I've bought a few of these, both from here and DAZ, and every one has been disappointing in some way. The best of them all is Dethblud's Les Paul copy, but even that falls short of accuracy. And it's horrible to texture properly - but by God, I did it! The Strat copy that is on sale here (and used to be at DAZ0 isn't bad, but very lacking in detail. And the Millennium guitar is just a joke - but not a funny one. If my own modelling skills were any good, I'd make my own and shut up, but since I can't (yet) model to save my life, I depend on getting good models from other people. Please, if you're a modeller reading this, when you make a guitar model, pretty, pretty please, try to make it look a bit (or lot) more realistic.

Have you tried the ones by cmdctrlesc?

Yep, there's a guitar and bass in the Stage props set - and the LP is even less accurate than Dethbluds. I have a real Strat and 2 real Les Pauls at the side of me here, so I can compare 'em very easily. :)

Strat - too tinny for rhythm? I put a JB jr in the back slot of mine, it sounds anything but tinny through a Marshall. Erm, yeah - I have tried the MP, that was rather my point. They aren't all that good. In what way not accurate? The Les Paul by Dethblud is too thick from front to back, but scaling it in that direction makes the strap buttons and the input jack become ellipsoid, the pickguard is the wrong size and shape, the control knobs aren't very well modelled, there is no tilt on the neck, the headstock is the wrong sixe, there's no bridge, the tailpiece is wrong, the pickup selector switch is wrong. Apart from that, it's great. :)

Tinny? TINNY? You know, there's five settings on that pickup selector switch (unless your Strat was, like, pre-1964); generally speaking, three of 'em work just fine for rhythm playing.

There's a decent-ish guitar strap with the Dark Mercies stage props set. Bit expensive for just a strap, though. Thanks for the tips about modelling. I did make the LP look a little more accurate by making a few smart props, but the neck and head shape still bug me. Of the two, the Strat would seem easier to model accurately, but the MP (ex DAZ) model really skimps on detail. And the headstock shape is wrong. :) Oh well, guess I'll have to try my own hand.

SamTherapy: If you have access to a didital camera, take several high res images at different angles, and close ups for detail. Send them to me at ElectricAardvark@chartermi.net and I will build you an accurate one...and maybe a conforming strap :) ~EA

I used to work in the guitar biz, and I know that Fender's very aggressive nowadays about enforcing trademark protection of the tele and strat headstock shapes. You might want to talk to them before any commercial release of a dead-on strat model.

ElectricAardvark - thank you for the offer, but I'll have to pass. I'm currently unemployed and therefore broke. :( DAZ seems to have eaten the last of my funds. Mosca, you're right. The Fender head shapes are trademarked. So is the Gibson. However, they tried (and failed) to enforce it outside the USA, which is why we have access to very good copies here in the UK. My guitars are the real deal, though. :) Tempus, I have seen a freebie Ricky bass here in Freestuff. I dunno what it's like for accuracy, though.

If I ever get time, I'd love to model some detailed, accurate guitars (accurate enough anyhoo - see second paragraph). I have yet to find a decent model out there, including Daz's MilGuitar. Worst are what some try to pass off as a classical guitar. I know what a classical guitar looks like - own three now and have owned several others over the past years. Have a Fender Strat (YJM Sig model), Ibanez Prestige, Ramirez classical, and Les Paul to work from (among other odd guitars). And I have a decent digital camera (Canon PS GS-2) and tripod. Although I completely agree with you Mosca (both about Fender's enforcement and LnF protecttion), there are many look-alikes out there. Just look inside a Japanese guitar mag; never saw so many cheap, nearly identical copies. ;) The way around it is to make it not quite so perfect and they have no ground on which to stand (just like the near-perfect copies) - just mention those three billion Strat look-alikes as a better place to start a lawsuit. :) So what's the delay? One word: Japanese stuff, wakarimashita ka? Starting small on hashi, chowan, hashioki, teapots, etc. Once done with the tableware, I'd like to model a koto and shamisen. The shamisen's gonna be fun. :) Oh, and finally for my thesis conclusion ;0), I'd like to mention that the brave soul who decides to create an accurate model must be aware that the best way to do this is to (shudder) disassemble the instrument (electric, hopefully ;) and model the individual parts separately, bringing them together to make the complete instrument. That would mean adjustable pickups, bridge, tuning knobs, and so on. Please don't talk me into it as I'm not certain that I want to take apart my Strat (and I cannot afford another one right now). BeatYourSoul

SamTherapy: I wasn't going to charge you for it. I just need the resources to do it justice, so if you have a digital camera...and a Fender...you could do that, yes? ~EA

Cool! I found the Rick, but it's non-commercial use only... I want to use it in some pin-ups for a commercial site though, so maybe I can contact rodehn and work something out... Thanks for the heads-up!

ElectricAardvaark - sure thing! And thank you very much! If I can repay you in some way, let me know. By the way guys - making a strap is dead easy. Get a cube primitive, stretch it out to strap shape, go to Setup Room and add about 30 bones to it.

Hmm, I don't wish to offend - they are nice models, but the Tele looks too rough round the edges for my liking. And, for me to be happy, the backs would have to be modelled.

I've seen those models and they're not bad, but not high-quality. Where's the edge filet? The strings are way too thick and the pickups are cheap. :) I guess that being a guitarist for (age being given away) over 20 years slants my perspective on what is considered quality in a guitar model. I like that Gibson LP! Does it have the arch top? You can get it here, right? BeatYourSoul

Mosca - the fretboard is short, and the other details are as you noted, too. I added the tailpiece - such as it is - because the original one is even less detailed, likewise the bridge. I just knocked something together with Poser primitives. Thanks for noticing the flame maple - I'm rather proud of that. :) The headstock details are a photo of my own LP.

BeatYourSoul - the LP is available here, it's by Dethblud. The texture work is all mine. I'll gladly send the texture to you if you want it.

P.S. The creases in the body don't show when it's rendered.

Norbert, thanks for the pic, but I have that one and it's not bad - but some of the shaping is very iffy.

I wonder if I can butcher both Les Paul models and come up with a Frankenstein version? Hmmm... thinks

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=183287&Start=13&Artist=jerr3d&ByArtist=Yes

Here is a link to a very short animation I did with my Strat-like guitar model.

Sam--not bad. Headstock and pegs still wacky, but the hardware looks good otherwise. Probably doesn't really matter, but it might be kinda cool to emulate a particular model--this one's got elements of the "junior" and the current "premium," as far as I can tell. Good looking arch in the top, btw.

I am modeling a gibson as we speak and I will assure you all that it will be GREAT!!!

:)

Great model. Too bad it's a Washburn (ok, I'm a total guitar snob).

I agree on the quality btu that is one ugly muther of a guitar :) that shape is just wrong...but fantastic skills you posess (I too am a snob...hell I do not even like fenders)

Not into Washburn electrics either, but FANTASTIC job!! :) I especially like the detail and precision on the bridge and tuning machines. Now that's the type of detail and precision about which I'm talking. BTW, I have visited Turbo Squid (purely by Google accident) and found a couple of nice fenders there. I can't tell how well done they are, but they seem done well. Too bad they are also a little pricey.

My goodness, didn't know everyone hated washburns, next time I'll model a strat or something. Besides the fact that it has too many pickups (the real guitar) and the hand cutout at the top of the neck is too shallow, I really do like this guitar. Sure it isn't the best out there, but it sounds great and is built well.

Synergy - that is one awesome model. Odeath - why a Les Paul Custom? IMO, the Standard is a much nicer guitar. It's also the most popular version, too. ElectricAardvark - I'll get busy with the Digicam at the weekend and PM you next week. Oh well, back to the Frankenaxe. :)

Haven't had a chance to try too many Washburn electrics, so it's from limited exposure. :) To each his own. Every guitar type is different and every player is different. That's why I own an Ibanez, Fender Strat, and Gibson LP - one for jazzy or fast styles, one for blues, rock, and similar styles, and the other for rock and metal styles, respectively. I'm a hobby player and at one point owned ten guitars just to cover a gamut of sounds, styles, and tunings. Cool thing is that you could reuse the bridge and pickups on a variety of guitars. If it isn't already, you may want to consider selling that model. But first, I'd check with Washburn about copyright infringements and such.

BeatYourSoul - synergy would most likely avoid copyright problems if the model was sold without a headstock logo and called something like the "Washboard" :)

I've alread changed the headstock logo to Wishburn to avoid any legal battles. Dimebag Darrel from Pantera uses Washburn, and I believe Paul Stanley (Kiss) used one, not that that's much of a good thing but at least he's famous lol. Question for all you fellow guitarheads, if you had around $500 to blow on a guitar, and your usual style of play was blues/rock and metal, what would you suggest?

WTF!!! I just typed in a long, long, long help for your $500 guitar question and, poof, it disappeared when I hit the Post button. Summary: Check all of your local guitar stores and try all of those within your price range. Check the fretwork, action, construction, weight (heavier woods=better tone+sustain). Play up and down neck in every pickup position, checking intonation and playability, on the same/similar amp that you use. Don't forget to look for used/scratch&dent guitars. These can be a real bargain. BeatYourSoul

Thanks BYS, good advice! I was hoping for namebrand suggestions as well. Sorry to hear about your disappearing post! :( -Syn

I had listed these for starters: Fender Standard Fat Strat Epiphone LP Standard Ibanez RG470 Ibanez S370DX ESP LTD MH201 Jackson DKMGT A good place to start research is online: Musician's Friend and AMS. BeatYourSoul

I'd seriously avoid Epiphone, unless you want to spend at least as much again upgrading the pickups, pots, and tuners. I know, because I have one. It's a great guitar, but nowhere near as much of a bargain as I first thought. If you're outside the USA - you can't get 'em there - take a look at the Tokai Love Rock. It's Tokai's take on the Les Paul, and it scared Gibson to death.

I bought a Mexican Strat a few years ago--the 1950's model, which I think is no longer made. It came in right around $500, if I remember right, and it's too cool: sea-foam green, pretty close to accurate vintage details. Sounds good, too--I play it through a little 30-watt Fender tube amp with a Real Tube overdrive stomper--great blues and rock-n-roll tones, excellent for home or small clubs. That's a myth about body density/weight contributing to better tone, by the way, especially in a bolt-neck guitar with a trem and pickups floating in a plastic pickgaurd. In a Strat-tele type setup, tone has almost everything to do with the electronics--try switching out the pickups and/or changing amps/effects and you'll see what I mean. Body density does influence sustain, a little, but overall rigidity has a lot more effect in that department--that and nut density/bridge mass. The best advice I could give you is not to let yourself get pressured into buying a guitar you don't love; don't buy anything you haven't played first (through your equipment), and when you do decide to buy, insist that the store's guitar tech set it up to fit your playing style at no additional charge. They'll agree, if it's the difference between a sale and no sale (I worked in both the supply and retail ends of the guitar biz for almost 8 years, so I know).

Something to consider: if greater body weight/density equalled better tone, then a guitar made from lead or concrete would sound better than a guitar made of wood, no? For me, a heavy guitar=back trouble, and I've got enough of that already, thank you.

Mosca, they've actually tried that! It was made of rock and had like infinite sustain, but was so heavy that no one could hold it long enough to play it (no kidding).

Denser (thereby heavier) wood doesn't damp as easily as less dense wood - something else to consider: the dissipation of sound in water as compared to air. :P

Also, there is a tonal difference. Maybe not just in the weight factor (obviously different woods, cuts, etc have different characteristics), but I can tell you that the same electronics in an inexpensive guitar with lighter wood and another with good heavy wood have their respective quality. I have compared for myself.

The "it's all electronics, wood doesn't matter" argument doesn't take all of the physics into consideration. Okay, you say, it's all electronics - steel strings, magnetic pickups, electrical current - how's the wood effect that. Well, the vibrating strings are attached to the bridge, nut/fretboard, and tuning machines, which in turn are attached to the body, neck, and headstock, which in turn vibrate the bridge, nut/fretboard, and tuning machines, which in turn vibrate the strings some more (not to mention the actual sound waves vibrating the guitar at the antinodes). Not only does this allow the wood to effect sustain (by feedback and sympathetic vibration), it effects the tone by selectively damping some frequency ranges and amplifying others.

Electric guitars are really complex electro-mechanical systems in the way they produce sound, which is why there is no "perfect guitar" leaving all others at the wayside. Because it's not just electronics.

"Well, the vibrating strings are attached to the bridge, nut/fretboard, and tuning machines, which in turn are attached to the body, neck, and headstock, which in turn vibrate the bridge, nut/fretboard, and tuning machines, which in turn vibrate the strings some more (not to mention the actual sound waves vibrating the guitar at the antinodes). Not only does this allow the wood to effect sustain (by feedback and sympathetic vibration), it effects the tone by selectively damping some frequency ranges and amplifying others." Switch your pickups and hardware between a basswood body and a similarly milled ash body, same neck, same setup, same amp, same settings, and I defy you to detect any difference. All that vibrating and damping happens, sure, but the effect is minimal in solid-body guitars compared to what the electronics are doing--the only way you'd hear a difference in tone is if you played the guitar acoustically, no amplification. If you could hear a difference through your amp, you probably have x-ray vision, too, and are faster than a speeding bullet. "but I can tell you that the same electronics in an inexpensive guitar with lighter wood and another with good heavy wood have their respective quality. I have compared for myself." Try the reverse; switch your good pickups for cheap ones and tell me if your expensive, heavy guitar sounds the same. Try this, too: take a set of great pickups, from a late 50's Strat, say, and stick them in a cheezy knock-off. Does that guitar sound more like the Strat the pickups came from, or more like the cheez-caster did with its original pickups? Strats have bolt-on necks, which is a very fluxy joint; if you have a trem, it's specifically designed NOT to be rigidly fixed to the body, AND your pickups are floating in the middle of a square foot of multi-ply plastic--which is the only direct medium for the translation of vibration from the body to the pickups. I'm tellin' ya, body weight is way down on the list of significant factors in the way a solid body guitar sounds. "Electric guitars are really complex electro-mechanical systems in the way they produce sound." Nah. Another myth. Basically, we're talking a slab of wood, a few feet of wire, magnets, strings, metal and plastic hardware. You'd get a much more dramatic difference in tone by wiring your pickups out of phase than you would adding or subtracting two or three pounds of body weight. Acoustic guitars are complex, violins are hellishly complex (somewhere in the back of my storage unit I've got a 200 page book of acoustic studies of Stradivarii--try that for summer reading); electric guitars are relatively simple. That's their beauty, if you ask me.

Yes, the effect is not 75% or nearly that. It may only be 15-20%, but that's still substantial. I doubt it's lower than 10% unless one overpowers it with lots of electronics (builtin preamps and equalizers). And yes, you are correct that the hardware to which the strings attach and rigidity definitely play a role. Rigid systems tend to sustain vibrations better (which is why, for example, rock-solid houses tend to crumble in earthquakes while intentionally-flexible skyscrapers just wave). The tremolo is still attached to two points (the swivel mounts) and by springs to the body. Springs are superb transmitters of wave energy (both longitudinally and tranversely). And, yes, bolt on necks (and even solid through, I'd imagine) don't play much of a role in this; the solid body does. That's the point. Hollow bodies and acoustics vibrate a soundboard which vibrates a chamber of air, etc, etc. Most of the sound from an acoustic is coming from the vibrating soundboard (and the air amplified by the soundboard and interior cavity, some emitted from the soundhole). Air is a poor conductor of sound vibration as compared to a solid object, especially a dense, non-porous one. The reason acoustic shaping of sound in Stradivarius violins and acoustic guitars is so complex is because it is dependent on mechanical amplification only, between the wood, its thickness and density, chamber shape, soundholes, and so on. Two different things. One is the amplification of air within a chamber. The other is sustain and frequency modification due to sympathetic vibration and systemic feedback (coupled with metals vibrating in magnetic fields). I've got a couple textbooks on acoustic theory, a couple on physics, and several on electro-mechanical systems design. Ah, the pickups don't pick up the body vibration. But who's to say that the vibrating body doesn't vibrate the pickups (attached to the body), which, in essence, vibrates the magnetic field source of the pickups (just contemplation of that simple system). The strings pick up the body vibration! And not just through direct contact at the bridge, but also through the air (albeit minimal) - string vibrates air, air vibrates body, body vibrates air, air vibrates strings (feedback). Even just the reflection of sound waves off of the body and pickups modifies the sound shape slightly by reflection damping and superposition (wave theory 101). Thus the string's vibration is modified by everything attached to the strings (directly and indirectly) and picked up by the pickups. Here, some info for guitars: MusicVox Strataspear: Strung through body for added sustain and resonance. Peavey Limited Series: Acoustically designed tone chambers. Why? If the body has nothing to do with it, why all the fuss about body material and rigidity and mass? From Gibson: ********** Although the sound of an electric guitar would seem to come entirely from the pickup, the type of wood has an important influence on tone and sustain. "Tone woods" woods that have high strength and stability are the best for electric guitars as well as acoustic. For guitar bodies, mahogany and maple are the most common, although ash, alder, korina and various exotic woods ... Solidbody guitars minimize the vibration of the top/body in order to maximize sustain and reduce feedback. The strength and density of the wood still makes a subtle difference in tone. Mahogany is generally considered to produce a warmer tone than maple, which is stronger and denser and produces a brighter tone. *********** From http://www.schmittmusic.com/GuitarsDrums/electricG.htm: Electric Guitar Construction Manufacturers experimented with different types of woods to create better sounding electric guitars - some used one or two pieces of hardwood like ash, alder, or poplar, while others used a combination of woods like maple and mahogany to produce a specific tone. It is the density of the different types of wood that has the primary effect on the way the guitar resonates. Also try: http://www.playmusicfree.com/musical_instruments/html/electric_body.htm I think that the information below sums it up rather nicely. Although the weight of the wood isn't telling, the density is. But most dense woods are heavy. So it depends on the choice of wood. But to say that the body material has no effect goes against all luthiery and manufacturer information: ...Others will tell you that the final sound of a guitar can be estimated before it is built just by careful choice of wood--and that the finish of the guitar will have an effect on its sound. The truth lies somewhere between the two. If one goes back to the guitar magazines that were published in the early 1970s, the general consensus was that a heavy-bodied guitar, for example one made entirely of maple, would sustain longer than one that was made of a lighter wood. This is certainly not the case. A friend of mine once owned a pair of 1962 Fender Stratocasters. One had an alder body, the other had ash. In all other respects, such as hardware, neck and even strings, they were the same. They certainly sounded different and the tighter alder-bodied guitar sustained longer than the heavier ash guitar. To further emphasise this, during the late 1980s, the luthier Roger Giffin made several guitars with bodies made of jelutong. This is a very lightweight but sturdy wood that is often used for patternmaking. It is easy to work and takes a finish well. It is pretty boring to look at but this does not matter if it is painted. The end results were very impressive. The guitars had a lot of natural sustain and sounded very bright. They also did not wear you out if you had to have one on a strap for a two-hour concert! Some oriental manufacturers use basswood which is also known as American lime, and the English company Shergold made obeche-bodied guitars in the early 1970s. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that different woods absorb different frequencies in differing amounts but since there has been little, if any, scientific research done on this the only way of choosing is by trial and error. It should also be noted that woods can vary enormously in quality, weight and density depending on where they were grown and names used in one country might signify a markedly different wood when used in another country. Ash is a fine example of this; the ash grown in Europe is heavier than some grown in the United States. There has been much talk of the use of so-called 'swamp' ash. This is said to be much lighter in weight and grows in the swamps of the Mississippi delta in the southern states of America. The wood that grows in the very wettest areas is certainly lighter in weight and makes a good wood for building guitar bodies but trees from only a few hundred feet away may have completely different characteristics having grown in a drier area. The problem is that all of this wood is expensive, regardless of what it actually weighs. It is wise to choose carefully. ======================================================== I'm not talking out my ass or from ignorance or misinformation. 20 years of playing and learning about guitars; years of learning physics and musical acoustics; years of doing electro-mechanical design and testing. 99.9999% of electric guitars have wood bodies in an age of cheap synthetic plastics, metal alloys, and composite materials. That makes no sense. Wood is very resonant and can be very dense. Most of the other materials are good dampers or have horrid acoustic properties. That wouldn't make a damn of a difference if it were all electronics.

Hey, one of my first electric guitars was an old Silvertone/Dan Electro--masonite on chipboard--and it sounded GREAT. Wish I still had that baby--and those old lipstick tube pickups now sell for pretty big money, if you can even find them (somewhere in Oklahoma there's a guitar-builder with suitcases full). All your guitar mfgr propaganda basically boils down to what I've been saying: body mass effects sustain, yes--tone? Well, maybe--mahogany's warm, maple's bright, ash is warm, alder's bright (see the contradiction?) on and on. I've been playing for over 30 years, worked for a big luthier supply company for six years, spent a lot of time hanging around with some of the best-known guitar builders in the country, and worked in retail for two years. I've put together and taken apart dozens of guitars, and had this conversation more times than I can count. One thing I've learned is that you can't quantify tone--it's pretty subjective, and different people hear the same guitars differently. It's a mistake to try to turn that experience into a science. Know why Fender started making Strats out of ash? It was CHEAP, and it took a finish well. Ditto alder. Now basswood. Gibson has always been in a different market-niche; much more oriented toward premium, high-end instruments--of course they're going to use expensive woods, otherwise, what are they selling? "I doubt it's lower than 10% unless one overpowers it with lots of electronics (builtin preamps and equalizers)." Ah HAH! You've made exactly my point. One DOES overpower the purely acoustic properties of one's electric guitar with electronics, every time one plugs in and turns that knob up to 10. That's what rock-n-roll is all about, dude. Walking into a store and selecting one guitar over another based on relative weight is just silly, and you know it. I say again, you're buying the propaganda. Hang on to your wallet! "99.9999% of electric guitars have wood bodies in an age of cheap synthetic plastics, metal alloys, and composite materials. That makes no sense. Wood is very resonant and can be very dense. Most of the other materials are good dampers or have horrid acoustic properties. That wouldn't make a damn of a difference if it were all electronics." There was, in the early eighties, a company that made guitars out of cast graphite--can't remember the name. They sounded pretty good, sustained like mad, but they were way too expensive--the guy who ran the company couldn't figure out a cost-effectively way to manufacture them. Plastics, light-weight alloys, etc., could all work fine, if you could figure out how to mill or cast and then assemble them at low cost (and safely--plastics are generally wicked toxic), overcome buyer prejudice, get them into stores, etc., though, come to think of it, what kinds of alloys are we talking about here? Is there one that's lightweight, extremely rigid AND inexpensive? I mean, titanium is out, right? Basically, the risk factor inherent in developing new materials is too great for most manufacturers to bear--why bother, when wood is still (relatively) abundant and cheap? Any guess what Fender's profit margin is on a mid-range strat? Dude, why do you think they assemble them in Mexico? "If the body has nothing to do with it, why all the fuss about body material and rigidity and mass?" What makes you think there's a fuss? Theoretically, maybe there is, but in practice most manufacturers use what's functional, abundant, cheap, and likely to be accepted by their customers. Gibson's convinced it's marketing a "legend," but I think they're making a big mistake by not following Fender's lead and producing a lower-cost, Gibson branded version of the Les Paul, in particular. Who wants a freakin' Epiphone, right?

Remind me not to change the subject to politics, abortion, or religion. You two could go on all week lol.