M1 Abrams .. The Most Modeled Tank On The Internet !

Render in cycles 200 passes, No textures, basic Diffuse materials.
This model is not as detailed as I wanted to be, there are lots of tank stuff I couldn’t model. My skills are not as good as I thought it would be :frowning:

I wanted to be like on a battle zone on top off a car shooting 50cals. with motion blur and - of course - REALISM !
I’ll be back on this project after some massive tutorials and experiments :evilgrin: wait for it !

Oh forgot to ask : Any ideas, thoughts, what’s wrong with model??? I’m a little bit an experienced beginner.

I’ve modeled this M1

I don’t see anything wrong with it but I’m no tank expert.
You could always add more detail either modeled or normalmap otherwise it seems to be a nice clean model. Well done!

@julioras: Pretty lame to show off in someone else’s thread. Maybe you could at least give some tips or comments rather than just highjacking the thread.

I think just showing my model he already may have a basis on how to improve it, I do not need to write a review

THANK YOU julioras! Ben_Lind His Model really helped me see some details and thing I couldn’t notice from reference picture, it also showed me how much work and modeling is enough.
about the normalmaps and extra models; I think I’ll do more modeling, thank you :slight_smile:

Well I guess if you don’t mind MUFQ.

Usually posting your own stuff in others finished projects threads tends to give a bit of a show off impression and it isn’t all that common that the original poster likes they’re thread to be spammed with others models of the same subject.

I wouldn’t go posting my own models in others finished projects threads even if I thought they were better than the OP’s. That’s why tips or suggestions are a bit more subtle and respectful imo.

Doesn’t matter if MUFQ is cool with it though so sorry for getting annoyed. :slight_smile:

@Ben_Lind I’m really new here if you noticed I only got 5 posts, I dunno if I should be offended by other RP’s. But thanks I understand you :slight_smile:

One of the best places on the net to receive some very constructive critiques for military modeling is Military Meshes:

…but be prepared for the ‘flak’ (pun intended) :wink:

And btw, both models are missing a lot of details. Just compare with some of the Abrams m1 models posted on Military Meshes.

Thank you @Herbert123 I’ll be checking the site … BTW I do believe that for CG artists it should LOOK like it’s extremely detailed but it doesn’t have to function. Don’t you agree?

Just checked http://www.military-meshes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5045
that’s really interesting really detailed but looks like lots of time for one project, and there are other areas to learn. But I really like the Abrams (M1) in the link :slight_smile:

I guess it depends on the final use: close up shots for composition in a real environment requires far more detail (depending on the shot and viewpoint) than a vehicle used in the background of a shot. For a realistic looking war game you would have to model most details, and create a normal map that is applied to a lower poly model.

Really, it depends on the purpose and use. If you are going for realism (as you mentioned in your first post), you would have to at least create a realistic looking detailed exterior, of course. Interior would be unnecessary, and a waste of your time. The model in the thread you looked at is obviously meant as a goal in itself.
For example, I am working on a age of sail ship that includes almost all the details - because I want it to be completely historically correct. But this would be a useless and extravagant endeavour that takes up way too much time for a single render of the exterior!

So I believe one should model all the details one needs - and no more. And if that means modeling everything from the perspective of a historically “perfect” model: that’s quite alright. And if you just need the exterior to look right viewed on one side for an animation: that’s great as well.

ps I like this one:

Even the weld points are modeled.

That’s correct, sorry if I misunderstood you the first time. you are right.