Francis90's studio

[Odainsaker 2,134]

Art Deco draws inspiration from all sorts of sources, but the building shown so far strongly suggests classicism.  Full corinthian capitals may be a bit much, but perhaps something like this  would work:

Obviously, these are not free-standing column, but a more like half-columns fronting pilasters.  Still, the ensemble suggest historic classical roots, while actually using not a single acanthus leaf.  You know, those "capitals" could even become sculpture mounts or lanterns of some sort.

A good pair with these columns for the stairstepping corner piers might be this:

Its narrow pilaster under the eagle relief is cool as well and could work on your wing pilasters.  It even has little column-like decoration that could be made to match the greater columns.

Of course, I don't offer these to be slavishly copied...afterall, it is your project, not mine.  However, I might indeed suggest directly trying to model these examples, particularly the corner.  In the process, you will that the steps fall not mysteriously, but in both proportional and alignment relationships with other parts of the building (like the entablature), and also within themselves and their own internal proportional rules and alignments.  They all integrate together, but they will also look right individually, which is why a photo like this can be taken without showing the whole building, and yet this detail by itself looks "right."

(Incidently, I always wondered how the U.S. got away with its Art Deco state eagles, sometimes clutching wreaths and symbols, without it screaming 1930s Germany!  See how the early Speer-like proposals for the World War II Memorial in Washiongton, D.C., played out.)

Art Deco pulls a great deal from Cubism, and in Cubist painting, normally face-forward profiles are broken up into facets, with each facet like a different profile view from a different angle or time, the greater idea being that on the flat canvas you can see all the different facets going around all at once (like seeing all the different sides of a cube all at once).  The breakup of corners in some Art Deco buildings in architecture emulates the same trend to turn around corners while also transitioning from a broader base to a narrower top or breakdown masses.  Its a fun detail.

You know, I like this corner too:

This is somewhat a different style of Art Deco, hinting more towards an almost Islamic or Iberian fortresses (it is an armoury!) but its starkness may fit what you are doing as well.  Truly, for now, it doesn't hurt to simply pick a corner or other detail you really like, and use it directly, as much of the designing work has then already been done for your, and the process of recreation will be extremely informative in learning how the original architect created that solution, which will then later inspire through experience your own solutions.

Something to also consider, coming from the image of building of the source inspiration for the setbacks....notice how even side wing entrance bounded in the red box it is really defined as its own block with its own roofline.  To give them extra weight, there aren't very many windows there either, and even the regular rhythm of the facade windows allows for a bit more mass when it reach this block.  You might consider something similar at the corner of your wings, which don't yet have that weightiness.  At the very least, somehow their treatment should also relate to the treatment of the central entry block, perhaps with matching corner stepbacks.

I hope these were helpful, adn I can't wait to see how this building ultimately turns out.

[Francis90b 748]

Thank you for all of your replies!

Nihonkaraws: thanks for the suggestion, i didn't even know this way.Actually the roof texture is not definitive, and i have to find it or to tweak it.But this will come a bit later, when all of the building will be perfect.

 

Odainsaker:you have given a lot of suggestions and were very helpful.Thank you for the long post.Actually i don't want to remodel the central entry block setbacks and the corner as a whole (also because they' re attached polygons, so every mistake can be the last), but i will add the details of the narrow pilaster on the corners and the central entry piece.As for the wing setbacks, I don't want to give them too much weight (after all they' re part of the wiings and the central element is the central porch, but i will consider also the idea of adding one or two setbacks as i see in your second pic.Not sure on how it will be, because i think that too many details can clash with the rest of the building.

Your fist pic shows the idea i' ve had adopted (more or less) but since i am very worried about losing the cilinder look of the columns and to exagerate, then i made the horizontal stripes on the top of the columns very small, and you can notice them only if you look at them:

 

BTW, what are the buildings you've shown?

 

[Francis90b 748]

Short update:

I'm having serious troubles with the BAT.It is really slow and i can't work well on it.Sorry for you folks who have spent part of your time in suggesting ideas and details, but unless they' re very few and simple, i can't really use them.Sorry.

I' m going to add only some minor details, but for the rest it will be a "take it or leave it" BAT.Hope that this will look well even so.

However, when this will be finished, i'm going to create a matching post-office building (as there are in NY or philadelphia) so your advices wont be lost :-)

[Jasoncw 11,840]

Sorry, it turns out I sent this to tomdapom in a PM, not in his thread.  I never proofread or edited this, so hopefully it makes sense.  Someday I might write a tutorial about this.  Odainsaker gave great advice and this fits in with what he said.

As you know the building is demolished, and it looks like Google Earth has been updated since it's demolition, so the measure tool can't be used to measure the building.  However, local live has not been updated.  So I took a screenshot of the building, scaled and overlayed it in photoshop with a screenshot from google earth of the same area, plus a measured line.  With that I found that the building is about 31x27 meters.  Using skyscraperpage/emporis, I found that the building is 51.8 meters tall in real life.  To correct this for the game, we're going to mulitply the height by 133%, resulting in a height of about 69 meters.  This number includes the mechanical penthouses.  You don't want to model the main part of the building based off the total height, and then add the penthouses afterwards becuase then you've made the building taller than it should be.  So we'll just take off 4 meters to account for the penthouse before modeling the main section of the building.  So we'll just say the main part of the building is 65 meters tall.  Alternatively, you can skip the vertical scaling for now, and model things exactly as they are, and then you can scale at the end.  The only problem with this, is that you need to have a lot of confidence in what you're modeling, since you won't really know what the building looks like until the very end.

So then we search flickr.com for photos of this building (also known as the people's outfitter building) and we find this one which is a straight on elevation of the facade.  We'll derive proportions from this image.  So take a screenshot of it, and paste it in photoshop.  For finding out proportions, I usually inscribe squares onto the image using the rectangular selection tool and holding down shift to get a square.  Then I can move this around and see how many squares big something is.

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/3219/proportionsuo8.jpg

^Here's an illustration of what I'm going to explain below.  Reference back to it when needed.

Looking at this screenshot, we can see that there are three main parts of the facade, the windows, the terra cotta spandrels, and the columns (which I think are terra cotta bricks).  The windows are cut in half in one direction, but there is also that horizontal window mullion at the top.  The bottom half of the windows (the bottom two tall windows) form a square (red).  The top part of the windows, plus the spandrel also forms a square (except for a little bit of window ledge, which can easily be accounted for) (also red).  Within the box that has the spandrel and top of the window in it, the spandrel and the rectangles in the window have the same proportions (green).  But that's not all.  The top box is actually divided into thirds (yellow).  And finally, we can select a box to measure the width of the columns, and then moving it over the windows, it turns out that the columns are the same width as one of those vertical windows (blue).

So those are the proportions of that.  Now we just need to know the actual dimension of one of those pieces, and we'll know the rest of the dimensions, and we'll be ready to model.  The only dimensions we know are the height, width, and depth of the total building.  The height isn't useful because floor heights may be different from floor to floor (you can't take the height and divide by the number of floors to get the floor heights).  But we do have approximate widths, and by looking at the facade we can see that each bay is a standard size.  Now, you'd need to be careful when deciding that, because sometimes there will be subtle differences between each bay, but in this case there aren't any (as far as I know anyway).

So there are 8 bays on the front of the building.  I think the width is 27 meters.  Normally, I'd take 27/3 to get the width of each bay.  The problem with this, is each wall "unit" would include the windows, and one of the columns (you'd either include one whole column, or you'd include one half of a column on each side), and if you take this and array it across to make your entire wall, you're going to be missing one of the columns at the end, or half of a column on each end of the facade.  But our smallest horizontal "unit" is actually the blue width.  So we have 25 blues across the front facade.  I think it is 27 meters wide, but my measurement was pretty loose, so I'll assume that there are 25 blues across, and that the width is actually 25 meters, making each "blue" unit 1 meter wide. 

This means that the red boxes are 2x2 meters, and that the yellow lines are 2/3 meters, and that the blue.  Since each red square is 2x2, and since there are two red squares per floor, the height of each floor is 4 meters (but remember that this doesn't take into account the 133% verical scaling yet).  The other side of the building is 28 blues, and so it is 28 meters.

So that should be enough information to accurately model the majority of the facade.  Getting specific though, make sure to pay close attention to the specific shapes, for example, the columns aren't rectangles, they're more complicated than that.quote>

I think that you'll need to scale down your train station if it's already too slow to work on, and you haven't added the windows yet.  I think window frames slow things down the most.  If you can't model without a lot of lag, or do preview renders without it taking a long time, then it's going to be really hard to do a good job.

Maybe it would actually be good if you stop working on an actual building, and just start modeling parts of buildings that you like.  So that you can have something small and focused for you to practice on.  Then you'll be able to make exactly what you want for your actual buildings.  If you want to I can set up some excercices for you (and others) to work on.

[Francis90b 748]

I won't give up because i'm so motivated that BATing any other thing appears to be nonsensical for me.I will try, and rebuild, and better this till it's perfect.I don't care of the time, i care about the quality.

BAT was so unreliable and slow due to excessive polygons.Many of them are on the columns (the most detailed objects, so they will be added last.The station had been broken down in its sections in order to work easier and faster;every section will be entirely completed and then assembled with the others.Working this way i can use all your ideas and suggestions and get the best.

The first section i'm going to post and discuss is the front:

(this pic is NOT rescaled, it shows things as they should appear).I' ve added some setbacks as shown in Odainsaker's second pic, and heightened the detail near the corner so that it can have its own roofline and be "heavwier".

[Jasoncw 11,840]

That's a huge improvement over what you had before. Though right now, because gmax can't render very sharply, the setbacks kind of blur together. You may want to exaggerate the setbacks until you can see them more clearly.

[SimHoTToDDy 2,938]

Great work first of all, I have been eying this thread for a while and reading the advice that everyone is giving you (I'm still new too, so it couldn't hurt!). Breaking things up is probably your best bet for getting things done on this, I had the same problem when working on the Battersea Power Station (which takes 9 hours to do 1 preview render). Grouping things and working on them individually is the only way I was able to do it.

Anyway, let me put my 2 cents in. I like where you are going with the details you have added, but think your attachment to keeping the original shape is restraining your ability to make this look really spectacular. The details are good, but they blend into the rigid bland shapes you are trying to counteract. while they might be realistic in comparison to real examples in size, it is difficult to let them realize a size that can be appreciated with out exaggerating some. The columns especially would benefit from making those horizontal rings larger, you don't want to have to look for details to see them, you want them to be obvious enough to appreciate at a glance. Not to say they should stick out of the over all look. The corner you are working on, too, has some wonderful detail, but is next to invisible. If the recessions were larger in both width and depth, we would, one, be able to see them and, two, have them contribute to the overall asthetics of the building (not just a tiny detail isolated to one part of the building). The rightmost column in that last pic for example, might have a "bulge" (for lack of better words) that is,lets say, 9/10ths of the main column, but only a 1/20th difference is obvious on one side (the resess you are trying to make). Just making that "bulge" smaller, perhaps 8/10ths, would make the recesses twice as obvious and more likely to be noticed. The affect that has be created looks like a flat plane, cutting the corner off entirely.

I know I can't go much smaller than .1m when I make details with low contrast (even with a good renderer) because they simply disappear. In reality, .1m is a decent size for something (about 4 inches) but turns out looking unreasonably inconspicuous. So I have had to make things that wouldn't normally be more than an inch or two comparatively massive just show they can be seen.

I am glad you are dedicated to making a good product, rather than a quick one, much like my self. I know you are going to consider this reasonably and I hope I gave you enough of an idea of what I mean without upsetting your style too much. I honestly hope to see you get this worked out to a point where you are happy with it. Excellent work so far, and best of luck,

-Todd

[Francis90b 748]

Yep, i'm aware of this, but exagerating the setbacks would screw the rest of the building.

[Francis90b 748]

Well, thank you for the suggestions.Your battersea power station is actually a really good work, and even if i don't know that building very well, i can't find any defects on it.You' ve done a great job in detailing the recessions, and your advices will be followed by me on the porch, where setbacks are to be more noticeable.I'm also modelling a new side that will have the same kind of corners, so maybe it will help to highlight the general idea

The columns were (and are) a major trouble.I will make the stripes larger, and i knew i had to do it.I was worried about making them sticking out, ruining all of the building.My first attempt of making a large scale project (that is my first attempt to model a large railway terminal) shows it quite well.

While i model the details, I also have to consider two factors that aren't the style or the proportions;they're the shadows and the fact that some details should be noticed , while others are modelled only to give some feeling.The solution i' ve tried for the front is actually the best i' ve found; exagerating some details can create too much shadows and differences where i don't need them.

I am a little conservative, but i' ve started rebuilding the whole thing to use your suggestion and making it a lot better.

[allez l'om 1]

it is getting a good start!!!

[Francis90b 748]

I have fixed the setbacks, and this is a pic showing how the corners will look.(again, a not-resized pic)

[Gn_leugim 853]

the only critic I may do is that the textures is tiling a bit =1 but apart from that is quite good

[jacqulina 162]

good so far

[Francis90b 748]

Texturing depends on tiling factor and UVW mapping.I' ve entered a test value for both of them, so it will change.When all the parts will be assembled, i will fix both of them.Now i can't even try something that fits well for all the building because i won't know its exact size until i will model all of its sections.

[nofunk 1,933]

Wow! I'm loving those detailed corners! This is showing a lot of promise; I can't wait to see more.

[Francis90b 748]

You don't have to wait any longer:

These are the yard walls.They' re a bit plain and i don't think i need to detail them, but maybe your opinion is different.

[Jasoncw 11,840]

Remember that each floor is about 4 meters tall.

[Francis90b 748]

Thanks, I' ve done the floors with a smaller height, i will correct them right now.

[SimHoTToDDy 2,938]

Looks much better, glad you decided to adjust them! Now, just to see how the rest turns out! Oh, just out of curiosity, are the tops of those giant [doorways?] going to be that flat? Seems like there should be a little detail, like a wall, or some kind of ornamentation.

Good work,

-Todd

[Francis90b 748]

This is actually improving a bit, but the worth is of all the people who are suggesting me things to fix and change.

I don't understand what you mean as "the tops of those giant (doorways?)", but maybe i will if you download one of the pics, higlight the subject of the problem, and then re-post it.

[Jasoncw 11,840]

He means the big tall vertical parts, that have the setbacks at the corners. The part that you based off of odainsaker's 2nd picture.

[Francis90b 748]

No, i don't think i will add more details to the corner setbacks.

[Jasoncw 11,840]

He means there.

[SimHoTToDDy 2,938]

XD Jason beat me to it! Oh well, I attached some pics of what I mean, one being a smokestack on the Battersea and the other a train station (which you can see full size HERE). Nothing too special, just something to break up that ugly, bare plane.

Hope that helps,

-Todd

[Francis90b 748]

Detail fixed, it should look better now:

I also plan to use Odainsaker's second pic narrow pilasters details on my wing pilasters.I would like your opinion about adding the horizontal stripes at the lowermost part of the pilasters (as in the previous version, page 1).

[_Atticus 10]

Much better indeed. Though it is a small detail, it makes a big difference.

-Pingangster

[Francis90b 748]

Small update:

Notice the rebuilt yard walls.

[art128 4,618]

that look great !

can't wait to see more development !

Arthur.

[_Atticus 10]

Great job on the detail! It looks fantastic. I think it would be a good idea to put some kind of detail above the two doorways in the corner, maybe a relief. Maybe you thought about it already, but I just figured I might as well say it.

-Pingangster

[Francis90b 748]

I actually think that a bit of texturing can solve this problem and i'm working on it right now.

If you have some ideas, i will try them and keep them if they will fit.