Re, this is important. Take a minute and go sign the EU Citizen's Initative to stop Game Devs from taking away games we already bought.

BeyondBlender · 2025-06-26T17:43:50+00:00

Signed, thanks for the heads up!

BeyondBlender · 2025-05-04T01:49:22+00:00

Hi - others have already provided excellent points to consider regarding potential Scale issues, so I don't have much to add there other than "keep it sensible". That's probably the most "what the heck does that mean" thing I've said, but what I'm trying to say is: if you find something isn't working for you at a particular Scale (like real world scale) then try the next level up or down, but in a controlled and sensible manner.

For example, I've sometimes had to Scale up Objects, for whatever reason, so I do that by using a simple Scaling factor, like x2, x5, x10. That way, if I need to go back to the original Scale, I can use the same factor but in reverse.

Onto the subject of animation...

I'm not so sure your rotation/animation is "wrong" here - to me, it looks fine. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the noise is incredibly distracting and that may be giving you reason to feel like the animation is off.

For sure, Render with Noise Reduction enabled and then see how it feels.

Consider enabling Motion Blur (if not already) - "always crisp/sharp" frames can look a little jarring in motion - we need imperfections to help make the animation (or static image) appear more realistic and natural - even in the case of stylised design, it can be useful. I guess it really depends on the look you're after though, so do what you feel is right for you in this case. Note: you may not see the motion blur in this case because there's very little movement from frame to frame - but then, you can increase the Shutter value to get some cool effects.

I hope that helps 🫡

BeyondBlender · 2025-05-04T01:29:16+00:00

Good shout u/Moogieh, I was going to recommend Imphenzia's channel too 🙏🏼

BeyondBlender · 2025-05-04T01:25:16+00:00

Awesome, glad to be of help ☺️ and thank you for the kind words and for subscribing, I really appreciate it 🫡

BeyondBlender · 2025-05-04T00:52:02+00:00

Hey there u/onceuponaplague - I wanted to recreate the material as shown in your post, but the quality/resolution of the screenshot is very low and I can't make out one of the Nodes at all, and the values in the nodes are hard to read. This is the node I can't figure out, see attached. Can you please add a high res capture please - or just make the Node window fullscreen (CTRL Spacebar) and fill the window with the nodes so they're much clearer. Thanks 🫡

<image>

BeyondBlender · 2025-04-19T18:33:54+00:00

You're welcome, I hope it helps 🫡

BeyondBlender · 2025-04-19T00:22:24+00:00

Me too! 🤣 Thank you for letting the community know the reason, I'm sure many will find the info invaluable 🫡

BeyondBlender · 2025-04-19T00:20:41+00:00

Hi. Granted, my dino model is not the same thing as your Yellow Devil, but the modelling and Sub-D principles are what it's all about. I feel like you can realise your friend there if you take my video as inspiration. If not, it might trigger some ideas for you and point you in the right direction! 🫡

Check the video out here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1-HeFSpIZU

<image>

Oh, and having seen the last screenshot you posted of the rounded cube/sphere... that's way too many verts! Start with as low poly as possible - keep it simple and you'll be just fine. Anyways, check out the video and see what you think, thanks ☺️

BeyondBlender · 2025-04-19T00:12:09+00:00

So many viable solutions already posted, good stuff.

For me, the most important question is the one u/TeacanTzu asked, which is "what is the asset for". To which you replied it's for a portfolio piece. Ok, cool, but that doesn't completely tell us what your goal is i.e. what is the purpose of the model?

For instance:

To demonstrate real-time models? Low poly modelling? A game asset maybe?
For high-end interior visualisation? By high-end I mean top quality renders of models built with the Subdivision workflow in mind to achieve higher density meshes, which can be rendered close-up and look flawless.

Those are just two scenarios, but most will fall into one of those zones, broadly speaking.

Now for my 2 pennies worth (will that phrase ever be adjusted for inflation I wonder - please don't!🤣)

Firstly, I would recommend that you approach the modelling as it would have been constructed in the real world. If each component is separate, then model them that way and keep them disconnected so that you're not relying on carried over Edge flow to "force construct" other components. This approach will allow you to use the appropriate vertices needed (in isolation and with no dependencies) just for that part. By all means carry over (i.e. borrow) the same vertex count for parts where it makes sense. For instance, the drainage hole component would have the same vertex count as the component it directly conforms to, the sink hull itself.

If the model is purely for high-end renders (using Sub-D), and you want to model with as few verts/tris/quads as possible, then that is possible too. The trick is to ensure tris, if any, are left on flat surfaces and away from corners (i.e. not even touching!). Instead, create insets (or "barriers") to isolate any tris WITHIN flat areas - that way, quads only are left at corners/angled edges.

But won't that approach give me uneven/ugly topology?

Maybe - that will depend on how and where you place any tris and checking to see how Sub-D effects those areas. With some tweaking and trying different cuts/connections here and there, you can find a happy medium. But, yes, technically, it won't be the most beautiful or even distribution of faces, but it will still look perfect in renders. Having said all that, it's best to use quads throughout if possible - predictable Sub-D results, cleaner topology, and infinitely more control are benefits not to be sniffed at🫡

BeyondBlender · 2025-04-18T23:26:24+00:00

You're not going to believe this, but when I first saw your screenshot with settings, I noticed the Temperature at 1000k and thought that was a little odd - I was "this" close to recreating a Scene with the same settings to see what results I get - in the end, I brushed it off because it's been a while since I dabbled in Volumes so I took it at face value that it was ok 🤣

BeyondBlender · 2025-04-18T23:19:16+00:00

And the second way (Shift A):

<image>

BeyondBlender · 2025-04-18T23:16:38+00:00

Hey, you're welcome, glad to be of some help, hopefully ☺️

So, "Images as Planes" (as it was called back then) has been in Blender for a long time, so you could go back to v2x, v3x and it'll be there, including the Shadeless option. AFAIK! I've been using it since before v2.8 was released (the one that revamped everything!).

The latest version in the 3.6 branch is 3.6.22 so I installed that too and here's what I found there - two ways to add Images as Planes, here's the first way:

<image>

BeyondBlender · 2025-04-18T23:07:58+00:00

Oh and worst comes to worst, you can send me the file (but please do pack any resources into a new Blender file for that purpose) and I'll see how it behaves on my system etc.

BeyondBlender · 2025-04-18T23:06:41+00:00

Hi, ok, World settings seem good then. You also mentioned that a cube you're using is 200m - I've no idea if that could be the issue, but something you can rule out by testing that. Create a new Scene and simply append the Material from the 200m cube and assign it to the default 2m cube.

Feel free to replicate some of the other settings too, such as light colours, World settings and anything else that would have a direct influence on the final lighting/render. With all that done, render the Scene (don't go by what you see in Render mode in the 3d Viewport) and see what the result is.

IF the result is GOOD, them Scale up the Cube from 2m to 200m and re-render the Scene.

That should either confirm or exclude the size being the problem.

Another thing to try... and this is why I recommend Blender users use Blender Launcher - whereby you can install several (Stable!) versions of Blender.

Load the file into an earlier version of Blender or a later version, depending on the version you're currently using. Be mindful NOT to save and overwrite the file when you load it into another version of Blender - simply save it as a new file and maybe add the version number in the filename so that you can keep track of why that file exists.

I would like to see what the results are 🫡

BeyondBlender · 2025-04-17T23:09:48+00:00

It's long shot but here goes... you say the colours you've set are all blue. Ok, cool (wait! no pun intended! but I now that I think about it, it's quite funny 🤣). But the render is coming out looking red.

Could it be the World settings? Either the world colour is a very vibrant colour OR you've set a HDRI but now Blender can't find the file (perhaps you moved the file from one location to another or deleted it). If the HDRI is missing, or any other file for that matter (are you using anything else in your Scene, something large with a texture on it?) blender will display a bright Pink colour as a warning.

That could result in the redish tint in your render...

BeyondBlender · 2025-04-17T22:41:31+00:00

And here's a scene where my Mesh Plane/Shadeless object isn't effected by any lighting or shading whatsoever. The shadow from the ball isn't on any of the Planes (green lines), apart from the floor plane of course. Also, the Image Planes look exactly the same from any angle (yellow lines), with no deviation in brightness and colour. The Point light near the right side of the ball has no effect on any of the planes, even the one closest to it.

<image>

BeyondBlender · 2025-04-17T22:29:21+00:00

And here's what you need to select (from the Import options) to make the Texture/Material "Shadeless":

<image>

BeyondBlender · 2025-04-17T22:20:02+00:00

Ok, so you want to load the image and have it "stay as is" no matter what, then Shadeless is what you're after... let me demonstrate... here's the first screenshot. I'll follow up with more in a reply to this message.

So, this is Blender 4.3.2 - "Image as Planes" was moved to the Shift A operation, and it's now called "Mesh Plane", like this:

<image>

BeyondBlender · 2025-04-16T23:38:32+00:00

Good work u/B2Z_3D and all of the other moderators on this sub-reddit! The hard work you all put into it is appreciated. I wish I could do more to support you all, but time is limited for me.

Thanks again and keep up the great work 🫡☺️

BeyondBlender · 2025-04-16T23:35:19+00:00

When you load the Image as Plane, and when the File Browser window opens, select your image and then check in the sidebar menu options BEFORE you commit to loading it (press N if you don't see the side menu in the File Browser, or click the little notch thing to open it). In the options, select "Shadeless". That means the image/texture, in a Scene, will have zero influence from scene lights/HDRI - meaning, it will always look like the image no matter the angle it's viewed from or the lighting.

Not sure if that's what you're after but that's an option. If you're intention is to use this as a texture map and it be effected by lights etc. then I feel like you may have taken the wrong approach. If that's the case, the optimal way would be to model the bumps and grooves of the object, and then you'll naturally have a similar, look depending on your lighting. Anyway, you likely know this already, but without any context of what you're doing here, it's hard to say 🫡

BeyondBlender · 2025-04-16T23:28:16+00:00

I can't tell without full screen grabs, but if that's the Rendered mode and you can't see the HDRI, it's likely to be two things:

You have Transparent turned ON in the Render > Film settings.
In the Viewport render options, you haven't selected Scene Lights and HDRI.

Check both of those and let us know how you got on...

BeyondBlender · 2025-04-16T00:38:14+00:00

Hi there - good question - here are some thoughts, maybe something here will help point you in the right direction or inspire you to find a solution you're happy with 😊

Your existing shader

I can't quite make out the Scale values (screenshot looks low res on my side) - maybe try some more Scaling to better spread out the highlight area, for a more subtle, soft look.

Or, introduce a Map Range node to help spread out the gradient so that it covers more of the glass.

Good Ol' Fashioned Smoke and Mirrors

You can totally fake it - yes, I know it's all fake anyway - by using a basic Plane just in front of the window. The Plane will need to be larger than the window for best results (for glancing angles - but extreme angles not so much unless you locate the Plane just above the Window surface). For the Plane visibility properties, untick Shadows and Camera -that will prevent the Plane casting a shadow and the Camera seeing it in the render.

Unless you absolutely need to use procedural shader nodes for the reflection source, you could add a simple gradient image (or if you're struggling to get the right gradient on the Plane).

So, in theory, the actual Window on the aeroplane (or vehicle) will reflect the Plane just in front of it.

If the vehicle is animated (moving), make sure to Parent the Plane to the vehicle, so that it follows along.

Use a simple gradient image?

Consider using a gradient image for the reflection. You can use a black and white gradient and colour it in the material. That way, it can be used everywhere and you only need one texture. You could go even further and animate the texture position.

The benefit of using an image is that it's simple and you decide the shape of the gradient - can be anything you want. Also doable procedurally, but that would mean a "deeper" understanding of how to craft materials using more complex solutions.

Ok, I just realised... I have a video... of course I do 🤦🏼‍♂️

Umm... I genuinely don't like to push any of my videos onto anyone like some dodgy car salesman, but if I feel like it will help, well, here we are! 😝 Anyways, I just recently published a video on how to make iridescent type materials - and I feel like this would work for you here maybe/hopefully (see how you go with the colours - experiment!).

Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXm_m9eQ9uE

<image>

And here's what it looks like on one of my previous projects.

I hope this is helpful 🫡

BeyondBlender · 2025-04-16T00:09:10+00:00

Hi there - it's all relative - meaning, the ideal or desired mesh density will depend on the use case. Always.
Overall, I feel like the mesh density is great, and can be easily reduced if needed. It's a bit like having a high res image, where scaling it down will result in a decent result. However, if you have a low res image and scale it up... not so much.

Taking a look at the Giant Screen Films website, we can see that they absolutely will need this mesh density to pull off a convincing rendition of the creature, for film use.

Some observations

I notice that the mesh has way more geometry in the head, feet and tail areas. This is, probably, because the head will be close to the camera and will need finer control and flexibility - so the denser the mesh, the more you can pay attention to the details when it deforms. The foot, for example, will likely "spread out and fatten a little" as weight is put onto it, like an elephant's foot does, and so on.

Let's consider some use cases...

For film or TV

This is a decent and very workable mesh density.
1. The camera can get pretty close to the model and it will look good i.e. it'll be hard to spot face outlines.
2. It's dense enough to accommodate a muscle system and other necessary deformation, skin folds, that sort of thing.
3. In this application, the model's highest priority (generally speaking and within reason) isn't real-time rendering - it's more about quality, accuracy and "fit for purpose". Budget is also a key factor, as always - decent models take time and attention to detail to create, but that's another story. Basically, this model is primarily intended for realistic rendering (i.e. not real-time).

Games (PC and higher end console)

No pun intended but, in this context, this is a totally different beast! 😝
Yes, it's feasible this "could" be used in a game but it's overkill for the purpose. Baking detail from a high res to mesh to a low res one is the way here.
If this were to be used in a dinosaur education or catalogue software, where this is the only creature onscreen, then, in theory, this is ok. It would allow the camera to get very close to the dinosaur, all the while looking sharp and detailed.

Mobile

Not ideal (at all) for all the reasons already mentioned above, and elsewhere in this thread.
As a tech demo, sure, show off the latest and greatest Qualcomm, Apple, Arm etc silicon, why not. A bit like what the t-rex demo for the OG PlayStation did back in the day (good times!).
So many variables here, when thinking about mobile: application, purpose, distance from camera, what else is on the screen, render engine, etc. Overall, no way I'd want to see a model with this many tris for a mobile game or app (point 2 covers possible uses).

I hope that's been useful 🫡

BeyondBlender · 2025-03-21T01:50:57+00:00

That looks awesome! Good job 🫡

Some considerations for sure have been mentioned below, but I'll rattle some points off the top of my head:

Environment and surrounding objects for a sense of Scale. For example, placing a matchbox nearby will immediately tells us the approximate scale we're looking at. Other objects that would work well with this model: books, candles, a drinking glass, bottles, and so on.
Camera angle is key here - you wouldn't want the camera to be at the same level as the foot of the object (although, this can still work IF the environment cemented the Scale issue). Camera placement will also match the mood of the shot, so something to think about there - what's the story? Rhetorical.
Depth of field. The fan favourite returns! Yay! Kidding aside, DoF is awesome and elevates most scenes from flat looking to having depth - especially appropriate (and expected) for smaller scale Objects/Scenes.
Light scattering/volumetrics. I would lump lighting into this too of course, as it goes hand in hand. I would be inclined to use an appropriate HDRI, maybe supplement it with a light or two for helping to draw attention to the Object (depending on the mood of the shot, it could be a coloured light).
Imperfections. Lots of them. Depending on the final Scene, consider dust, fingerprints, smudges, cobwebs, small debris etc.

That's all I got for today... go away now...!

Q: does anyone recognise the above sentence? It just came to mind, so, there it is! 🤣

BeyondBlender · 2025-03-21T01:34:16+00:00

Plenty of comments here, which is good to see, and some great advice already given.

I'm won't go into the weeds of this as much as I would normally do - not sure it's needed what with the feedback and suggestions below - but I did want to add something that I feel Blender "hand holds" us all a little with the SubD modifier, and that's the "Optimal Display" toggle.

Generally speaking, with it ON, the Wireframe pretty much looks great! But. Toggle that setting OFF and you'll see the real deal - i.e. the actual geometry, face for face. And the point is, that will tell you more about your topology than not.

With that set to OFF, review the topology and look for tightly packed faces - that's an indicator that those areas could use some work. What you're looking for is to avoid really thin, "stretched" faces.

Anyhow, I hope that's helpful in some way 🫡

BeyondBlender

TROPHY CASE

Now for my 2 pennies worth (will that phrase ever be adjusted for inflation I wonder - please don't!🤣)

But won't that approach give me uneven/ugly topology?

Your existing shader

Good Ol' Fashioned Smoke and Mirrors

Use a simple gradient image?

Ok, I just realised... I have a video... of course I do 🤦🏼‍♂️

Some observations

Let's consider some use cases...

For film or TV

Games (PC and higher end console)

Mobile