Hi Paris - greenlight! - with a couple of observations: you need to do away with the precise geometry of your various buildings; everything is so pristine and it doesn't make sense if these structures are 'hand-made' and constructed from scrap. The proportions wouldn't be symmetrical, lines would be uneven and everything would look more 'lived in'. Your concept art is too careful and tidy. You need to stop thinking like you're covering cubes with patterns of objects - what you're doing is building something out of lots of other things. I want to see this 'pick and mix' informality reflected in your models.
You need to consolidate your cake: if the doors on the building are human-sized, then the blades of grass running along the side of the path are HUGE - likewise the mirrors on the second house, likewise the helmet and the crown. I think that mirror house would actually be much more like this:
Right now, your concept art is showing me a collection of dwellings - like in a park - it's not a city; for this reason, I'd suggest your matte painting needs to be more ambitious; it needs to extend your digital set in a meaingful way - i.e. it needs to convince us that we've arrived at the outside edge of the city, with the rest of it trailing off into the distance.
So, in general terms, yes - this place you've imagined is dreamy and surreal, but I want you to demonstrate a bit more real-world logic in terms of truly designing your assets and think about your scale, because right now, it doesn't make much sense. You might argue this is okay for a Cornell world, but I think by dealing with scale you'll model much more interesting and quirky buildings - as opposed to these tidy pristine cubes wallpapered with fragments; remember, your stuff is constructed 'from' fragments, not simply covered in them.
OGR 24/11/2016
ReplyDeleteHi Paris - greenlight! - with a couple of observations: you need to do away with the precise geometry of your various buildings; everything is so pristine and it doesn't make sense if these structures are 'hand-made' and constructed from scrap. The proportions wouldn't be symmetrical, lines would be uneven and everything would look more 'lived in'. Your concept art is too careful and tidy. You need to stop thinking like you're covering cubes with patterns of objects - what you're doing is building something out of lots of other things. I want to see this 'pick and mix' informality reflected in your models.
You need to consolidate your cake: if the doors on the building are human-sized, then the blades of grass running along the side of the path are HUGE - likewise the mirrors on the second house, likewise the helmet and the crown. I think that mirror house would actually be much more like this:
https://media1.popsugar-assets.com/files/thumbor/pKZNvVH6vrdqnWMUGxOPYeTU2VU/fit-in/2048xorig/filters:format_auto-!!-:strip_icc-!!-/2015/01/28/936/n/1922441/f5b0dba43663553d_Mirror-2/i/Mirrored-House.jpg
i.e. comprised of many more smaller mirrors etc.
Right now, your concept art is showing me a collection of dwellings - like in a park - it's not a city; for this reason, I'd suggest your matte painting needs to be more ambitious; it needs to extend your digital set in a meaingful way - i.e. it needs to convince us that we've arrived at the outside edge of the city, with the rest of it trailing off into the distance.
So, in general terms, yes - this place you've imagined is dreamy and surreal, but I want you to demonstrate a bit more real-world logic in terms of truly designing your assets and think about your scale, because right now, it doesn't make much sense. You might argue this is okay for a Cornell world, but I think by dealing with scale you'll model much more interesting and quirky buildings - as opposed to these tidy pristine cubes wallpapered with fragments; remember, your stuff is constructed 'from' fragments, not simply covered in them.