Hi all,

So I'm currently working on the final stages of a model, mainly on texturing it right now, and I'm in dire need of creative advice on texturing. I'm trying to stick to procedural textures in Maya without using Photoshop. I'm using Maya 2017 with Arnold, so I'm not really able to use the mental ray presets. So here's what I've got.

Plans right now:

I'm thinking about adding some more color to the monochrome currently, but I don't know if that's a great idea or where to put it.

I'll definitely be adding decals to it as well.

I'm thinking about changing some of the functional areas, though to what I'm not sure.

I'm also not entirely finished with texturing in general.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Add decals so you can see the team it's in, even if it's a hero or if only enemies look like this; military units have some indications to what force they belong.

It could do with some color, a great site to use is this:https://color.adobe.com/create/color-wheel/

Use the explore option for some good pre-made color schemes.

Follow this: http://www.3dtotal.com/tutorial/671-painting-hard-surfaces-photoshop-by-stefan-morrell-texture-texturing

It's slightly frustrating to learn this one, however it allows fast textures that look very good.

Gimp users can do the same, the bucket fill has an "Sample merged" option that works the same as the "All layers" option in Photoshop; for the peeling paint effect.

I would like to see a wire frame, as I feel most of my critique will be on the wasted small details you modeled.

Hey thanks for the fast reply. I'll definitely be adding in decals. Like I said, I haven't textured everything yet. I'm not particularly good at Photoshop but I guess I'll try transferring my UVs over to it and painting them by hand. The other thing I was curious about is is it possible to merge the material currently applied (like specularity, reflection, etc.) with what I would paint in photoshop?

Also, is the material applied looking good? In terms of spec, etc. that is?

I've attached the wireframe shots.

Wow, OK that looks to high poly. Consider that Unreal 4 is one of the top game engines and it has a 64 000 poly limit per mesh, that is 64 000 triangles not quads.

The second thing is that your polygons is focused on spots instead of spread evenly, that wire looks like %25 of the models poly count.

For animated models you don't want to go the full 64 000 polygons, as it uses skinned meshes that reduces frame rate, it's the reason why there are so few characters on screen even in AAA games.

The other thing I was curious about is is it possible to merge the material currently applied (like specularity, reflection, etc.) with what I would paint in photoshop?

Yes you can "bake" texture maps, these are read by your engine and tells the shader what to do.

The list of maps you need to learn are, in this order: Normal, albedo (diffuse), metal (specular), gloss, ambient occlusion and emissive.(These in brackets are specular work flow maps.)

Also, is the material applied looking good? In terms of spec, etc. that is?

It's good, gives a kind of retro feeling.

The thing that a notice about your textures is that you reduces the specular and reflect, which is really good because most beginners set it to bright. You should place some noise in your specular or reflect to make it feel more like a glossy metal.

You should make a lower game model over that model (re-topology), then bake the normal and textures for the game engine. The good news is all the work you did will pass over and look just as good, the bad news is that you are not done.

The advantage of working with the low poly model is that it's easier to UV unwrap and animate.

You should abandon the wire, they are a pain to animate and a robot like that would have some kind of wireless control. Although if you are going for a creepy or alien style then keep it, having robots attached to some thing will set such a good mood, it's worth the extra trouble of animating it.

The overall look is good, don't scrap this one just work on getting it into a engine.

Alright all,

I'll probably work on the low poly aspect soon. The wire is actually a tail. I probably should post some more pics. In general, I've finished a lot of the texturing. Here's a look at a more finalized model (pictures attached).

And another pic.
And another picture here.
For some reason it's not letting me post all of the pictures, here's another one from dropbox:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/skrpu3ai6u29kv6/finalRender3.jpg?dl=0

The contrast is extremely good.

If you added a decal over the body that mimics the style of a chest bullet belt it will help break symmetry. Note it should be a decal- like a manufacture name or a warning- no a actual bullet belt; no robot would load from such a belt.

The wire is actually a tail

Normally robots don't have a tail, they have a counter weight. Look at some heavy machine made for lifting as reference, you will notice they all have a bulge at the back. On a robot it would look like a backpack or a jet pack, most artist would just turn it into a jet pack like in the Gundam series.

You already have this part, that is why I thought it was a wire; no manufacturer would willingly waste recourse on making part that had no use.

In art skill doesn't count it's only a tool, if one person draws a stick figure or a person paints a photo realistic person, both can be art it all depends on how clear the message is that is delivered.

With that written, the fact that I thought the tail was a wire shows that the message wasn't clear. In art there isn't really a right and a wrong just miscommunication; even if most drawing tutorials will disagree with this.

If you want a tail, to make it more realistic it should be the same volume as the two upper arms and the gun. Ironically the higher it is the smaller it can be, because your center of weight is low. Unless the legs are lighter than they appear, in that case you should give them a different material from the body.

You would also have to remove the counter weight.

Remember that when modeling we are not bound by the laws of physics, if you want your model to look convincing you should mimic these laws.

I have to say, the machine looks oddly shaped to me.

1) The legs: way to straight. This makes the whole machine look undyanmic IMO. Legs can be bend backwards or forwards, depending on what types of animal / human legs they are based on. Human legs tend to straighten a lot when standing upright in a rest position, but should never be 100% straight. There is a natural flow, a natural S curve to human legs when straightened.

I think the artist call it gesture. When you plan your mecha, you should do a gesture doodle first to see if the lines follow an appealing flow, and the resulting thing look balanced.

2) The body: The short and stocky body looks like it would work well combined with a walker with birds legs bending backward. On a walker/mecha with human legs, IDK. Especially looked at from the front it looks like a head with arms and legs, but no body. Looks weird to me. Of course, problem is that arms and gun just hide the body. But I would make the body longer and more resembling humanoid shape if you go for humanoid legs.

3) Head: The fact that the head is so extremly out of the balance point of the body looks weird to me, because there seems to be no coutnerbalance to head and arms on the back. Might work better with bent bird legs, which could be placed more forward so that the whole thing looks better balanced.

Personally, I would either place the head in the center, humanoid style, ideally combined with a body of more humanoid proportions... or go with a fixed "cockpit" if you go for a walker with such an elongated body.

3) Arms: If the mecha is more the bird legged walker style with the elongated body, I think humanoid like arms with hands look a little bit off. I would rather go with gun turrets instead of arms, or arms ending in weapons instead of hands.

Now, because you have this weird elongated body on your else humanoid-ish mecha, to me the arms carrying a weapon like that looks odd.

I think the concept could work, for me, with a complete remodelling of the body (making it taller and less deep, more humanoid), moving the head back into balance, adding enough counterweight to the back to balance the arm and weapon, and making small alterations to the legs so they look more dynamic.

I wouldn't just bend the knee on a humanoid mecha, unless you want it to look somewhat stiff and awkward. I would keep the legs quite straight, but either add something that would somehow emulate the natural gesture of a human leg. Something that might give the leg a look that resembles the muscles on a human leg. Maybe move the lower leg back a little bit, to give the legs more of a dynamic impression, as it might emulate the S curve a straight human leg forms naturally (have a look at a straight human leg, especially when drawn comicstyle, to see what I mean).

The tail just doesn't work for me. Now, maybe you are not finished here, because it looks way to thin for such a massive machine.

But I would also question what the function of a tail is on such a mecha, given it was mostly used as counterweight on real animals of such gigantic proportions. I would guess there is more than enough "counterweight" packed into the rear part of the body anyway in such a machine? Maybe you could instead just make sure the back is a litle bit fatter, instead of adding a tail (unless its also used as a weapon or something).

Way too much negative sounding critique, I know :) ... but hey, just wanted to point out what stood out for me. Else it looks good to me (apart of the many, many ploygons which probably should be baked into a normal map), so keep up the good work!

1) The legs: way to straight. This makes the whole machine look undyanmic IMO. Legs can be bend backwards or forwards, depending on what types of animal / human legs they are based on. Human legs tend to straighten a lot when standing upright in a rest position, but should never be 100% straight. There is a natural flow, a natural S curve to human legs when straightened. I think the artist call it gesture. When you plan your mecha, you should do a gesture doodle first to see if the lines follow an appealing flow, and the resulting thing look balanced.

Gian-Reto, provides good advice, however with this one thing I don't agree for this robot. Yes having more dynamic legs will always improve your model, yet there is something about these legs that just makes the bot feel unique.

I make at least two robots a month, it's gotten to the point where I am sick of the normal "cool" robot designs that everyone wants. I go out of my why to find some kind of interesting defining thing for the robots.

I feel that the style of this robot is defined by it's legs, it looks stiff inhuman robot that was made with movement as a secondary function, killing as first.

3)I would rather go with gun turrets instead of arms, or arms ending in weapons instead of hands. Now, because you have this weird elongated body on your else humanoid-ish mecha, to me the arms carrying a weapon like that looks odd.

I would like to see this, although you should keep the original, as some ideas sound good until you try them. Maybe try it with some basic cylinders first, a quick concept.

Way too much negative sounding critique, I know ... but hey, just wanted to point out what stood out for me. Else it looks good to me (apart of the many, many ploygons which probably should be baked into a normal map), so keep up the good work!

As I tell countless interns and beginner artist: if people give you hard critique or point out every little flaw it's a good sign. The times people don't want to provide critique is when it's so bad that no one wants to offend you or hurt your feelings.

When they do provide critique it shows that your work can stand on it's own and won't need to be cradled.

A good start, but you should reconsider the overall design. Currently the gun is taking up all attention, leaving your bot as simple weapon holder. Here are some rough guidelines:

1. As humans, we look at the face of other humans or animals for identification, we focus on it. The face of the robot is hard to read.

2. The attention of your model should shift from less interesting (legs) to most interesting (face). Use size, details and choice of color to create more or less interest.

3. The gun can be big, but if it hides most of the torso, it takes away all of the attention from the bot.

4. If you want to have a humanoid bot, you should consider humanoid proportions. Currently the long legs are good for the next miss-robot competition ;-), but for a more menacing look you should consider a more extreme upper body proportions (larger torso,broad shoulders, small waist).

5. The human brain works with relations. It decides that the human in front of it is a child/dwarf (big head on small shoulders) or a giant (small head on broad shoulders) by setting the point of focus (head/face) in relation to the body (shoulders).

Alright everyone, thanks for the info. Someone (not on this site lol) suggested that I vary the color palette a bit, I'm curious to see if y'all agree. I haven't made any changes as of yet, but here's some more render pictures of the model. Some of them have some changes made (mainly color variation).

The reason I didn't go with gun arms is because my concept calls for a main sort of weapon, and for this model in particular, a mace. I haven't modeled a mace yet, but it'd be slung on the back. Also, the concept has multiple legions, each with its own colors/themes.

I'm seeing multiple views on the legs. Seems some really like them, and others not so much.