Hello everyone. I just thought I would post my recent efforts into 3D digital art. As some of you may know, I am a part time traditional artist, I use paper and a pencil. I have recently learned to use the basics of 3D Studio Max, Blender and my favourite, Zbrush.

Now, I am learning all the skills required to transfer my creativity into 3D digital media. These are my first efforts over the last couple of months, so please giver me some feedback. They are hosted here on gamespot, here is the link:

http://uk.gamespot.com/users/DAZZER7/albums

Never really heard of it, looks good though so I may have to check the first one out!

[QUOTE="DAZZER7"]

[QUOTE="Shhadow_Viper"] It is safe to say if you see it as merely going around an oval, you have very little understanding of the magnitude of skill it take to do that. Let's see you go 200 mph SIDEWAYS all day long and not total the car in the first lap or two. And thats if you ever got going even half as fast as them. Go to a race in person and try and say it is just going round an oval. The tracks my not be technical, but the intensity is still there. Keeping control at those speeds maintaining 200 mph drifts sometimes 3 or 4 wide in a corner, they are walking such a fine line every corner, it's not even funny. Look how many extremely talented drivers from F1 and other major racing backgrounds that can barely hang racing Nascar, it is far from easy and their lackluster performance is a testament to that. After going to some races I have a whole new respect for Nascar, and it is far more than just going round an oval. Shhadow_Viper

I think you've mis-quoted me there mate.

[QUOTE="DAZZER7"]I was with you until you implied F1 drivers struggle with the difficulty. It is just a very difficult area of racing to get into full stop. It is definitely not more difficult to learn than F1 lol, your explanation implies F1 drivers arn't good enough. Atleast F1 drivers are capable of actually making the transition, try to see if a Nascar only driver can jump into an F1 car, they dont.

Whilst Nascar is much more complicated and requires more skill than a lot of posters on this board are giving credit, it most certainly does not require more skill than Formula 1. There are many reasons ex F1 drivers struggle, recognition, sponsorship, joining a top team etc, and the fact they are in the sport at all shows great skill and adapatability of the drivers.

Jrfanfreak88

Why would NASCAR drivers go to F1 when that sport 1) doesn't race in North America, 2) is not as popular as NASCAR, and 3) has a lower level of competition? Lately open wheel drivers like Juan Pablo Montoya, Sam Hornish Jr, and Dario Franchitti have struggled a lot with the transition of going from excellent handling open wheel cars like those in F1 or IRL to the heavy and bulky NASCAR COT's. However, a lot of people forget that Tony Stewart made that transition and has been very successful in NASCAR. The funny thing is that once guys switch to NASCAR they usually don't go back to open wheel. Wonder why that is.

Anyway, it really shows how much you know about Formula 1 if you feel its repetitive, I mean look at this season hey? First it looked like Braun would run away with the lot with Jensen Button taking top of the leader board, I think Sebastian Vettel looks likely to catch him. It looked like Lewis Hamilton wouldn't win a Grand Prix all season and now he's back on top form and Button may not hold on to his lead. There are a few who could catch him. Many of the Grand Prix have been very eventful this season aswell. Even some of the qualifiers have been unpredictable. Of particular note was Mark Webber winning his first Grand Prix for Red Bull. Each race has each different team approaching each circuit differently. Teams set up accoding to the track and even the climate. Just the pitting strategy can win or lose a race for a driver. Formula 1 is certainly not predictable or lacking in competition :lol:

Oh, and world wide, I bet you Formula 1 is much more popular, thats like saying American Football is more popular than Soccer.

By the way, the guys who end up in Nascar, never were top F1 drivers...I wonder why that is..and I wonder why the top F1 drivers don't bother?

[QUOTE="fenwickhotmail"][QUOTE="Immortal_Evil"]Are you kidding me? one is around a oval shaped track with a ridiculous amount of laps, the other is around proper tracks.

Shhadow_Viper

I was with you until you implied F1 drivers struggle with the difficulty. It is just a very difficult area of racing to get into full stop. It is definitely not more difficult to learn than F1 lol, your explanation implies F1 drivers arn't good enough. Atleast F1 drivers are capable of actually making the transition, try to see if a Nascar only driver can jump into an F1 car, they dont.

Whilst Nascar is much more complicated and requires more skill than a lot of posters on this board are giving credit, it most certainly does not require more skill than Formula 1. There are many reasons ex F1 drivers struggle, recognition, sponsorship, joining a top team etc, and the fact they are in the sport at all shows great skill and adapatability of the drivers.

A possibly good game, getting a lot of hate for no justifiable reason (based on previews and interviews discussing the longetivity and gameplay expansions made with ODST) Graphics aside, ODST seems to be taking more strides then Halo 3 did over Halo 2 and as a result really does not deserve the blind hatred it is getting....alextherussian

Exactly, this game is trying to do something different from the series which no one really knows will work or not and it still gets bashed. Oh and once a game has been announced as an expansion, there is no way a developer can change their mind, add more content and transform the project into a full retail game...nope, once its announced, an expansion it must stay!! :roll:

This literally is the cherry on the cake with Forza 3 :P

[QUOTE="WadeFan"]here is my question for the all the graphic "whores" out there. serious legitimate question. If the 360 can supposedly be on par with the PS3 in terms of graphics then why havent we seen it? I mean every lem claims that it can easily do Uncharted, but I dont see a game to back that up? Killzone 2, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Metal Gear Solid 4, and Uncharted 2 are all unmatched graphically by the 360Delsage

OK but apart from the artistic st-y-le of the graphics what is different? The textures, the normal or bump mapping, resolution, AA, AF, HDR, number of polys, scale of the environments, what is it? We know the 360 has similar memory constraints, we know that both cpu's are capable of multi-threading, we know that one has a GPU with unified architecture and 48 stream processors while the other has separate pixel and vertex shaders etc etc.

Look both consoles achieve similar effects, games on both systems end up being similar in scale. Like I said before, go look at PC gaming if you want to see a difference. Killzone 2 has slightly more blur, or uncharted 2 has slightly better depth of field and we're all expected to be wow'd lol.

[QUOTE="DAZZER7"]

Sorry but you DO have a right to be kept alive by the service of others. Thats not just the duty of a doctor but the duty of you as a human being. If you left someone dying and said "its not my duty" you would get into trouble with the police.

Think of it this way, 2 children born in 2 different families. One is flat out broke the other very wealthy. Why should one child be entitled to life saving medical care and the other not? Neither has done anything in their life yet to deserve or not deserve care. Thats the point here.

There are minimum things everyone should be entitled to in a modern western country and those are things like civil liberty protection, education and healthcare. Those are the basics and should not have to be paid for in a commercial sense. I recently was made redundant, in your country it would seem over night my children would have become less deserving of health care, right? Don't you see the absurdity of it?

whet40

I could live with one kidney and I am sure that one of my kidneys could be used by a person in need. Your reasoning leads to the assumption that I am required to give up said kidney and not doing so renders me as a heartless person. Do you see the absurdity in that?

"Entitled" is a word that I have a large distaste in hearing. It signifies ownership of that which is not honestley earned.

When dealing with children, it is always difficult to say no (Won't somebody think of the children!?) . However parents must accept all of the responsibilities of having children. As harsh as it sounds, children are a great burden in many regards (albeit one that most seemingly will gladly accept).

If civil liberty, education, and healthcare are basic to life, they should be the focus of the most successful and efficient system available and not the most inefficient i.e. government. Government should be there to protect these rights, not to provide them.

I'm talking about children, not their parents taking responsibility...does one child deserve healthcare over another, its a yes or no question!

If no, then an equal system needs to be in place.

Good parents, bad parents, its not the child's fault it should have the same minimum healthcare. I've seen your type of attitude before, let me guess, poor people are poor because they like it, right?

Oh and entitlement, yes you are entitled to life and good health, this is not something that needs to be earned. This is not something that is an optional extra, a priviledge, it is something everyone needs. You can still have your personal wealth, cars, houses, maids etc but healthcare should be free, as should education.

and like I have mentioned in a previous post, when it comes to the NHS, there is huge media attention when it comes to the running and efficiency of the NHS. Its a constant battle ground for politicians, its a vote winner and vote loser and so there is trumendous pressure for it to be run right. This isn't the post office, this is peoples lives and apart from law and order and education one of the most hotly contended areas in British politics.

It is as efficient as possible without comprimising quality, the private sector as I know is very good at efficiency but quite often at the expense of fairness and quality.

I Don't get why it would only be possible, i honestly don't see the "Huge" Difference between games like Killzone2 and Uncharted 2 compared to Games like Gears of war 2, Mass Effect, hell even Bioshock and RE5. It's just odd that people get so angry and make us so much BS over practially no difference, i think there really isn't ANY difference between the graphical standards of the top teir of graphical console games in my eyes. Killzone 2 looks slick and increadible but has a odd FOV and Blur up the ass. RE5 is smaller scale but less jaggies/ Blur, Gears 2 is more toned down than KZ2 in the VFX department but subltely =/= less visually impressive. all have different strenghts and faults but non of them add up to a clear victor. You are arguing over nothing here, it's really preferance. BoloTheGreat

You notice they never give a specific example, they never say exactly what is going on and specifically what cannot be done on the 360, like "the game is pushing 3 times as much polys, the 360 could not do this etc"