Quote - Hello BH,
Just curious, when you say add more bulk to the calves to give it a more "solid" stance do you mean make the calf muscles more defined or "cut"?
(...)

Yes, I meant the calf muscles. Although on second thought I admit that's probably more a question of personal preferences than a necessity.

Quote - Im right now thinking Im gonna have to run the cuts all the way back up the arm to the shoulder and the arm pits in order to hide the resulting tris and produce the right topo for the knuckles.

For your triangle problem on the hand, maybe you could adjust the topology in a less drastic way, by "running your cuts" indeed to the back on the hand, where the polygon shouldn't need
to be morphed that much if you animate the model. And there being an area that's more of less "flat", having a triangle here (and a pole vertex, consequently...) shoudn't cause too many shading issues either.

If I may suggest, I'd give more bulk to the calves muscles, and also increase the hooves size, perhaps by 30-50%, just to give it a try at least. It may give the figure a more "solid" stance overall.

For box-modelling the hands, there is basically two "schools" relating to how you shape the thumb-hand connection. Either starting from the palm, or from the side of it. In either case, you'll most certainly get some triangles, that depending on which way you'd choose to extrude the first thumb phalange, you'll have to "hide", or correct to quads, using either neighboring palm or wrist geometry.

I did see the images at the time, but now not at all indeed.

<<< seconded >>>
and thirded. :-)

I'm hesitating myself about learnning another (sculpting) software. While I'm certainely far below from Teyon's skills, I think that time is the commodity I tend to lack the most.

Yes, Anim8or, Hexagon or Wings all have some good toolsets to correct this kind of mesh.

Wings is probably the easier to grasp for people new to modeling. In this case, I'd redo the whole model, as it would be more efficient and not longer (in Wings at least) than to attempt some heroic rescue on this one.

Granted, but that's depend of what software/algo you are using. an efficient "untriangulate" or a basic "tri-to-quad" conversion.

Yep, Wings does a good job at this.

Easy, fast, and now freeware : Gile(s)

Quote -
what is gile[s]? gile[s] is a global illumination / radiosity lightmapper, capable of rendering high resolution lightmaps fast and efficiently.

gile[s] features an easy to use editor, that allows you to place models and lights without fuss.

gile[s] handles models of arbitrary complexity keeping smoothing groups intact, and rendering perfect results every time.

With gile[s] you can even paint directly to the lightmap, and mix and match vertex lighting and lightmaps as you please.

In short: gile[s] lights up your worlds.

http://www.frecle.net/index.php?show=&section=giles&sub=features

That's a big file...

Nice skins renders. The first (left to right) is my favority, though as some interesting "softness" about it.

Thanks for the feedback Silo/Modo too; My budget will probably orient me towards Silo.

Neat geometry, Teyon.

Also, though this might be slightly OT, as someone who's currently considering getting either modo or silo (for trying my hand at another modeler mainly), I'd be curious about your impressions regarding those two softwares, if you'd had some time of course.

regards,
BH.

Very nice. Neat modeling indeed.
Maybe I'll buy it, then try and model it with Wings3D :-)

Greetings neighbours :-)

If memory serves me well, there's a 2 min made molar in the manual of the free Wings3D SDS modeler.

• Regards,
• Black-Harmo, waiting for his Vue6 box bundle to arrive...

Easiest and best for a 3D game, hence relatively low poly, I'd definitely add my voice to the Wings3D suggestion. It's actually used by a lot of modders (just check the forums of  the Mount&Blade game, for exemple), and even some professionals.