Smallest visible details?

[Applejacks817 0]

Hello all! I'm just getting started with making my own building models in GMAX, and I'm wondering if anyone has a good rule of thumb for the smallest size of details they model. I've got a building with some thin window frames and other small decorations on the front, and they don't seem to be showing up when I render the model. Some of these objects are only 1/10 of a small block in GMAX - how big should it be so that it's visible?

[Jasoncw 11,839]

First I think it's best to understand the units. The grid is in meters, so that would be .1 meters.

From what I remember with gmax, at .2 something will show up clearly and below that it will get harder to see clearly. But of course you can always do a preview render and if it's not clear enough you can exaggerate it a little bit.

[madhatter106 3,903]

Some small details can be done in the texturing - in other words, you can "fake" some 3D details with particular textures in some cases. I personally model window frames, usually because they end up being an entirely different texture than that of the walls the windows are in. I wouldn't go so far as modelling doorknobs or anything that small, but I've modeled trashcans and bundles of newspapers and cardboard boxes and such like. I'd probably say some lighting fixtures are the smallest I've gone into modeling, but I've only modeled them because it involved the lighting scheme I was doing for the whole model.

As a side note, if a certain item isn't showing up, check to see if it's a spline to which a UVW modifier hasn't been added.

[Bipin 3,402]

I do tend to go overboard in details, and on top of that I do often render HD props/small buildings, but I like to model window frame moulding, actually model siding, not just texture it on, and even go as far as to smooth the ends of each piece of siding. It all depends on the size, render quality, and type of item (for instance, I 3D model the bumps in those red grip tiles for sidewalks, and render them in HD, but I only do the essential cuts and grooves separating different sections of a large concrete retaining wall).

[IDS2 3,344]

I suppose the question to ask yourself would be whether or not the small details you're considering contribute to the model in a significant way.

Sometimes details can make or break a model, such as the addition of furniture to balconies. Because the furniture adds life to the model, it should be treated as a significant contribution to the model. Other times, you can afford to leave things out. For instance, I think we'd all agree that modeling stuff like electrical outlets might be going a bit overboard.

Personal preference and computer constraints play an important role as well. I know Amthaak is an example of someone who most definitely goes the extra mile with details (I seem to recall one of his roof pumps having ~400K polygons alone). Also, you mentioned that you're using gmax, and I know that gmax tends to miss the really small (less than 0.1m or so) details, so test the waters a bit and find what you think is a good standard.

Basically, just survey what you're trying to model for a bit first. If you feel like the details you're contemplating will add significantly to the model, then by all means, model them!

[zahrul3 471]

I seem to recall one of his roof pumps having ~400K polygons alone

DAFUQ DID I SEE THERE!!!

==========================================================================================

I think its up to your choice how much detail you add, and factor your computer into it(3dsMAX and gMax are CPU and graphics heavy so don't even think of exceeding 200k polygons on a computer with integrated graphics). Things such as handrails, walls, roof junk, minor detailing, doors/windows, pipes and roof elements can be simplified by making your own textures or by simplifying the object itself.

  Edited May 15, 2012 by zahrul3  

[madhatter106 3,903]

Too much detailing can make you give up and throw what could be a really good BAT into the rubbish bin.

Silliness. If someone is going to throw a BAT away because they give up in the middle of all the details, it's not the details that have contributed to the BAT's demise, it's the lack of follow-through on the BATter's part.

[Amthaak 1,501]

Quote

"Too much detailing can make you give up and throw what could be a really good BAT into the rubbish bin."

Unquote

I, personnally will never do that...!

BTW, between A and B , I prefer A, question of taste...!

  Edited May 15, 2012 by Amthaak  

[zahrul3 471]

Quote

"Too much detailing can make you give up and throw what could be a really good BAT into the rubbish bin."

Unquote

I, personnally will never do that...!

BTW, between A and B , I prefer A, question of taste...!

Amthaak is just one of the exceptions

Well, by "simplifying", it means things that are no overly intricate stuff, protruding things will be modeled while less visible carvings and other textureable stuff using textures.

And by the way, I actually edited my post, and it no longer contains the "BAT thrown into rubbish bin" before I saw madhatter's post(I thought this is one of those quieter threads).

[T Wrecks 10,209]

Well, I know from scale model building that you can really overburden yourself with details and end up finding it very tedious and less than fun to proceed. This may be just me, but sometimes there's a point where I need to say "Heck, it's good enough, I'm my hardest critic anyway" and go on so that I feel the whole thing progressing and going somewhere. Otherwise I might lose motivation because I spend endless time refining tiny details, but lose any sense of progress. Other peoples' brains may work differently, of course.

I just realise this was ~78.4% off topic.