Axioms of Hard Surface Modeling?
polycounter lvl 6
Currently I am working on modeling a tricycle, which is a class project from my Intro to Modeling class. I don't need to do this, but I am going all the way subD with my tricycle.
I don't have the screenshot now, but I can tell you that I messed up at the first attempt modeling the frame. Then something dawned on me. Someone told me that I should nail down the basic shape first, with all the control edges, THEN I should jump into the detail.
I wonder if it's one of the many unwritten rules when it comes to hard surface modeling. I am not saying they are iron-clad rules, but it seems like there are conventions that you really want to stick with. Are there any?
I don't have the screenshot now, but I can tell you that I messed up at the first attempt modeling the frame. Then something dawned on me. Someone told me that I should nail down the basic shape first, with all the control edges, THEN I should jump into the detail.
I wonder if it's one of the many unwritten rules when it comes to hard surface modeling. I am not saying they are iron-clad rules, but it seems like there are conventions that you really want to stick with. Are there any?
Replies
• Use separate objects where separate pieces are used in the real world construction of the subject.
• Topology only matters to the degree that...
---> The mesh is easy to work with
---> It smooths predictably and looks good when smoothed
---> Supports deformation or other technical requirements
---> AKA, don't kill yourself trying to make a mesh that's all quads.
• Use real world units / measurements
PECS: A rubric for assessing the quality of a highpoly hardsurface model.
PECS stands for Proportions, Edges, Construction, Shading.
For a given model, each PECS component is scored from 1-5. The final PECS score is the sum of every component value. Higher scores are better, the best is 20 / 20.
Proportions
5: Matches reference from every angle. Scale indicators are accurate and immediately intuitive.
4: Generally matches reference. Viewers can infer the asset’s scale.
3: Recognizable to the reference, but major forms are slightly wrong.
2: Large, obvious differences from reference. Scale may be misleading.
1: Model doesn’t resemble concept.
Edges
5: Consistent edges, clear material definition, controlled transitions.
4: Consistent edges, some uncontrolled transitions or lack of material differentiation.
3: Edges somewhat controlled, but ambiguous materials and uncontrolled transitions.
2: Edges have inconsistent quality. Little to no material definition. Uncontrolled transitions from edge to plane.
1: Completely uncontrolled edges. No recognizable material properties. Sloppy transitions.
Construction
5: Clear component parts, intuitive signs of construction / assembly.
4: Well-defined component parts and junctions, some subtle simplifications.
3: Some construction details are present, but some components are assembled unrealistically.
2: Some construction details, but they are mostly unrealistic or inconsistent to each other.
1: Construction details are bizarre or nonexistent.
Shading
5: Shades well from any perspective, with any material, in any lighting condition.
4: Appears mostly correct with a glossy material. Some pinching or warbling in minor areas.
3: Looks acceptable with a dull material, but a glossy material suffers from pinching and warbling.
2: Glossy material reveals major errors. Errors appear even with a dull material in harsh lighting.
1: Obvious smoothing errors on major surfaces in most conditions.
So far I have been reworking on my tricycle project. Here are some screenshots. Some of the topology is quite messy, as you see. I followed the simple axiom: Nail down the big shape first and worry about the detail after that.