@Anon: Nice tree! i love cherry blossoms 
i’d all vote for replacing the old one with yours
@Anon: I don’t know if it’s much of an improvement.
@zuck: do you know the licensing on those textures?
Hello all…
I went through the thread from the beginning…the problem maybe not only about the models,but also the rendering quality…I wonder how 3d engines like Blender and Maya render the scene in high quality with light effect
To be honest,the lighting system and rendering quality need upgrading cause it still poor
Thanks in advance
Well, for one thing, a real time engine strives to render a frame (one image) in 0.017 seconds, while model programs like blender can take as long as they want.
Hm ,okay I’ll try harder. Is there a texture resolution limit? Its pretty lowpoly now, I can add detail but what limit should I keep for that? Can I use normal maps?
I redid the model:
Here is the egg file and textures:
mediafire.com/?zyqztzykmmy
If someone wants to improve this himself, feel free to do so.
Textures are made by me, so they are free and public.
I like the grass.
How about an animated skydome for Roaming Ralph?
How about this?
Nice, redpanda, but without normal and spec maps everything looks like the 90s…
Unless the sample is for teaching how ShaderGenerator works, you shouldn’t use those maps and have the ShaderGenerator enabled in that sample, it will just confuse people.
I agree. Roaming ralph is one that needs work. I retextured the model and added moving clouds. Let me know what you think. 
Guys,
The better question and polling should be: Better samples using default engine capabilities.
As I have stated here with my recent concerns, I would like to provide some demo but this is really getting in the way.
There are lots of documented features that are not given complete working examples.
Please dev team, make it happen! 
Lately I’ve been working on a new Ralph model for my P3D guide books and if accepted even as replacement for the current Ralph. I tried to keep the old model as reference and just let him grew up just like the engine did.
Here are some images of the new model.
For anyone interested, the source files can be found here. As said, these are also the source files to my guide books which will be discussed over at: [url]*New* Panda3D Guide Books]
Next will be a new environment/level model for the roaming Ralph sample as well as cleaning up and changing the code files to fit the new models.
Would you like to see this Ralph replace the old one?
I got something new to show up, these are some screenshots of the new terrain I made as possible replacement for the roaming Ralph sample.
The changes that needed to be done to the sourcecode are rather simple and don’t introduce anything new except for activating pandas auto shader generator for the normal maps to work.
For anyone who’s interested in the model files, they can be found on my second P3D guide book’s github project over at: github.com/fireclawthefox/panda3d-tutorial2 in the models folder Chapter 3, 4 and 5
I don’t want to sound rude, far from it, you have clearly put time and effort into helping for free, but objectively speaking those models are not good. I’m just saying this as a constructive criticism to save your time if you intend to make more like this.
Firstly, there is no such thing as “objectively good” art. All you expressed here was that you don’t like the result. That’s fine—nothing can please everyone. To say that your opinion is objective, however, is both misleading and false.
Secondly, “that’s not good” is not constructive criticism. It’s an empty opinion. While this might carry the intent of preventing the artist from getting the wrong idea that his work is perfect (in my opinion, no artist should fall into this mental trap—the default opinion of the creator should very well be that there are probably ways to improve the work), this also can backfire and cause the artist to do one of two undesired things: feel dissuaded from continuing to develop skills (i.e. “maybe I’m just not cut out for this sort of work”), or take it on its face value as a worthlessly subjective opinion (i.e. “meh, so that guy doesn’t like it—can’t please everyone”). Neither outcome would result in constructive improvement. This is why we have the differentiation between constructive criticism and empty opinions: criticism is constructive when it guides further development. Even a vague indicator of what is undesirable about the work—the colour scheme? the anatomy? the shading?—can provide the creator a hint as to where he might focus his study.
That all said, I intend no hostility with this despite how it could be identified. I’m simply trying to provide constructive criticism to improve the quality of the criticism—if that makes any sense. Good criticism is a skill learned like any other. Not all opinions value equally.
Unless you argue this is abstract art, yes, there definitely are objective criteria to what makes art objectively good. Like seriously. Are you an artist? Have you ever worked in a project with an artist? Then how can you say with a straight face that one of these images doesn’t look objectively better? I’m not implying his/her work is as bad, just to prove my point:
One example when non-abstract art isn’t objectively good is when the style is not consistent (eg. here are unrealistic tree textures with realistic ground texture, flat colors on the face vs smooth textures on the clothing, realistic terrain vs unrealistic tree geometry with too little randomness and unrealistic or cartoon body proportions).
Because I thought what needed work was evident. And this is also why you don’t always need to list what makes something not good to make a constructive criticism. You can disagree with that but that will be your opinion. And you can express that opinion like I did mine, but this lengthy defensive post after I started off by saying “you have clearly put time and effort into helping for free” is not needed. Not all opinions value equally is also an opinion. See what I did here? You won’t get anywhere with this kind of logic.
Sure, the Mona Lisa is a fantastic piece, and there is definitely a long tradition of realism in the arts. However, to throw up a totally different style and assert that one is better is to fail to consider that one needs a reference in order to value its quality. In the tradition of realism, the original Mona Lisa would win in this regard compared to the simpler remake. However, there are many traditions in art which do not place such value on realism, such as Cubism, Surrealism, and Futurism. Even if one wishes to categorise these as “abstract” vs. “realistic”, I must ask why you interpreted this Ralph model as realistic. There is a clearly non-realistic style present which indicates that realism was not the goal. If this is so, then your Mona Lisa comparison is not relevant to the present issue since the entire assertion of its superior quality is based on the tradition of realism—that is to say, the tradition that compares a work to its visual reference in the real world. As another example, are the increasingly popular Japanese cartoon styles “bad art” simply because of obvious deviance from realism?
Excellent. You just provided a solid reference for the creator to understand your disliking to the work: style consistency. That is much more constructive than “that’s not good”. If nothing else comes from this dialogue, at least it will have brought out some valuable points for the creator to consider.
Keep in mind, however, is that consistency is not such a straightforward quality. For example, a strong contrast between character and setting styles can be purposefully utilised to show each in a different light. A grand, detailed, majestic environment featuring a simplistic, stylised cartoon character could portray innocence lost in a huge, wild world. On the other hand, very realistic characters set in a funky cartoon world can provide a sense of familiarity to the character and a cheerful welcome into their world (children’s television shows often utilise this contrast). Note: I do not wish to imply that the Ralph model is designed purposefully toward such a contrast. I’m simply adding points for the artist to consider as he revises his work.
If it were so evident, what stops the creator from solving the problems right away? Why did this person go out of his way to publicise his work on a communal forum if not to seek points of view from others that he himself did not notice? Furthermore, how can you be sure that it was evident to the creator? Oh it could have been—he might very well have known about a consistency issue in the textures or whatever else you might notice, but can you really be sure of this? You notice these patterns, but does that make these patterns universally noticed? Absolutely not—no matter how obvious it may seem to oneself, one’s perspective is not universal, which is precisely why communication is so valuable.
Lists? Even a vague “the textures don’t seem consistent between X and Y” is constructive criticism. One does not need to list every detail, but the opposite extreme of saying nothing to guide the creator is also not constructive.
Except that in my critique, I made sure to explain both why I found it non-constructive and ways to make it more constructive. That is precisely what constructive criticism is about. If you understood my argument to boil down to “not all opinions value equally”, then you misunderstood the main bulk of my post. That was merely an extra comment to supplement the primary point I was trying to deliver. My critique didn’t amount to just “your critique is bad” or “that’s just your opinion”.
Also, I’m surprised by the assertion that my post was “not needed”. Was your post needed? Was your reply to my post needed? I assume you posted to offer a helpful critique. I posted with the same intent. How do you hope the artist will interpret your original critique? Calmly? Maturely? Eager to improve his work through it? I would hope so too, just as I would hope that your response to a critique on your work, including your critique, would be. Really, the fact that you considered it a “defensive post” makes me wonder why you reacted to it so differently from how I imagine you’d want the creator to react to your post. I said nothing personal in my critique, nothing I imagined should be considered offensive, and certainly without any hostile intent (as I explicitly stated). Frankly, I don’t see this as an offence-defence situation at all: just community members trying to offer helpful feedback to each other. If I’ve given the wrong impression, then I apologise as it was not my intent.
Edit I just want to add that I fear this dialogue might derail the thread’s topic. Should moderation request cessation, I’ll comply without objection.
This is getting pretty off topic, yeah…
If you think the second image is “good” then I don’t have anything to discuss anymore. This is not an art forum, nor do I see the value of discussing my use of the word “objective” for its own sake.
How often do you see anyone use “cubism, surrealism, or futurism” in a game engine demo?
Why are you so sure?
My point is the environment textures except the tree branch texture are realistic, so I (as you) can only guess the other models were also meant to be such, otherwise the art style is inconsistent.
Well you clearly haven’t done this yourself to know why. I have. I’m pretty bad but I have learned 3d modelling and published bunch of, er, objectively bad ( 
) models for others to review myself. Why do I do this, or why do I think people do this? Because you need someone else to review your work, my art always looks good to me. Has a mere statement that my art is not good helped me see that myself? Yes, at times when I thought it wasn’t good enough but wasn’t sure. I’m not a psychologist, I can’t explain this to you any better.
I’m not sure. Seriously, why are you microanalyzing my tiny post so much, this is getting ridiculous. If even after my disclaimer wolf is offended by my post, then I’ll apologize in advance, but there’s no reason to hijack this thread and turn it into a debate on what makes art good. People kick buckets and call it art too. I don’t care, nor should anyone here, for crying out loud, this is a game engine forum and a topic about “better models in the samples” (the topic title) not a philosophical debate. I don’t see you seeing the need to post your disagreement of the use “better” in the topic title.
If I didn’t think it was not needed, I wouldn’t make it.
Okay dude, this won’t fly. Just because you state you’re not being defensive, doesn’t explain your wall of text filled with philosophical questions.
Actually, there are many hot video games on the market right now with extremely abstract graphics styles. In a demo to show the extent of Panda3D’s capabilities? Probably not. By the way, that’s another constructive point—that if he intends for his work to be featured in the demo, then he should consider what that would require.
So then perhaps he should change the environment, not the character. Or perhaps he should change both. All of this extra information you’re providing is absolutely helpful in a situation like this. Maybe he was so focused on the character that he forgot to match the style to the trees. Or maybe he became obsessed with trees and forgot to go back to revise the character. We can’t possibly know this without having insight into his work process, and so we can’t expect him to notice these things right away.
An incorrect presumption—I have done 3D modelling, including human modelling, and I have sought critiques. I’ve also done 2D illustration for what it’s worth. Regardless, my history with the craft is irrelevant to the points I’ve made.
See, this is exactly the problem I’m trying to solve. That you needed an opinion to decide whether something was “good enough” or “bad” seems odd to me. How did knowing that someone found your work “bad” help you to know where to focus your efforts at improvement? You have made it clear that you understand that the artist will not always notice the same patterns as reviewers, so how can someone telling you there’s a problem without telling you what the problem is lead you to solving the problem if you don’t even know where to look for it?
Microanalysing your post? If you base an argument on a premise, then indeed a critique of that argument should address that premise. The premise and conclusion I identified in your post was as follows: because the problems with the work were evident, there was no need to explain them in the critique. If the conclusion is to be considered sound, the premise must be true. Any oversight in the soundness of the premises, even accidental, can lead to faulty conclusions.
This is not about offending the artist, and I wasn’t trying to debate artistic qualities. I merely pointed out how the critique offered was not constructive with the hope that you’d elaborate further, which would then help the artist to improve his work. Then indeed once you began to toss comparative pictures of the Mona Lisa at me, I went ahead and replied to that. I did not begin this with a critique on your ideals of art—merely about the critique’s lack of constructive guidance.
Yes, and thanks to this discussion (is this really much of a “debate”?), points about style consistency and usefulness in the samples (the topic title, as you point out) have been raised and brought to public attention. Had your original critique been left alone, any concerns of conflict between styles would have been left unsaid, and no one would have benefited from it. I for one am glad we discussed this.
No, and I’m not sure why you suspect I would. “What is life?” has no relevance to the topic. Your assertion that my post was not needed, however, is perfectly relevant. However, in retrospect, given that my post triggered a discussion which actually brought up good points of criticism for the artist, I might be inclined to say yes—our posts were needed. Thank you.