Comments on: CheckMate Advisory Board Live and in Person

By: Michele Bousquet

Michele Bousquet — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 20:24:23 +0000

@Hystoria: The background, midground, and foreground poly counts would vary widely from one category to another. If we were to pursue the LOD approach, we’d come up with some guidelines for various categories.

The Advisory Board includes representatives from architectural visualization and games as well as tv/film/vfx. Broadcast and VFX customers tend to spend more than other types of customers and have more stringent requirements. These customers have embraced CheckMate Pro and have shown their appreciation with strong purchases. Arch viz customers aren’t as picky, but do appreciate CheckMate Pro as it never lets them down.

I understand your confusion about where to invest your time. You’re right, the market has changed over the past 5-7 years. We noticed this a couple of years ago, which is why we started the CheckMate program after asking customers what it is that they really wanted. Though we can’t promise sales for any one 3D model (who can?) we’ve identified some areas of the catalog that have no CheckMate Pro models, and published the list. That list would be a good place to start.

Our customers tell me over and over that the only reason they don’t buy more CheckMate Pro models is because there isn’t enough selection. We intend to continue to improve our catalog until customers can find every model they want at a quality level that meets their needs.

I hope this clears up some of the confusion for you. Feel free to ask if you need more information to make decisions about your future models.

By: Michele Bousquet

Michele Bousquet — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 20:03:16 +0000

@Yegor, The Advisory Board recommendations are just that, recommendations. We run all the recommendations by a larger group of our customers, and consider the level of work required vs. the return for artists. We are carefully considering the LOD question, talking to our customers and looking at the cost benefit if we started offering such products.

By: Michele Bousquet

Michele Bousquet — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 19:47:23 +0000

@Dorian: We don’t work with Poser very much, so I’m sorry but we can’t help you. Daz is in a better position to point you in the right direction, or try one of the user forums.

By: Hystoria

Hystoria — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 07:32:48 +0000

What poly count ranges would be considered acceptable for background and midground models using today’s technology?

Does the fact that the CheckMate Advisory Board comprises mainly tv/film/vfx experts mean these are the primary clients licensing CM stock, or that they’re becoming the dominant market sector for 3d stock in general?

If some of these questions can’t be answered without revealing proprietary information, where can a person go to gain a better understanding of the current market? It seems a lot has changed in the last 5-7 years… I’m completely confused about where to invest the most time and effort, skill-development, etc. Others may wonder the same thing. Any advice?

By: Yegor Tsyba

Yegor Tsyba — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 22:36:26 +0000

Correct proportions – agree.
Correct size – agree.
But.. Accuracy “one in one” cost 10 times more. Do this guys will pay for it? Not sure.
Often artist don`t have enough photoreferences and must imagine details by himself. Also Photos have distortion what very difficult to understand visualy and model correct shape by it.
Time wasted to find all sizes, all needed references, make all absolutely one in one don`t cost money customers want to pay for it.
And who will check it? Turbosquid CheckMate team? how?
If customers need it – they can use 3D scaners. Its not so expensive today. Or ask for custom modeling (with custom price of course).

Level of detail? Again – its good to have but who will pay for work to make a LODs?

We already have lots of useless work to makes fun on TurboSquid for turntables and backgrounds (“sorry your backround 246 246 246 and must be 247 247 247″ WHO CARES!! WHO WILL NOTICE IT???) and so on.

By: Dorian Cryer

Dorian Cryer — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 20:24:33 +0000

Sirs,
I’m attempting to design build sale models on your sight, I build with Rhino items that should function in Poser/Daz. I’m having issues with the rendered appearance in Poser. the meshes look good but once rendered it gets this odd texture that seem to reflect the triangular polygons, the appearance is the same if quads were used. I’m beginning to think that it is my copy of Poser (it doesn’t look as bad in Daz) I was wondering if I could submit a model for your review, and if you could verify this appearance in Poser and speak to the general quality of the model, as well as offer suggestions as to how to work this around.