Criticism of quibicles


#1

I apologize if I appear too picky about the fan-made work here, but what I’ve noticed is that there are a lot of works that are a bit too… round? I remember watching a livestream where Tom(I think) said that you have to be careful of too many edges on models, otherwise they look junky from a distance.

I’m wondering if modellers keep that in mind when they’re making qubicles or not, and whether I’m being too picky. Discuss


#2

I think that was all based on Toms personal preference, which he states that a lot. Not everyone finds it to look bad. How ever you want to make your mod models they really don’t have a say in it. Me I am still on the fence about the whole Q-bert effect. In some cases it does look nice.


#3

Tom has a specific design methodology, which is absolutely critical to keep a games theme consistent… that doesnt mean modders cant have their own visions for a given idea… its just that it might not always look as natural in the rest of the world… but to each his own! :smiley:

i am really enjoying the design direction Tom has taken though, as (and im taking this from last nights session), the flat surfaces definitely lend a 16-bit vibe to their appearance…


#4

It will help, I think, when more templates are out; I think a lot of people don’t fully realize how small those villagers and people are. I know I didn’t when I made my first magic orb weapon that was supposed to “magically float around their hand.” It looked good and nice and blocky still had that 16bit feel to me, but when I found a template of a villager someone did for size comparison my orb was twice the size of the villager. Lol.


#5

I for one welcome any criticism, as long as it’s constructive.

Actually that’s a lie. Please don’t criticise me, it hurts my feelings and I’ll cry :cry:


#6

i think that we will only truly know if soething will look good when its in game and as mentioned rounded things is a preference


#7

I looove Tom’s design too, which is why I wanted to bring this up about user submissions, I personally think should be more consistent with Tom’s designs, although I know he’s been at it for a while and it’s very strict.


#8

I don’t think you are being too picky. I’m actually pretty specific in that I know when I like a model and I know when I don’t. This is why I have refrained from commenting too much on people’s Qubicles. I think a lot of the design variance will diminish once Radiant puts out official model templates. Until then, I try not to be too critical (because I don’t want to make Froggy cry. :wink: )


#9

They are going to put out design templates??


#10

@Wharp I don’t know if they are going to put any out; but some people have reverse engineered some stuff and there is a villager Qubicle object file I found out there that is helping me better understand the sizing and look they’re going for. I’m actually trying to find it again because I accidently saved over it haha.


#11

im sure you grabbed one of the models from here, yes? :smiley:


#12

i do see th epoint about consistency it is probably the most important point imo im worried some thiings however wont work not as circles


#13

I’ve actually been digging it out of the middle of the Qubicle Creations thread which is so much more difficult than going there Lol; I never remember where it is and then there’s always new stuff in that thread that I have to stop and check out as well. :smile:

Registered over there as well now! There’s all kinds of stuff haha.


#14

You mentioned a very good point Wharp. I cannot speak for the others, but I am pretty new in the modelling business and far away from the 2 million voxels which Tom already “used”. Personally I want to try to match with the planned design for Stonehearth. However, using Qubicle for only like 3 weeks, I am at the very beginning of a (hopefully) long journey. With every model I create (and there are some more than I have postet here), I try to add a bit more of the design principles of Stonehearth (or what I believe they are). So hopefully, step by step the models will look a bit more like they should.

Saying this, I absolutely accept and understand if “other modders” prefer to bring in their own flavour. A large variety cannot be bad for the game and every player can decide at the end by himself what he likes best.


#15

Thank you, thats a very thorough explanation, I like your determination. On a side note, did you buy Qubicle, or is it the trial or something? I would like to try my hand at it but don’t know about the software.


#16

there is a free version which i have found it fine for creating things head to http://www.minddesk.com/ and go to the downloadeds section :slight_smile:


#17

You can get a free version to try your hand with! Just head [urlhttp://www.minddesk.com/purchase.php] here [/url] and get the basic edition!


#18

@Geoffers747 i do believe i beat u to it this time :stuck_out_tongue:


#19

http://www.qubicle-constructor.com/downloader.php?download=qc_win is the free version of Qubicle.

It can do most of the things that you can do with the paid for version. It’s certainly enough to get you started. The main limitation of the free version is the inability to export your creations to a rendering software such as 3dsmax


#20

The trial version is absolutely fine if you want to try it out. There is no real limitation (well some, but you will not be handicapped by them). Radiant is negotiating with Minddesk (creator of Qubicle) for an agreement which should give easier / cheaper access to the tool for the Stonehearth community… might take a bit more time.

Personally, I have paid for the Home edition. Just like Stonehearth, the team around Qubicle ist… like 1 full-time person coding it during some free time (with some support from others, if I get it right). So I feel it is worth to support also this “project” as I feel for Stonehearth… and I also could not wait to play around with animations (for which you need to export files into .obj-format, which is not available in the trial).