/3/ - 3DCG

>>723292
Good market if you go quantity 90% quality > 100% quality. The mindset of good enough will win as long as you flood them. In my opinion putting your models on every marketplace you find responsible enough will ensure the trickle compensation. Currently pulling around 300 a month for some old AAA tier assets that I threw on there and they originally were pulling close to a thousand a month for a little over a year. Even if in 3-5 years they only pull in 50 a month I don't care, it was worth it.

But I am good at what I do so mileage may vary. (characters, kf animation, and hero props).

>>723293
Are there usually requirements?
Or will just models suffice?
Do they all need to have rigging,textures,LOD's etc included?

>>723294
Each marketplace has their own requirements. Depending on the mesh or asset there could be quality control inspection. On Unity last I checked it was very lax. Also quite crowded. On UE4 it took back and forth for my initial assets to be approved because they wanted a bunch of "different assets" included, but it was really just fluff bullshit requirements I needed to tick. I would argue Dekogon method would be very lucrative if you actually had the same quality tier or less but lower prices.

Do your research please, it starts by visiting the storefronts: Turbosquid, Cubebrush, UE4, Unity, Artstation.

>>723295
Thanks, I will check out these storefronts.

>>723292

Study the market. Who wants assets. Most money is made from 2d photography on getty images. Try doing abstract art or gradients. Or make 3d stuff look like vector drawings. Photogrammetry is big too for people outside concept buildings but that requires models and a studio. There is not much money in 3d overall.

>>723292
Can some of you "non blender" "professionals"
>aka: anti-child bride white faggot piece of shits
inform me of why this models has, on a straight section (middle of the cup) 3 unnecessary divisions?

Can you tell me, wage faggots?
Because all your models are like that too.

>>723293
Go fuck yourself, fatass anti-child bride white heretic.

>DURRR IM PULLING MUHNEY
>CANT MARRY A CUTE YOUNG GIRL THOUGH.

Stupid white ameri-fuck

>>723318
Usually for reflection purposes.
The better geometry you have the smoother the reflections will be.
At least, this is the case on my vehicle body paint tests for games.

>>723320
So you're using the extra vertexes basically as poor-man's pixels.

Those extra verts are exactly in-line with the rest of the surface: no extra detail is created with them. Just more verts.

Why don't you have your engine programmers improve their engines? Even darkplaces doesn't have the vertex-artifacts your AAA engines (and blender itself) has.

>>723318
>inform me of why this models has, on a straight section (middle of the cup) 3 unnecessary divisions?
Those are holding edges, so the mesh doesn't become a godless blob once subdivided. So no, they are not unnecessary, you butt-blasted ignorant.

>>723324
Not him but if you were proficient in hard surface you would know that double support loops adds geometrical change. The only loop that may be unneeded is the center loop. There's currently no subdivision on the model.

>>723327
>Not him but if you were proficient in hard surface

I am, dipshit,
>https://www.blendswap.com/profile/771824/blends
you fucks just waste as many polys as you can and call yourselves "professionals".

Like the whore: you take a pleasure and make it a JEHRB. Fucking piece of shit.

>considers himself proficient at hard-surface modeling
>doesn't even know about basic subdivision techniques
Yes, the Dunning-Kruger is strong with this one.

>>723349
You're not if you're complaining about double looping on a hard surface model that would be baked down or rendered with reflections.

>>723350
I often have to clean up models that uselessly use excessive subdivisions. Models should not be subdivided: you should know how and where silhouette geometry is needed.

Yet you retards just subdivide everything, so millions of triangles are wasted across flat planes when you could have simply added a few vertexes at an edge.

>You're not if you're complaining about double looping on a hard surface model that would be baked down or rendered with reflections.

Hey retard, I make models for games. Those shitty tricks you need to do in your renderers are not required for videogame engines (the engines solve those problems themselves without brute-force infinite vertexes).

You STUPID pieces of shit are effectively re-creating per-pixel rendering with 10000000 extra vertexes, because your algos (not that you know anything about them) are apparently vertex-limited. Stupid FUCKS. USE A GOOD ENGINE YOU RETARD

>Yes, the Dunning-Kruger is strong with this one.
Why am I a licensed attorney and you are not then? Why am I smart enough /not/ to do my hobbies as a job and instead separate work from play (so I actually HAVE play).

You are a _STUPID_ white idiot.

>>723376
You're really bad at this lol.

>>723430
hey he's not bad, its refreshing having someone around that can put wh*te golems in their place

>>723434

>>723349
these models look like shit desu

>>723437
>these models look like shit desu

No they do not. Enumerate your specific problems with each model. Remember: they are for the game, not to render in blender. They have sufficient polys to fully describe the object (and use materials rather than textures (200+ weapons would use up too much video ram)), yet do not waste polys like your subdivided-to-hell useless-to-any-game crap.

So tell me, what your problem with the models are. (prediction: you wont)

Furthurmore they are in a game right now, unlike your "work":
https://www.moddb.com/games/chaosesqueanthology

I put my "money" where my mouth is. My models are in game and used. They work excellently, unlike ANYTHING of yours.

>>723440
They don't work excellently.

>>723293
The blackpill duck actually gave some good advice. I'm pleasantly surprised.

>>723292
>>723293
Like this guy said, quantity over quality.
I'm in archvis and we often buy new large packs with with abover average to good quality objects. As long as they are organised and come in without any extra fiddling, it's worth it to have a new project not be full of the same stock assets as the last project, especially if it's for a returning client.

>>723437

They look fine

>>723442
>They don't work excellently.

Yes they do: https://www.moddb.com/games/chaosesqueanthology
They're in game and work exactly as they are supposed to. Exactly as I envisioned.
Give specific criticisms, faggot.

>>723295
>Dekogon
why there are literally no torrents on their stuff? they have top tier assets but nobody shares them

>>723777
Ruskis already have most their assets in a mega directory. I lost the link but you could probably find it again if you search Russian peer sites.

>>723805
anyone knows where to find this mega directory? I'm not really good at reading dwarf runes,. the only russian torrent site I know is rutracker and there is nothing

>>723513
>No response
Can't "Figure out" why the models "suck"?

>>723451
>They look fine

Thank you.

https://www.cgtrader.com/3d-models/character/man/human-face-dbf72bf6-f2eb-43d4-b610-97859bff098c?fbclid=IwAR0oGL5DBhE-utiOF6MqelJgzsA7Xx6JJkSGSMe9RhHL7uNtiIVb_of63-I

>>726294
ayyy

>>726294

Oh we are playing this game ey?

https://www.cgtrader.com/3d-models/character/woman/anime-simple-character

>>724017
It's simple, they look ugly.
You know, they are the opposite of visually pleasing. They lack any positive aesthetic.
Like it's made by an artist who knows enough to do the technical part of it, but not the artistic part of it.
Soulless, heartless, without emotion. Lacking anything that makes it special. Doesn't help that it looks like it's 15 years old.
Every image made by this guy screams maximal aesthetic failure. Framing, composition, colors (!!!), it's really terrible to look at.

>>723292
Get a job you bum

>>726304
Everybody, brace for "MUH WHUITE WHUMANN" stormposting now!

Do anybody make and sell videogame assets for devs in asset marketplaces?

>>726318
yes, but i am not gonna talk about it. Srry

>>726312
This website is supposed to be anonymous, but you always know when you're dealing with RPD Man.

>>726297
15K POLYS

1 5 K

HOW IN GOD'S NAME IS THAT MINIMAL AMOUNT OF DETAIL CONSIST OF THAT MANY POLYS

>>726294
looks like a skin mask

>>728000
excessive edge loops / limbs still present under clothing / non-cards for hair

>>723292
Besides traditional 3D asset markets, virtual world type platforms may also be a good option if what you want is to earn a little cash from your models. Places like Second Life, Imgur, Open Sim, Sansar, VRChat, etc. One drawback though is that in most cases they'll do better if they're "ready to use", which might require things like rigging, multiple texture choices and/or scripting.

>>723292
Not really. Most everything has been modeled, probably by better people than you. Unless you only focus on brand new items and things that are just now coming onto market, you won't do well.
But I make a fair bit just making renders and animations. I sell them as posters on Redbubble and similar. It's decent for a passive stream. I make most of my money actually through licensing the rights to them to people and small businesses. I'll get musicians coming for album art, either wanting to use an existing piece, or want something custom. Same for VJs.
Gotta be flexible for prices though. Some people don't have much money. So it's good go adjust your licensing fee based on their budget. It might not much, but it's better than not getting anything. Big fish will pay the difference. Just made $1k, licensing out 3 pieces to a startup. Each piece only took an hour or so, and I still make profit off of poster sales of them.

Just gotta find a niche and stick with it man.

Is there room on the market for untextured assets or should you do a rough texture?

>>726297
how this shit is approved?