Question today.
Where could i find nice lowpolygon cars and peoples?
It’s for aerial view. We look at AXYZ but not really what we are looking for. Eventhough they are nice. We would like to have mid-orient peoples and luxury cars. It’s for a project in Dubai.
thanks for your comments
www.squir.com for the latest cars. They’re mid poly, but optimizing for a lowpoly is a very simple thing, when it comes to area view.
I don’t know anything about lowpoly ppl. Maybe some new evermotion pack ?
They’re mid poly
It’s interesting to see what differences people have in considering something “high/med/low” polygon or “high/med/low” detail. 
I would consider just about everything on that site either mid-high or high polygon detail that could be used for 95% of mid to close up work. Sure the interiors on the convertables doesn’t look like it’s detailed enough to get too close to it.. but short of very close up high end renderings I would consider these models mid to high detail/polygon.
And personally I don’t think it’s THAT easy to convert a half million polygon model down to 5000 polygons (or whatever). Sure you can slap an optimize modifier on everything.. but that doesn’t always give you the results you need and often gives you results that need to be touched up. I’ve always found that the lower you go with it, the more you end up “fixing” things. And if you had to do that to 100 cars or whatever.. it might not be within one’s time/scope/budget to do that.
If it’s an arial shot where the cars are goign to be pretty far away from the camera.. you might want to look at RPC cars/parking lot cars. They are super low poly and don’t look THAT bad when really far away. They even look OK at medium distances… just don’t get up close and personal with them. And unlike RPC people where you see the same people in rendering after rendering… a car is a car is a car..
Maybe, as an industry, we need to come up with a scale… like somthing from 1 to 100, where it’s a percentage of how close a model comes to an exact digital replica of an object where even flaws/seams/welds etc. are in the model. Then maybe a second scale for maps. So combining those two numbers.. gives you an idea of first how detailed the geometry is.. then the second number shows you how much of the detail comes from maps. So as an example.. the cars from squir might be like in the 70-80 range for geometry detail. It looks like the interiors arn’t that detailed and also things like taillights and such seem to be mapped on, so they wouldn’t be higher than that. Then the “map” number might be something like an 80-90. So overall you have a model that falls into the 80-90 range on how detailed it is.. and you know that 10-15 percent of that detail is made up in maps, not geometry. So you could use that model for most mid to close up work, unless you need superclose up renderings.. like one of JUST the taillight, or JUST the grille or whatever. Of course to make it consistant.. there would have to be some kind of objective committee that rates models…
Of course I just bit off more than I could chew.
Ok.. WAY off topic.. sorry. Just thinking out loud.
That’s by no means High-Poly (360k polys for a car including basic interior )
But i guess that’s a matter of the Point of View 
Regards,
Thorsten
The scale I tend to go off is
Low: 5-50k polys
Mid: 100-500k polys
High: 1million +
Polycount is irrelevant with the vray proxy anyway. The evermotion cars are very good, and dont need much work (none, if youre in a rush) to look great. A bit of material tweaking and you can get away with them much closer.
For a complete Car ? i’d consider that way too few polys to be honest.
Regards,
Thorsten
…You’d consider what too few, my definition of ‘low’? Thats the point, it’s low.
‘low’ poly doesnt need to be used anymore with proxies either, but back when you needed 100 cars and didnt know what a proxy was there was no other choice.
For 3d people, RocketBox has them in low/mid/high. Do not know if there is middle east people
That’s by no means High-Poly (360k polys for a car including basic interior )
To me the polygon count only has to be what is sufficent for your rendering. Sure.. you could have a 100 cars in your scene that are each a million polygons or more. But why if each car is several hundred feet away from the camera? But even if you CAN render that with proxies.. doesn’t mean you should.. it still effects your rendertime. Not to mention that you probably arn’t going to be able to buy a super high detailed 10 million polygon car for $100.
As a PROP in a scene.. were you don’t really need to see the interior.. I would say 360 to 500K polygons (that’s almost entirely the exterior of the car) is certainly mid to mid high polygon count. That’s why I think it could be used for 95%+ of most uses. Only if you were getting up close and personal with the car where the entire purpose of your rendering/animation IS the car would you need anything higher.
But this is all why I wish there was some kind of standardized ratings to rate how detailed a model is.
it really is all relative
I had to do some cars for a 3d web game engine - poly budget was 500 polys per car
sure they looked like cardboard models but thats still a valid definition of “low poly” (ultra low poly maybe)
I think Mike’s idea is a good one
whoops thread is going way off topic..
it really is all relative
I had to do some cars for a 3d web game engine - poly budget was 500 polys per car
sure they looked like cardboard models but thats still a valid definition of “low poly” (ultra low poly maybe)
Yes it is.. that’s why I was thinking a scale of 1-100 works much better than generic terms of “low/med/high”.
But back on topic… have you checked turbosquid yet? You should be able to find just about anything on there car related from ultra low poly to fairly high.