people, if you do what they've done, and they have done what others have done before them, you will find yourself as another commoner. A complacency. A nobody. Study differently to figure out your best most highest existence. Nobody else can teach you to be original.
>>
>>815971
Making such surfaces is a lot of tedious repetitive work so people who are into that stuff prob find the style to be dope AF
so they just prob emulate their favorite artist why everything end up looking like 'the Anthem Ironman from Japan'.

The core design of that mecha head everyone uses goes back at least to Bubblegum Crisis in the 80's and it has since crept up everywhere.
Evangelion, Metal Gear, Warframe, Anthem etc.

It's just a very natural shape you arrive at if you start to encase a human head in plate. Modern fighterpilot helmets look a lot like it
so does combat helmets like the Crye Airframe. If you go back in time you can see a lot of similarities in medieval armet helmets as well.

As for the bodies Mecha design goes in lockstep with industrial design and if you wonder why everything looks like that these days
type in 'superbike' in google images and look at the results and compare it to scifi designs.

The more down to earth designs from Metal Gear, Deus Ex and Mass Effect are amongst my favorites.
Panelization need to look functional and balanced with areas of visual pause, not the details everywhere look.
I don't buy it when a warmachine is covered in lots of small pipes and protrusions that would snag on debris and branches.
>>
>>815971
>Can you share some actually good examples of hard surface models that stand out and you like?
inbetween dickpics
>>
>>815987
But how do I actually become an originalfag?
>>
>>816017
If you have to ask like this you already can't get there.
>>
>>816017
>Actually reading the duck autist
Anon just skip whatever he writes.
>>
>>815971
here's my try at "originality" but...
It is really, really hard to break off from what is established. when you go in and start plotting something new, you must have some references... your head is already filled with art directions, etc... etc...

one of the way's to try being original is to go with less established, slightly old, etc. artstyles.

also, I'd suggest making your own models, instead of doing other people's concepts...
>>
>>816021
If you want less established looking at modern designs and creating scifi things is the way to go, instead of looking at sci-fi reference and then creating lesser sci-fi since you are basically just copying someone.
>>
>>815987
>You are defined by your genetics, and your genetics are defined by your environment, vise versa in a loop.
i sincerely think it's time for you to retire this character because it's becoming harder and harder to conceal that you're a garden variety midwit that's just aggressively fronting.
>>
>>816023
I'm sorry what else did you think it was? this was the dude who started the "I have found a way to make AAA assets in no time because I am smart but I won't tell you how or show any proof" thread
>>
>>816023
Living matter is the same as non-living matter, buddy. :)
>>
>>816021
oh hey it's the one person on /3/ who is good at zbrush
>>
>>816024
>this was the dude who started the "I have found a way to make AAA assets in no time because I am smart but I won't tell you how or show any proof" thread
I didn't start that thread, I replied too it. This misremembrance of yours showcases a mediocre level of INT that highlights the fact that you can't remember very well just a few months ago. I'd argue that your IQ lies somewhere around 110-120. Unfortunate, but I suppose that's the way the cookie crumbles. :P
>>
>>816024
i don't think it was, the writing styles don't match. that guy is a legitimate delusional autist screeching about his iq, whereas duckfag is more of a failed motivational youtuber with moderate self-awareness but slipping constantly into purple prose.
>>
>>816028
wait, are you actually both duckfag and the "guess my secret method if you dare" autist? if so you seem to be struggling with language a lot more than you used to, are your brain problems getting worse?
>>
>>816030
Why are you bothering with 12-16 year old uber autismo?
>>
>>815987
based duck strikes again!
>>
>>816030
I'll let you into a personal secret, anon, only because I don't mind being intimate with you. My posts here are meant as documentation for when I become successful, maybe famous. Not just for me, but for others if they wish to see and review my thought processes when they were most vulnerable. They are nothing except wry shitposts, yet often I believe what I say. The difference from you and me is that I don't mind to how people perceive me which means the English language and correct usage is a lower priority than the ideas that are carried, cause that's just how I am. Though perhaps that's more subconscious than otherwise. They do say that Covid lowered IQ so maybe I became dumber if I caught it. However, you'll never know. Yet since you can't remember me initiating the argument that I created to what that OP was looking for, I would say that you are around 110-130, still much lower than me.
>>
>>816036
>110-130
>that subtle implication that you are anything above 101
>>
>>815971
1. Most 3D artists in the industry have been trained to follow more or less the same art style. If 10 3D artists work on a project their individual contribution shouldn't be visible, and over the years they've adapted to not only being able to reproduce that samey, uninspired look, they can't do anything else now.

2. If you cover your run-of-the-mill model in tons of greebles and kitbash items normies won't notice your lack of talent.
>>
>>816037
Yet that's not an implication, it's a direct statement explaining that I'm over the 110-130 threshold, even much higher than it, which perhaps that could in fact be the implication you're pretending your "gotcha" states (It's not, you're an idiot). Face it, you failed again.
>>
>>816040
I’m a 90 IQ slowbrain, yet I understand what a direct statement is, which you clearly don’t
>>
>>816044
If you can't understand why it's a direct statement and not an implication then I can't help you, anon. I just hope that your assisted living program doesn't run out.
>>
>>815987
can this duck fucking shut the fuck up?!
>>
>>816045
>no, u!
Literal duck for brains
>>
>>815971
No engineering experience, so they don't know how to make functional designs, which leads them to just cover everything in greebles because they more detail = more gooder.
>>
It started with the kit bashing and greebles done by Industrial Light and Magic (though I don't think they invented the technique, just popularized it) and then really culminated with the set of Alien where a real world plane (a B2 bomber I think? don't feel like googling) was dismantled and reassembled in a sort of real life kitbash to make a sci-fi interior but using real world parts and bits (even if a fridge ended up being made out of a motor casing or whatever).

As far as video games you could probably blame Quake or Unreal for extending the trend of using real-ish stuff with a certain amount of very discretely real properties (like IOR).
I mean what it comes down to is you have these style constraints with hard surface acting as a sort of ceiling or limit on one end of the real vs surreal spectrum but then you also have a sort of de facto "standard" that exists that puts a cap on the other end of the spectrum.
>>
Always fun seeing duckduckpoo making people seethe
>>
>>816023
Epigenetics are a thing.
>>
>>816139
Logic is also a thing.
>>
>>816036
You can't approximate somebody's IQ over the Internet except is extreme (usually negative) cases. If you think you can, maybe you aren't as bright as you seem to believe.

Also, constant blabber about IQ as your way to determine your own value is a pretty red flag. Instead of looking at your achievements, you look at a score -- which, outside of certain contexts, is pretty much irrelevant. Genius is not scored -- it is demonstrated.
>>
>>816164
*pretty clear red flag
>>
>>815971
most of them just make random shit until it looks complex
But what else would you expect from a modern-era freelancer? They have no clue on engineering or machinery. That's why you need a team that includes a concept artist that takes his time on researching basic stuff on machinery and engineering and then make a concept art that makes sense
A good example is The Expanse.
>>
>>816164
> constant blabber about IQ as your way to determine your own value is a pretty red flag

Somehow it's always like that, people who are into IQ brag about their bandwidth rather than the quality of the instructions they run.
Since they've never accomplished anything substantial to bring self-worth they instead appeal to this 'potential to do something great'.
>>
>>816164
I just did, and I can due to memory having consequential effects on g. The fact that they can't remember minute details, perhaps even macro ones effectively sums up that their intelligence in specific areas lacks, and should seriously be considered a factor into estimating their IQ. Am I right? Perhaps, as 110-120 and 110-130 are large swathes painted over the human population in Western society. If I'm wrong and they're lower, it means I just overestimated their ability and they're still really dumb. Even more dumb than my approximations, but I consider anyone under 140IQ to be inferior, maybe 135, as when you go above this people are able to operate independently the higher you rise. If I'm undershooting them they suffer from memory issues and maybe the offhand brain fog. But to the extent that neither can remember these specific details, and to a much greater answer and more likely probability, their entire lives cannot be remembered in this fashion, that tells me that they are most probably mediocre in IQ (<140/135).

Instead what you should be asking is why you think you can't estimate and approximate without standardized testing? Why do you think rote function needs to be demonstrated when you can just apply filters and checklists to how people argue? It is incredibly easy to figure out the avatar's IQ that people post as, and of course, it tends to be somewhere around where they actually are. What I'm explaining to you, is that you heavily rely upon authoritative systems made by others, you demonstrate a clear servitude to arbiters of power. I would say that quite frankly you disgust me with your cowardice. Your lack of spine. Your canter acceptance towards malicious behavior, so long as they leave you out of it. You sound like a huge tool by propagating the sentiment that genius is not given, it is demonstrated. The old definitions of "genius" meant that someone was highly intelligent and gifted through their talents.

(continued)
>>
>>816179
(final)
Both of these correlate with higher minds. The word Genius has been polluted by a diversity standard that wants people to be considered exceptional, even if they may not be smart. The difference being, your reliance upon others opinions which we can infer from your support of authority, just means you're likely another animal. You wear a collar, you bark when told, and you eat the slop they throw down for you.

IQ can absolutely be estimated and gauged based upon the variables given. That's what we call a hypothesis, retard. Just like any study, research, or assessment, you need variables to take a stab at what you can consider, closest, or rather nearest, to the truth. I'd say that my estimation of them being around 110-130IQ is pretty solid, but it just means that if they're below that number, then they're even bigger nerds than I thought. Realize that an IQ assessment is someone else's subjective interpretation of your intellect. I don't think you're a dumbass, I don't think you're even unintelligent. I think you're just a moob who obeys like cattle. I am going to refer to you as slave from now on. Have a good one.
>>
>>816179
>I just did, and I can due to memory having consequential effects on g.
Yeah, short term memory, on fluid g. You're talking about long term memory, whose contribution to fluid g is not as certain as you seem to assume.

But, perhaps, the other anon doesn't remember that detail because he doesn't give a single fuck about it. Ever thought of that possibility?

>What I'm explaining to you, is that you heavily rely upon authoritative systems made by others, you demonstrate a clear servitude to arbiters of power.
Systems (of belief, I infer) like psychometrics, for example?

>You sound like a huge tool by propagating the sentiment that genius is not given, it is demonstrated.
"Scored" doesn't mean "given". Here, as in other places, you seem to have trouble reading intent, or even correctly representing another person's words. You then go on a long diatribe heavily charged in your favor, as if you were proving something, when in fact you're only talking to and for yourself... in 4chan, of all places. Ridiculous.

No, what I meant is that you can consider yourself intelligent all you want, presumably based on a score -- but if you haven't accomplished anything of obvious worth to intelligent people of different sensibilities, you're just wanking your ego on a fantasy. And, to be honest, you come off as somebody with a bit of grandeur delusion.

Which, again, is strongly supported by you trying to hold your ground on the basis of a score, instead of just being able to say "I achieved this". You know this, and there's no amount of shitposting that will change it.
>>
>>816190
Working memory has the main theory that it potentially does not involve "short term memory", or is perhaps separate from that, yet is compartmentalized information within the brain, i.e potential longterm memory. Stop talking about what you know nothing of. Second, the usage of the "scores" given are just basic estimations meant to convey where I believe their thought ranges place them upon. If you are around 110-130 you are likely not going to pick up on patterns, much akin to how you tried to start an argument about IQ, when it should be understood that you can define whether you think someone is intelligent or not based upon your interaction with them. I don't think you realize this, but people do this all the time in real life. They judge you when you act, they do it when you speak, they assess you just existing, minding your own business. They use the variables that you give them, to judge. How can you miss this basic concept and start talking about "DATS NOT HIS REAL SCORE" like a fucking smoothbrain? It's an obvious rudimentary assessment and your shitpost about how it's not a real defined score is really dumb. I mean legitimately, that logic is in essence, highschool tier. How about you grow up?

As to the terms of your argument about me criticizing you over the word "genius", which was rightfully done might I add, I'm just explaining to you that in every argument you've made so far, you are relying upon the authority of systems and judges to guide your logic. Using the word genius in terms of accomplishment is again, using the description of revision in modern society, akin to submission, cowardice, fear. Although I may be relying upon the authority of original semantics, the fact is I already understood exactly what you wrote in your current post. I get that you're saying I'm just a loser with no accomplishments, I understood that from the get go. I'm again, not caring about your poo opinion, I'm showcasing your necessity of reliance to authority.
>>
>>815971
Cause it just looks cool OP, so fuck you
>>
>>816200
Words fall from mouth like shit from ass. Nobody cares if you have 200 IQ, if you do nothing of merit with it. Until then it only serves to massage your ego.
>>
>>816180
You have too much free time...
>>
>>816200
>Working memory has the main theory that it potentially does not involve "short term memory"
Stopped reading right there. What a load of bullshit from somebody who bases his own self-worth on psychometrics. For your learning pleasure:

"Working memory has been conceived and defined in three different, slightly discrepant ways: as short-term memory applied to cognitive tasks, as a multi-component system that holds and manipulates information in short-term memory, and as the use of attention to manage short-term memory."
Nelson Cowan, "What are the differences between long-term, short-term, and working memory?", doi: 10.1016/S0079-6123(07)00020-9

Don't bother replying. You're proven yourself enough.
>>
>>816216
Uhhh lol you did exactly what you accused me of, i.e misunderstood arguments and jumped to conclusions. That's pathetic. My argument is not that long-term memory will always be working memory, that's not true, but that long term memory is gained and is considered potential from partial working memory. You're quick to try and get a gotcha but you won't even attempt to argue in good faith, which is often how midwits try and do it - saying don't reply just means you're scared doesn't it? You are the one attempting to talk about the inner workings of IQ to it's technical and yet you don't even understand working memory or IQ itself is severely debated to how it operates or works in tandem. Let me outline it for you since you fell short and made a retard error:

The anons who I stated had poor memories, and as such most likely have subpar IQs due to this, means that their long term memories will also suffer in compartmentalized fashion due to their mediocre working memoriesq. That means they won't be able to have as sharp, agile recollections to variables, or other processing which will fault along the way in terms of problem solving for long term. The issue you have is that I pointed out working memory does not always follow short term memory at all times, and works in asymmetrical parallel with long term memory as well. But why do you think I'm talking about their ability to remember? You are the one that wanted to talk about "psychometrics" and yet you just entirely fell flat by not realizing that it also engages our long term abilities. Suffice to say, you don't need to reply, the point is that you quite vocally used the talking point of working memory to aide me in showing you I'm correct, even though you thought you were right.

You semantically and logically proved yourself wrong, and I don't think you really understand why. You just posted a pillar staple of IQ that agrees with me. Oh my goodness. This is over, you're embarrassing.
>>
File: laughing wolves.jpg (73 KB, 615x423)
73 KB
73 KB JPG
next time I see bitches on /3/ complaining about complex models I will imagine these pseuds who have never modeled a day in their life being behind it.
>>
>>816232
As a final note I will say that your greentext was right to highlight, that wasnt correct to state. I was trying to type that general memory does in fact work with long term, which is specifically what I was arguing beforehand. When you type on a phone it's jumbled and disordered, and my mind races a thousands miles a second. That greentext dealt with my mind trying to assemble the point that it is not just short term memory to find their IQs, it is a collaboration. Try to argue the logic, instead of malicious silliness of topics you want to talk about. :)
>>
>>816200
>>816232
>>816237
Not him but I get your argument anon. You are right about how iq and long term memory correlate but I would say that was a gigantic screw up that you posted in the beginning lol.
>>
>>816232
I said you shouldn't bother replying, and you did it again. Oh, well.

>misunderstood arguments and jumped to conclusions
No. I pointed out a mistake in your understanding of some basic term in cognitive science, and used that as a basis to rightfully disregard your post.

Your argument is something like "this anon doesn't remember something I said, therefore this anon may have bad long term memory, which is an indicator of low IQ, therefore this anon may be low IQ". Which is pretty idiotic. Still, I pointed out that long term memory, the kind that holds the type of minutiae that that anon didn't remember, is not directly contributing to fluid g. And what do you do? You come back hand-waving your ignorance at me, hoping that I wouldn't know about these topics and be left befuddled. Well, guess what, it didn't work. You just proved your incompetence.

>The anons who I stated had poor memories
And you know this how, exactly? What about the simpler and most probable theory that they didn't give a fuck about anything you said, hence they had no reason to remember it? No, you go on elaborate theories about why they are stupid and therefore don't remember your wise words. You may hope such fantasies demonstrate intelligence, but they don't: they suggest that you're probably a narcissist, deluded about your own worth, not very bright, and over all a genuine faggot.

Stop ridiculing yourself -- don't reply any more.
>>
>>816239
Hah, I know and agree that was indeed an error on my part. Regardless he didn't refute my argument as he acknowledges silently that long term memory does in fact work in tandem with working memory. He knows I'm right and have been right even if how I'm writing is garbled to all fuck. My original and same argument was and has never been dealt with, and it makes me giddy. Personally and ooc, these posts are just meant to be reference points for the future, a database maybe, not sure yet. But I know I am definitely getting to him and have been doing so for a while because he is desperate to talk about "psychometrics" from almost every thread he's replied to me. I currently archived him at least on two separate occasions screeching about psychometrics. He's wet thinking about it, hehe.
>>
>>816240
You can disregard the posts if you want, you still know I'm right and the logic is sound, if albeit poorly slapped together. I'm busy, but it's hilarious responding to you. I enjoy it.

These anons may or may not have cared about what was said, but things stick if you have a good functioning mind. For myself, the surmisement still arises in most posts I make, on most boards, and it extends to years gone by, while still interacting and filling my life with many different peoples, ideas, and places (I am voluntarily homeless, the internet is not my entire life). If I can remember this "minutiae" and recall threads long ago while being on the go constantly, why can't they, who are presumably not hobos? In fact your idea that they might think I'm too stupid or benign to remember me in their minds is clearly contradicted to how he recalled informedly the "anon" who screeched about his amazing idea of consistent, fast, AAA quality pipeline which can be replicated and will create a verbose, new aesthetic for the market. Yet that was me. I did not in fact start the topic, I merely replied to it like I always do. I can remember quite clearly multiple individuals who I can keep track of in that thread, their arguments and motives. Yet for some reason, they can't remember the duck.

To me that says a mediocre memory, and from a mediocre memory we can infer perhaps a mediocre mind. Obviously that isn't to say objectively they're low IQ. But with all the variables, the phrasing of anon and anons posts above, it's quite clear they can remember me, and in fact confuse me with myself. I guess, since you just keep recurring your butthurt about me in different threads, now too this one as well, I must be permeating inside your mind. How torturous! Let us not continue friend, I'm worried for your mental health.
>>
>>816245
>you still know I'm right and the logic is sound
Nope, I highlighted a few points of failure in your posts, and you failed to rebut them. It's really sad that you cannot easily see this. Or maybe you do, but choose to project a facade of confidence. Whatever.

>the "anon" who screeched about his amazing idea of consistent, fast, AAA quality pipeline which can be replicated and will create a verbose, new aesthetic for the market. Yet that was me
But that was me, anon. In fact, there were a few anons criticizing OP's ideas. Not that it matters, it was just a delusional OP without anything to show other than words.

You seem to remember what goes on the 4chonz very well, but you once and again prove to have difficulties recalling and using concepts from the sciences or humanities (to put it that way). Those are some weird priorities to have, but you do you.

>To me that says a mediocre memory ... Obviously ...
I'm happy to see you toned down your assertions, and write now in almost complete agreement with me.

>since you just keep recurring your butthurt about me in different threads
Surely you aren't confusing me with somebody else now, anon? I'm not the only one having a laugh, you know.
>>
3 needs an IQ test before you can post.
>>
>>816247
You highlighted and continue to highlight nothing, as again, you silently accept my original idea to who or what these anons measure up as. You even pretend I'm warming up to your positions, when it was you who made us go through a faggy goose chase through the tenaments of IQ, even though I already give you a blatant connection in the very first posts calling them low IQ.

As for your narcissism to how I must be talking about you, I am not referencing you at all in that manner and if you cannot follow then I will repeat for your well being - I don't want you becoming a complete potato: I am talking about the anon who asked if I was also the duck and the autist schizo who posted the pipeline statement in the thread long ago, to which he asked that question in this very thread. Are you saying you're that anon who confused me with me? Are you dense or purposely being malignant and attempting to just make dumb semantic arguments about who is who? I think we both know what you're doing and it's quite frankly, low brow(n).

And no, just because I state that they have mediocre memories does not mean that what I say immediately after vanishes and that they aren't within the specified IQ threshold. [They have mediocre memory, so we can come to a short and assumed conclusion they have mediocre minds, based as well upon the pointed out factors also stated above, lying roughly around 110-120(130)IQ, respectively.] My original argument has specifically never changed, may perhaps you are confused by the more pleasant demeanor? Oh. I see.

Maybe I am mistaking you with someone else, it is plausible. Yet peculiarly these anons love to talk about psychometrics and have an oddly familiar writing style, greentexting and what not,usually engaged towards me in a buttache like manner. Oh, well, who knows who they are. :)
>>
>>816017
You do not become an originalfag. Creative people are born, not made.
>>
>>816251
>You highlighted and continue to highlight nothing
Sure, I can pretend you didn't fail to rebut my counterpoints, if that makes you happy.

>I think we both know what you're doing and it's quite frankly, low brow(n).
Not at all. It was sort of a play on words, which apparently went over your head. Re-read the quotation I made and what I wrote after, and you'll understand.

>They have mediocre memory, so we can come to a short and assumed conclusion they have mediocre minds, based as well upon the pointed out factors also stated above
There you go again. Like a broken record, aren't ya? You cannot infer they have bad memory simply because they don't remember a small thing that happened on 4chan. How dense or autistic are you that you cannot comprehend this? I mean, based on your dialectical ability and your way with concepts, I could infer that you are at most 110 IQ. (I've known people formally tested slightly lower who showed better ability.) Wouldn't that be presumptuous and utterly moronic, though?
>>
>>816254
Yes, lets pretend your romp through the middle of the journey matters to our beginning or the end. Retard.

No, I think it was legitimately a dense moment for you to post, you've been doing it for most of this thread. In fact, you're actually still in this dense moment because you will finally realize how [FUCKED] you are due to recognizing you admitted to having a shit memory for quite a while now. If I had to gauge it, my best estimates for you would be at 130IQ, maybe a tad above. I always enjoy our discussions, they're pleasant and fun. I smile to the spiteful arguments that ensue. It's okay to not understand why you don't know what you're referencing, at this point it's likely shitposts, right? Maybe sheepish concession? But you'll probably still misremember, you're that dumb.

A small detail is not the same to forgetting large portions of the incident. I could forgive anyone if they forgot the color of my dogs' collar (beige), and said it was a light grey instead. I could accept that minute error, it's relatively irrelevant, I do agree under those circumstances. But I cannot accept the misremembrance of the actual event, not when you specifically can recall that exact thread, where you specifically recall your arguments against the "schizo". You keep writing over, and over that the significance of what you wrote or what happened isn't important. "Man, that thread didn't matter, you don't matter dumbo! That's why memory doesn't count towards intelligence! Hurr durr!"

You are literally unable to recognize that you have a mediocre memory. These threads are just a portion of our lives, and yet seemingly so, you can obviously remember that specific argument, with that specific "schizo", with those pseud opinions of yours.

I'm really disappointed in what you're doing now, I admitted right away that I fucked up above, posting a wrong statement about working memory. Yet here you are, now truly the loser. Reread the thread. It'll be bitter, butt cheers, bud.
>>
>>816259
The butthurt is now evident. Did I press the right button? I know I did. Delicious.

>If I had to gauge it, my best estimates for you would be at 130IQ, maybe a tad above
Thanks for putting me above the average, but you're still wrong. I'm professionally tested, WISC-III at first, WAIS-IV later, way above that. But you're the one who gives importance to IQ tests, not me, so I'll let you ponder on that for a while. Maybe you'll see now how you can't estimate people's IQ, not even on broad ranges, over the fucking internet. Lol.

>not when you specifically can recall that exact thread, where you specifically recall your arguments against the "schizo". You keep writing over, and over that the significance of what you wrote or what happened isn't important.
You continue to confuse people. Your long-term memory is not that good, man. Careful with that, it might mean you're actually retarded.

>I admitted right away that I fucked up above, posting a wrong statement about working memory
Not "right away" and certainly it wasn't just a single mistake: it was a misunderstanding of a fundamental concept. Yet you don't seem to grasp why I highlight it, right? It's because, surprise!, you can't be expected to understand some topic if you don't understand its basic concepts. And yet here you are, talking about memory functions as if you were some sort of cognitive scientist. Which you might be, but then I'd have to assume you were having a stroke.

You can take off with one thing: it's usually the dumb people who believe themselves intelligent, because they cannot realize the limits of their understanding. I've met enough like you, and man, it's tiresome, but what can one do?
>>
>>815971

It's just a current trend, loading up a model with all sorts of greebles so there is no "open" space left.
>>
Compound frequencies, lol.
>>
>>815971
I'm pretty positive pbr adds a lot to this feel.
we know how real materials work, we can deduce how near future materials might work, it's all neatly calculated and done for artist in form of material libraries and pretty much removed huge part of guesswork from the process.
we pretty much solved the soul away for the sake of being more efficient.
>>
>>816263
At a computer now, I see you still don't realize anything and didn't in fact reread the thread. That wasn't a dig to tell you to read up it was telling you you specifically failed to prove your points because of what you said. I was up for over 35 hours writing between that, so lets point out why you lost specifically, I feel bad for you:

To begin with you talk about being professionally tested as if it is some mystical idea, yet I have always stated I have done the same, and in fact was given a blessed score. Why pretend that an assessment is something to be wowed by when I specifically base my judgement around the Weschler? Lmao.

Second, you still heavily misremember that Lowpoly Stylized thread, this is why you lost yesterday. I did not start that thread, someone else did, however I was the one specifically who posted the statement that I developed an exceptional and efficient pipeline to create roundabout aesthetics to AAA. You have now, for the (most/entire) thread, misremembered and continue to misremember that it was me who shit on you specifying why the pipeline does in fact exist, and how you kept moving the goal posts each time I btfo you. I remember that quite specifically, and since you say right in this very thread, in your very posts, and I say quote:

>"it was just a delusional OP without anything to show other than words."

(continued)
>>
>>816319
dude, people only respond to you, because your posts occupy a lot of space, and it's funny to read how you self aggrandize with each subsequent one, but don't delude yourself anyone actually gives a fuck about what you're trying to say
>>
>>816263
(final)
Showcases to me that you do not in fact remember correctly, nor can you likely remember well anything in your life. A large leap of logic, maybe, but since I'm judging you it's not like it matters. Do note I am not confused to who anybody is, you are. If you don't believe me you can simply check the archives, I must have hurt you very bad back in that thread, you are obviously jaded by it. To recap you specifically misremember in this very thread and have now stated multiple times that I am not the "autist" who claimed he made the pipeline. That entire thread again was me defending myself against non-believers. The fact that you can't remember what happened just a few months ago tells again, to me, you do not have a great memory. You don't need a savant memory, you just need to remember the duck. You clearly didn't and don't, so I felt the need to repeat this information twice, for your 130IQ~ brain. :)

I did in fact admit the mistake after you highlighted the greentext, I just merely replied to your new arguments first, and since I was on a phone and moving on foot it takes a while to do things. Have patience, silly: What you're basically saying as a primitive argument is that because I posted an incorrect statement which wasn't even meant to be posted (mind going a thousand miles a minute on a phone) about working memory and short term memory, which was followed up anyway by the original point of logic, that long term memory works in collaboration with working memory, it's still all a non-sequitur. Trust me, I profiled you already, you want to talk about the ins and outs of "psychometric" topics due to it being a vested interest in you knowing how it works semantically, specifically the language, right? You're desperate to talk about that topic because that's the only way you feel you can argue anything against me, but it's a mute point when the original argument has always been in tandem with IQ and how it operates. (continued)
>>
>>816263
Just because I misstated, does not mean that the original argument goes away. The logic behind what you're stating about IQ is irrelevant when IQ correlates with long term memory. I have now proven you don't have a good long term memory, you misremembered heavily. You will continue to misremember heavily. I am in fact that autist who argued he created a new aesthetic, and I do post the duck. Again, you really didn't do anything except create an argument detour into a new argument to talk about the semantics of IQ. But we both clearly understand the fundamentals, and as such, as you always have in this thread, silently agree, and now recently, vocally admit that long term memory does in fact correlate with high IQ. You buried yourself man, Even further, compound returns related to lower IQs can in fact be estimated and gauged, based upon how you write. Lets pretend you're anywhere near my assessed IQ, for both of us it would be more difficult to estimate correctly. Seeing as you estimate completely off, we agree that higher IQs are harder to pin point (under the assumption you do in fact have a good IQ - You don't, lol.)

But as we go lower down the threshold, as people begin to become average, it is easier to figure out someone as he gives more data. Again, that is a compound effect. The higher IQ you have, the more difficult it will be to judge based on rough estimates. The lower you go, the easier it is to pinpoint. At a probability's guess, 110-130 is the best approximation, based on all the variables.

Compound frequencies you dipshit, you can in fact guess peoples intelligence (If you want me to add an asterisk after that you can kill yourself you semantic retard) :)
>>
>>816320
Why are you telling me what I already want to hear? Lmao.
>>
>>816323
can you start tripping as "duckhead", or whatever, so I can filter you?
>>
>>816327
Brother, if you can't figure out how to filter me then you're probably gelatin shaped.
>>
>>816023

It's called evolution retard.
>>
File: 1614563041786.gif (974 KB, 480x430)
974 KB
974 KB GIF
>>815971
>same look
Because 3d monkeys are confined in their toolset cage.
Boss says make scifi object and all you can do is to blockout general form and shart on it with details(kitbashittery).
In every piece in op you can see these 2 steps.
Majority of 3d monkeys don't even bother to learn mechanics of objects or anatomy of creatures they create. Good enough is the industry standard. Art already inflated production costs beyond any reason.
>>
>>816367
Top kek, that pic can't be serious, right? ... Right?
>>
>>816319
Damn, you got me. I misremembered who was whom, therefore I must be unintelligent.

...however, you insist on the same flawed logic I rebutted at the beginning, and that you consistently failed to address since. You believe a failure to recall events here suggests low intelligence, but, as I pointed out a few times, such failure is most probably just a matter of not caring about those events in the first place. Consider my failure to remember, just now: couldn't it just be that I simply don't care about who was whom, knowing full well that whatever I wrote you'd reply anyway? (Other anons on this thread rightfully see this, yet you fail to.) I mean, had I cared to "protect my stance" I could have easily checked the archives, couldn't I?

After all, not simply remembering, but more importantly choosing what to remember, is part of being intelligent. And I cannot imagine events on 4chan being so important that they merit extensive recollection. That's what archives are for. You, however, appear to make those memories a core part of your self-worth. Is that really smart? I, and I venture most people, would doubt it.

I wonder what you'll say next. But I have little doubt you won't address the main issue: that you cannot, with a reasonable degree of certainty, ascertain people's intelligence based on shitposting recall -- without having considered more basic, probable explanations, such as the fact that they may simply not care enough to commit those events to memory, and remember. This is true, common sense, and yet you'll continue to ignore it, as it offends your distorted image of yourself.

Quite sad, isn't it?, the degree to which delusions can impair an individual.
>>
>>816367
what is it about this gif that makes it so hilarious, lmao
>>
>>816375
Well considering that we are finally able to talk about the root of the problem instead of you bringing in a bunch of non-sequiturs, I will be fine if we just agree to disagree. The main problem I have with your outlook on "forgetting", that you allege you rebutted me with in the beginning, is that I don't in fact and have not disagreed with your reference to describing how memory works. I have disagreed with the insinuation that this is what that is. I am stating that this is due to the long term memory's capacity itself. Like you say, this is just a huge leap in logic, and I should think of Occam's razor, right? But usually, when you have a great memory, you will not misremember directly. It's not unfair to say that you knew there was a huge "schizo" in that thread, you argued intently with "him", and can remember seemingly, quite a lot about it. Even to the extent that you say "he" never showed any proof, meaning that you can at least recall finishing reading that entire thread. Unless you misremembered? Whether or not I am interesting or forgettable in your head, I can never know. All I can make is conjecture. I believe the real issue you have is to how schizophrenic and poor to read my writing is.

I guess I could phrase the argument in a different context: There are now a group of anons who directly misremember in this thread. If all of them distort it to a degree, then it seems to me that their memories fog or blur after some time. If all of you have distorted it, and yet can still remember that "schizo autist" and "his" whacko ramblings, then the issue becomes a measure of my judgement on you, not so much what you believe or what they will say. Instead it becomes an assessment of probabilities. Are these anons just super geniuses that forgot the event? Or do they likely have average to above average memories? Again I want to refer back to the compound. Even if you have a high IQ like me, the probability that these other anons do as well, is slim.
>>
>>816450
>Even if you have a high IQ like me, the probability that these other anons do as well, is slim.
How you can guess a person has low IQ.
>>
Come on duckie, post some retarded shit, I’m bored.
>>
Also, the issue is: None of these learned the design basic: "Give the eyes a place to rest".

Homogenous cluttering with details lets everything look bland and unlogical.
>>
>>815971
I've no doubt whoever made these is far beyond my skill level but I'd still tell him to his face that his work sucks dick. I hate that people actually waste time on shit like this instead of improving.
>>
>>815971
if you want design inspo check lemanoosh
>>
File: 1536339195537.jpg (125 KB, 800x991)
125 KB
125 KB JPG
>>816603
This. Good hard surface is good industrial design, which takes elements of art and architecture.
>Visual hierarchy
>80/20 rule, meaning that 80% of a design should be simple, and 20% dense and complex
>Ratios important. All of the good stuff that people like was designed with pencil and paper, usually from one primary orthographic view following some kind of grid arrangement.
>>
>>815987
Based and originalpilled
>>
>>815987
Ducknigger is a humanities major lmao
>>
>>815971
They're talentless hacks.
>>
>>818059
Even kitbashfags are a thousand times more talanted than retarded faggots that bump old threads without adding anything of value.
>>
>>816815
the spelling mistakes and the juvenile pseudo philosophising make me think he's an high school dropout to be desu
>>
>>818060
Sneed.
>>
>>818064
he's right doe
>>
Most 3d artists copy what they see and turn it into 3D, hardsurface artists do the same, they just look at other people work , see what they like and copy it, without knowing nothing about design or functionality, then comes a legion of faggots giving them likes and calling them legendary and we get this kind of shit being praised as good.
>>
>>816252
it's the fingerprint of the god
>>
>>815971
Lots of hard surface modeling is a creation of an object with a purpose of usage, usually for human and near always for humanoid body types. That's why helmets usually look like, helmets made for the shape of the round head. When you model with a purpose of helmet being put on top of the human head you naturally arrive to the similar ruleset that many come to because it 'has to make some sense'.

This is even more important in 3D because compared to 2D, 2D operates on different logic and you can break lots of things with 'cartoonish logic'. Even worse with video games because lets say a gun, has to make sense from different view angles and has to have a logic to it's functionality for the first person reload animations. The peak of 'it has to make full sense in it's functionality' is VR where not only it has to have a logic to it's looks and animations no, you often expect player to reload that shit with their hands up close and personal. Here is an example, a VR gun game H3VR porting TF2 weapons and oh shit many things had to be adjusted because that shit makes no sense.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEycuNRTU5Y
>>
>>818087
To give a distinct look for such things of purpose small details are important, but one way is to build up your own logic of purpose. To break from established norms and conventions you should understand them, then play with them and come up with your own ones but don't expect too much of a fully 'band new thing', "everything new is a well-forgotten old" after all. Also broaden your view and look how others did it with their own distinct designs. Luger pistol looks funky and is interesting to some, it left a noticeable mark on hand guns development and some that came after it followed Luger philosophy and design to some extend as a benchmark. Luger in turn was an improvement on Borchardt C93, that was based on Maxim gun toggle-bolt design, being innovative by usage of recoil like in old navy cannons instead of manual adjustments compared to Gatling gun, if we keep going we might end up with sticks and stones at this point. "Everything new is a well-forgotten old".
>>
>>818087
Look at those guns
>>816367
>>815971
And talk to me about purpose again.
>>
>>818089
Their purpose might have been a pretty render or a gun in fps from a locked view where you don’t see the parts that make no sense. I posted TF2 in VR as an example on what needed to be adjustment when the usage purpose changed.
>>
>>818102
You came from the premise that hardsurface designs have to make sense as real world usable items, so most hardsurface designs look similar. Now most of those designs don’t really make sense from the point of view of being usable, so you decided their “use” is being rendered. Which completely contradicts your initial point.
>>
File: 1569129673472.jpg (96 KB, 750x999)
96 KB
96 KB JPG
>>815986
I mean that robot is better than zbrush improvisations you usualy see on q
Artstation.
I think the problem is they dont have a concept when starting out.
A little drawibg outlining the shapes and forms.
So its just the normal flowing shapes of a human, with little unique features.
Like even this very normal looking jumpsuit is recognizable becquse of its designed, zbrush improvisations usualy has little design
>>
>>815971
>greeble encrusted shit
Holy shit, why





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.