Unit 64, 65 and 66 review
3D model
Here is the review on the 3D model I made:
How does your final product compare with what you set out to create?
The models are very close to the ones I designed. When I started on the models they look the same as the ones I drew, however I ended up modifying them slightly in order the make it look like the model would actually move for example adding hydraulics to give the idea on how it would move.
Is the product appropriate to the target audience you specified in your creative brief?
Yes I believe the product is suitable for the target audience because there is nothing offensive about them. The robot model is based on an old toy robot. The prop is based on scimitar which doesn’t matter as the target audience is old enough to know what they are.
What technical qualities work well and which don’t?
The technical qualities that work well are making the tracks for the robot by doing one piece then cloning it, then after cloning it I starting connecting the pieces together in order to make the tracks. Another technical quality that works well was the blade on the prop 3D model, by looking at light sabre tutorial; I was able to make it glow by giving it an object ID and assigning the glow effect to the same ID. Another technical quality that work well was placing the concept art into “3D studio max”, this allows me to edit the vertices into the same shape as the drawing, which made them look more accurate.
The technical qualities that didn’t work well was the line tool as sometimes it didn’t select the lines from both sides, causing the model to go out of shape. Another technical quality that didn’t work well was the computer struggled to handle “3D studio max” sometimes, causing the program to freeze. In some cases it shut down and I ended up losing some work. Another technical quality that didn’t work well was the clone tool because when the model was attached together, you couldn’t clone a certain part of it, not even using the select element tool, so you ended up deleting the rest of the model you didn’t need.
What aesthetic qualities are successful and which are not?
The aesthetic qualities that are successful are the glow effect on the prop, because it gave off the effect that it was being intensely heated like a piece of metal in a fire. Another aesthetic quality that work well was the wires on the robot arms, the reason was they resemble the threads of muscle in human arms, which in a way made his arm look more moveable. An aesthetic quality I thought looked good was the plug heads in the prop, which make it look like the prop could plug into the robot.
The aesthetic qualities that didn’t work well were the colours being too bright which took detail away from them, and I would like to change them to make them look rusty and darker in appearance. A aesthetic quality I think didn’t work well was some parts of the torso looked sharp and pointed, I would like the smooth it out more in order to make it look better built and perhaps add dents to make it look as though it had had a rough time. Another aesthetic quality that didn’t work well was the hand. The idea was to make it look sort of human but still blocky like a robot, the problem with this was it ended up looking too pointed and as if it would cut someone.
Is the content appropriate to the overall style of the finished product?
I feel the content is appropriate because it had a lot of elements that resemble technologies for example the mouth looked like a speaker, then there was a web cam on the back of his head. The prop had a plug head to make it look like it could connect into it. There were quite a few parts of detail on the robot that were references to technology. However I think I should have added more buttons and dial’s on the robot. Also I wanted to add screws but they took up a lot of the polygon count in order to make them and they were quite small and hard to notice.
Here are the questions I ask in the questionnaire:
What do you think the model is of?
Every one answered that they thought it was a robot. So I think I was successful in making it look like a robot. They both said the prop looked like a sword, which was the idea.
Does it remind you of anything you have seen before?
One person answer that it remaindered them of “Johnny 5” from “Short Circuit” I don’t see this at all with the exception of the wheels. Another person said it remaindered them of old SC-FI movies, which is a comment I liked. One person said the prop looked like a light sabre, and another said the prop look like a flaming sword, these were both the ideas I was going for.
What did you like about it?
One person said they liked the idea of the prop plugging in. Another person said they like the tank tracks.
What didn’t you like about it?
They both said it was too pointed and sharp. One said they didn’t like the texture, these comments I agree with.
How do you think it could be improved?
The both said they would smooth the robot model out more. I agree with these comments.
Was the texture a good choice?
One said they like the texture, however the other said they didn’t like the texture because it was too bright. I actually agree with the texture being too bright because it made it look childish.
What I thought of the Model
I was pleased overall with the model because it was my first try at making a 3D model and it went better then what I thought it would. I liked the idea of the prop plugging in and the robot moving by tracks. However I didn’t like the texture choices and if I were to do it again I would use different texture and smooth the model out more.
3D environment
Here is my review on the 3D environment I made:
How does your final product compare with what you set out to create?
The final product is actually very similar to the design I did, and I was very pleased with the way it turned out. I based it largely on the “Tron” franchise and partly on the “Batman Beyond” series, because of the use of circuits and lights. I based the texture of circuit because it relates to robot and it makes it look as if power is going through it. I didn’t change anything from the original design.
Is the product appropriate to the target audience you specified in your creative brief?
I do feel it is appropriate to the brief because they are no sexual or violence image involved within the environment. I don’t feel it could be taken in an offensive way because it is based on a circuit board. I think it appeal to the target audience because it is eye catching and stands out.
What technical qualities work well and which don’t?
The technical qualities that work well are the video post that allows you to see the environment lit up. Also a technical quality that works well was making a texture in “Photoshop” so I didn’t have to use someone else’s work, and most likely due to the nature of the idea I wouldn’t have found a texture suited. Another technical quality that works well was the object ID feature that allowed me to light up the blue parts of the environment.
The technical qualities that didn’t work well were the material editor because of the need to checker board everything so it would show up without needing to be rendered. Another technical quality that didn’t work well was when you make an object look transparent; it didn’t work from every side, so you had to keep flipping it when you clone it. Also a technical quality that didn’t work well was the amount of polygons used the made a space ship in high detail, because I was planning to use it on the airport within the environment.
What aesthetic qualities are successful and which are not?
The aesthetic qualities that were successful was the glowing circuit board pattern, because it made it look like it was fill with power. Another aesthetic quality that was successful was the wall, by making them blue and transparent they look as if they were made of the same energy in the circuit pattern, I based the wall on the energy shields in the game “Halo Combat Evolved”. Also I thought the beam of energy coming from the tower located in the middle of the environment was successful because it looked like a “light sabre” from the “Star Wars” franchise.
The aesthetic qualities that weren’t successful were the glow, although I did enjoy it, they were too bright and I should have turned the brightness down. Another quality that wasn’t successful was some of the buildings didn’t have a lot of detail in them; this was because a lot of time was spent on getting the glow effect and the limit amount of time. An aesthetic quality that also wasn’t successful was the satellite on the airport as it wasn’t well rounded and the antenna was too wide, the reason for this is I rushed it and kept trying to keep the polygon count low.
note too brightIs the content appropriate to the overall style of the finished product?
I feel the content is appropriate to the overall style of the finished product because it is supposed to be the robots camp site. I think the use of the glowing circuit board pattern worked well with the robot SC-FI theme. There was also a space ship in the airport which I thought was a nice bit of detail. I do feel that the building should of have more little bits of detail added on them like the windows and door.
Here are the questions I asked in the questionnaire:
What do you think the model is of?
One replied saying it looked like a futuristic cityscape, which I was pleased with because it was based a bit of “Batman of the Future”. Another replied by saying a circuit board, though I think the only element they took notice of was the circuit pattern.
Does it remind of anything you have seen before?
Two people replied saying it reminded them of “Tron” which I think it good because it is heavily based on “Tron”. One person said it reminded them of a circuit, once again taking note of the circuit pattern.
What did you like about it?
Most said they liked the glowing circuit board pattern, however someone commented on the glowing light coming from the tower located in the middle of the environment. Someone said they liked the airport located in the environment with the spaceship.
What didn’t you like about it?
The only issue from the people giving me feedback was that the glow coming from the circuit board pattern was too bright. I did agree with this after seeing it a certain amount of times, in order to correct this I need to turn down the intensity.
How do you think it could be improved?
They mostly mentioned the brightness and the glow. However someone did mention that the buildings could have more detail on them.
Was the texture a good choice?
Everyone seems to like the texture choice, which I was proud of. Those I still got comment saying it was too bright however this is nothing to do with the texture it is the object ID.
What I thought
I thought the product went really well, I enjoyed making it glow in a similar way to “Tron”. However if I were to do it again I would add more detail onto the buildings and maybe add roads onto the environment.
3D animation
Here is my review on the animation I made:
How does your final product compare with what you set out to create?
The animation product was supposed to be an animation of a man walking. The final product did look like a person walking; however it wasn’t at a very good standard and was a bit stiff. Also it was very machine like. However I didn’t have a lot of time to get it as good as I could. But I do think it does look like a guy walking from the side.
Is the product appropriate to the target audience you specified in your creative brief?
Yes because it is just a guy walking which is what the client wanted me to produce, a walk cycle. Also there is nothing that can be deemed inappropriate as there is nothing offence in it. Those you could argue that it wasn’t a very convincing walk cycle and didn’t live up to the brief.
What technical qualities work well and which don’t?
The technical qualities that work well were the vertices menu where you balance the vertices so they are all the same. Another good technical quality was the frames feature which allowed me to go to the parts of the animation and correct them. Also a good technical quality was the “Cryptic AR” which provided the humanoid model, stopping the need to create one.
The technical qualities which didn’t work well was the model included with “Cryptic AR” because it moves in a slightly different way to what a model of which you would have made yourself, an example is when you rotate his arm upwards it goes slightly to the side making it harder to move. Another bad technical quality was the frame feature because when you edited a previous frame, it would have a big effect on the frame further ahead.
What aesthetic qualities are successful and which are not?
The aesthetic qualities that were successful where the arm movements in response to the legs for example whatever the right leg moved forward so did the left arm. Another aesthetic quality that was successful was the right side of the model moved when the left leg moved forward and the same happened in left side when the right leg moved forward.
The aesthetic qualities that were bad were the chest moved too far to the side and then kept jerking back in a similar way to a type writer. Another bad aesthetic quality was the head tilled too far down on the right side, making it look as if his head was stiff.
Is the content appropriate to the overall style of the finished product?
I am not sure that the content is appropriate to the overall style of the finished product because it was too rickety and stiff to look like a person walking; however I feel that it could work as a robot walking instead. Also it was a walk cycle in a way and didn’t end up looking like it the person was sliding.
Here is the question in the questionnaire I did:
Does the walk look fluid enough?
The majority said it wasn’t although this was mainly due to the chest and the head, will make it look rickety. I agree with this and really I should have spent more time correcting it.
Does it look convincing?
They didn’t believe it look convincing, however someone said it would as a robot. I did like this comment, but the idea was to make a human walk cycle.
Do you think the animation is at the right speed?
There were comments that it was at the right speed, however someone commented that it was slightly too fast. I think it was at the right speed in the way it moved.
What do you like about it?
I got comments saying they liked how the legs and arms moved. I also got a comment saying they liked how it looked robotic.
What didn’t you like about it?
A lot of the comments were aimed at the chest and head, being to jerky and stiff. I agree which these comments.
How would you improve it?
They said to spend more time looking at a person walking and correcting the chest and head.
reference video I used
What I think
I think it went better than I thought it would. However if were to do it again I would correct the head and chest. Also I would spend more time watching people walk in slow motion to get the movement in the body right, because when you walk your whole body moves.
