• 🏆 Texturing Contest #33 is OPEN! Contestants must re-texture a SD unit model found in-game (Warcraft 3 Classic), recreating the unit into a peaceful NPC version. 🔗Click here to enter!
  • It's time for the first HD Modeling Contest of 2024. Join the theme discussion for Hive's HD Modeling Contest #6! Click here to post your idea!

Chessboard

Chessboard

Spent 5 minute to make this and it looks fine, i hope it's not too simple


The thing is it has more detail (No Wood Border) and it won't blur when you scale it super big

Better Quality Chessboard

Keywords:
chess, board, decoration
Contents

Chessboard (Model)

Reviews
12:16, 25th Apr 2015 Misha: very nice, very useful
Here's the So Called 120 (128 Actually) poly Chessboard

I never claimed that you needed 120 polies. I said 128. Before you try to make someone else look stupid, check their post to make sure you even remember it right.

To prove to InfernalTater that you don't need 120 poly to make this XD
uses 32 vertex :O

Sure, you don't need 128 polies to make it, but it would look a lot better with full textures wrapped to each square, and the file size would still only be around 5-10 KB if you do it right, rather than having 1,000 vertices, which I have no idea how you managed to do on your other version, considering that 64 squares = 128 polies = 384 vertices MAX if they didn't even share a single point, or 81 vertices if you have the triangles share vertices with those connecting to them.

The high quality one I would give a 4/5 if you'd done it correctly, with 81 vertices rather than 1,000. I mean, seriously, it has 128 polies. Even if none of the triangles shared a vertex, that'd still only be 384 vertices. You've got at least 608 vertices sitting around doing nothing but wasting file space.

You should fix your high quality version, it would have a much smaller file size and still look exactly the same. Even at 35 KB, you still don't need the low quality version; 35 KB is plenty low enough of a file size already for something like this, let alone the 5-10 KB the HQ version will be after you fix it. You should just fix the high quality version and replace this with that, you'd get much better ratings and the file size would still be tiny.

Also, why would you purposely ruin your own model with a 992 vertices when you only need 81 just to try to disprove my suggestion when all I did was provide good advice to you? Don't try to pretend it just happened to be that way, because you don't even have enough polygons to use that many vertices, you literally have hundreds floating around wasting file size just to disprove my predicted file size. You basically insulted me twice. Not directly, but you did, and it's really lame of you to do that when I've always been nothing but helpful.

Edit: Just by deleting all unconnected vertices from your HQ model, I reduced the file size from 35 KB to 11 KB. You had nearly 750 unused vertices. It took 5 seconds. And it could be further reduced to nearly 5 KB by having touching polygons of the same geoset share vertices, but that'd be a lot more work, so 11 KB is good enough for now. Just get rid of all those unused vertices, they shouldn't even be there. I can't believe you'd leave something like that in a model just to make my suggestion look bad. You basically straw-manned my suggestion; you built it wrong so that it would fail, just so you could make your alternative seem better than it actually is.

Seriously, stop with your tone. All of your posts lately have been basically ridiculing me for my suggestion, when it was your own failure to properly implement it that caused the file size to be so much larger than I'd predicted. Until now, I had always been friendly with you. Even after how you're acting now, I'm still only trying to help you, I'm just less joyful about it. I've always complimented your models, and I've always offered helpful advice to you. Trying to make other modelers look bad doesn't make you look like an expert, it makes you look arrogant. If you're going to act like this every time, then from now on I'll just let your models remain massively flawed instead of helping you improve them. I've got news for you, buddy. You're not a master at this who can release perfect resources without running them past other people for advice. Me, you, and everyone else here who does this for fun rather than professionally, need to take advice from the community to polish anything we produce. If you keep trying to make people who help you look like fools just to elevate yourself, people aren't going to want to help you.

Now, after all of that, you can either continue making the HQ version worse just to make your own seem better, or you can take my advice and dramatically improve the file size to the point where you wouldn't even need a low quality version.

Edit 2: I'm not going to delete what I wrote and pretend it didn't happen, but I'm not angry with you anymore. This morning I was just ticked off and felt kind of betrayed, but that was just a misunderstanding.
 
Last edited:
Level 42
Joined
Oct 20, 2010
Messages
2,935
I never claimed that you needed 120 polies. I said 128. Before you try to make someone else look stupid, check their post to make sure you even remember it right.



Sure, you don't need 128 polies to make it, but it would look a lot better with full textures wrapped to each square, and the file size would still only be around 5-10 KB if you do it right, rather than having 1,000 vertices, which I have no idea how you managed to do on your other version, considering that 64 squares = 128 polies = 384 vertices MAX if they didn't even share a single point, or 81 vertices if you have the triangles share vertices with those connecting to them.

The high quality one I would give a 4/5 if you'd done it correctly, with 81 vertices rather than 1,000. I mean, seriously, it has 128 polies. Even if none of the triangles shared a vertex, that'd still only be 384 vertices. You've got at least 608 vertices sitting around doing nothing but wasting file space.

You should fix your high quality version, it would have a much smaller file size and still look exactly the same. Even at 35 KB, you still don't need the low quality version; 35 KB is plenty low enough of a file size already for something like this, let alone the 5-10 KB the HQ version will be after you fix it. You should just fix the high quality version and replace this with that, you'd get much better ratings and the file size would still be tiny.

Also, why would you purposely ruin your own model with a 992 vertices when you only need 81 just to try to disprove my suggestion when all I did was provide good advice to you? Don't try to pretend it just happened to be that way, because you don't even have enough polygons to use that many vertices, you literally have hundreds floating around wasting file size just to disprove my predicted file size. You basically insulted me twice. Not directly, but you did, and it's really lame of you to do that when I've always been nothing but helpful.

Edit: Just by deleting all unconnected vertices from your HQ model, I reduced the file size from 35 KB to 11 KB. You had nearly 750 unused vertices. It took 5 seconds. And it could be further reduced to nearly 5 KB by having touching polygons of the same geoset share vertices, but that'd be a lot more work, so 11 KB is good enough for now. Just get rid of all those unused vertices, they shouldn't even be there. I can't believe you'd leave something like that in a model just to make my suggestion look bad. You basically straw-manned my suggestion; you built it wrong so that it would fail, just so you could make your alternative seem better than it actually is.

Seriously, stop with your tone. All of your posts lately have been basically ridiculing me for my suggestion, when it was your own failure to properly implement it that caused the file size to be so much larger than I'd predicted. Until now, I had always been friendly with you. Even after how you're acting now, I'm still only trying to help you, I'm just less joyful about it. I've always complimented your models, and I've always offered helpful advice to you. Trying to make other modelers look bad doesn't make you look like an expert, it makes you look arrogant. If you're going to act like this every time, then from now on I'll just let your models remain massively flawed instead of helping you improve them. I've got news for you, buddy. You're not a master at this who can release perfect resources without running them past other people for advice. Me, you, and everyone else here who does this for fun rather than professionally, need to take advice from the community to polish anything we produce. If you keep trying to make people who help you look like fools just to elevate yourself, people aren't going to want to help you.

Now, after all of that, you can either continue making the HQ version worse just to make your own seem better, or you can take my advice and dramatically improve the file size to the point where you wouldn't even need a low quality version.

Well maybe i did something wrong there lol sorry xd
And just to note is probably my unefficient in making model, i didnt purposely make the filesize this big
 
Level 9
Joined
Feb 16, 2011
Messages
595
I never claimed that you needed 120 polies. I said 128. Before you try to make someone else look stupid, check their post to make sure you even remember it right.



Sure, you don't need 128 polies to make it, but it would look a lot better with full textures wrapped to each square, and the file size would still only be around 5-10 KB if you do it right, rather than having 1,000 vertices, which I have no idea how you managed to do on your other version, considering that 64 squares = 128 polies = 384 vertices MAX if they didn't even share a single point, or 81 vertices if you have the triangles share vertices with those connecting to them.

The high quality one I would give a 4/5 if you'd done it correctly, with 81 vertices rather than 1,000. I mean, seriously, it has 128 polies. Even if none of the triangles shared a vertex, that'd still only be 384 vertices. You've got at least 608 vertices sitting around doing nothing but wasting file space.

You should fix your high quality version, it would have a much smaller file size and still look exactly the same. Even at 35 KB, you still don't need the low quality version; 35 KB is plenty low enough of a file size already for something like this, let alone the 5-10 KB the HQ version will be after you fix it. You should just fix the high quality version and replace this with that, you'd get much better ratings and the file size would still be tiny.

Also, why would you purposely ruin your own model with a 992 vertices when you only need 81 just to try to disprove my suggestion when all I did was provide good advice to you? Don't try to pretend it just happened to be that way, because you don't even have enough polygons to use that many vertices, you literally have hundreds floating around wasting file size just to disprove my predicted file size. You basically insulted me twice. Not directly, but you did, and it's really lame of you to do that when I've always been nothing but helpful.

Edit: Just by deleting all unconnected vertices from your HQ model, I reduced the file size from 35 KB to 11 KB. You had nearly 750 unused vertices. It took 5 seconds. And it could be further reduced to nearly 5 KB by having touching polygons of the same geoset share vertices, but that'd be a lot more work, so 11 KB is good enough for now. Just get rid of all those unused vertices, they shouldn't even be there. I can't believe you'd leave something like that in a model just to make my suggestion look bad. You basically straw-manned my suggestion; you built it wrong so that it would fail, just so you could make your alternative seem better than it actually is.

Seriously, stop with your tone. All of your posts lately have been basically ridiculing me for my suggestion, when it was your own failure to properly implement it that caused the file size to be so much larger than I'd predicted. Until now, I had always been friendly with you. Even after how you're acting now, I'm still only trying to help you, I'm just less joyful about it. I've always complimented your models, and I've always offered helpful advice to you. Trying to make other modelers look bad doesn't make you look like an expert, it makes you look arrogant. If you're going to act like this every time, then from now on I'll just let your models remain massively flawed instead of helping you improve them. I've got news for you, buddy. You're not a master at this who can release perfect resources without running them past other people for advice. Me, you, and everyone else here who does this for fun rather than professionally, need to take advice from the community to polish anything we produce. If you keep trying to make people who help you look like fools just to elevate yourself, people aren't going to want to help you.

Now, after all of that, you can either continue making the HQ version worse just to make your own seem better, or you can take my advice and dramatically improve the file size to the point where you wouldn't even need a low quality version.

Edit 2: I'm not going to delete what I wrote and pretend it didn't happen, but I'm not angry with you anymore. This morning I was just ticked off and felt kind of betrayed, but that was just a misunderstanding.

TLDR :vw_death:
 
Improved the Filesize of the Better Quality Version
Better Quality Chessboard

The link isn't working.

Anyway, assuming you dropped it to 11 KB or less as expected, why not just replace this with the high quality version? Considering the size of a chessboard, 11 KB is completely appropriate for such a model and it really wouldn't be worth importing one of significantly lower quality just to save another 8 KB.
 
Level 42
Joined
Oct 20, 2010
Messages
2,935
The link isn't working.

Anyway, assuming you dropped it to 11 KB or less as expected, why not just replace this with the high quality version? Considering the size of a chessboard, 11 KB is completely appropriate for such a model and it really wouldn't be worth importing one of significantly lower quality just to save another 8 KB.

Not Sure :O The Model Is a Little Too Different Approach :O One For Terrain and One for Item
And yes, Is 11KB

Link

This one Is just the Plain Board, Without the Wood thing
 
Not Sure :O The Model Is a Little Too Different Approach :O One For Terrain and One for Item
And yes, Is 11KB

Link

This one Is just the Plain Board, Without the Wood thing

In that case, why not upload the high quality one as a separate model?

People don't usually download linked models. They don't want to download and open a model just to find out if they'll like it. Most people will never see your high quality version unless you upload it as a resource of its own or at least post a picture of it in the description above a download link.
 
Level 42
Joined
Oct 20, 2010
Messages
2,935
In that case, why not upload the high quality one as a separate model?

People don't usually download linked models. They don't want to download and open a model just to find out if they'll like it. Most people will never see your high quality version unless you upload it as a resource of its own or at least post a picture of it in the description above a download link.

Well, will do it later maybe xd
 
Top