hey guys, I wish you could help me with something in 3ds max/Modo. Its related to hard surface modeling. I want to create my base mesh in 3ds max/Modo and want to achieve consistant resolution in perfect quad shapes on the whole mesh. The reason is to make it sculpt ready. You might be recommending Dynamesh, But I want to know it inside 3ds max/Modo itself. Quadrify Mesh in 3ds Max does well, but it triangulates all polygonal mesh. I hope you guys recommend me something cool as you always do
The guy above me is correct, he's also a really awesome guy! But if you've got tri's in your mesh it may result in certain functions not working in ZBrush as it don't really deal that well with them.
Thanks Warren. Sorry for asking a bit off topic thing here. but I will be specific from next time on Modeling. I'm looking for an advice on basic work related to Game Art Production. My Pipeline needs Blocking>Sculpt>Retopology>UV>Bake>Texture>Export to UE4. Fed up with the way 3ds Max works, pathetic upgrades, useless and nonsense to work in an outdated application, going with Modo + Zbrush + Substance Package from now on. I want to know what I lose and gain in Modo against 3ds Max. Strictly related to Game related Modeling, Textuting, Painting, Sculpting etc. Smoothing groups especially.
MODO has smoothing groups but you'll never use them as the interface is god awful. Instead you'll work with vertex normals via Farfarer's Vertex Normal Toolkit which is indispensable for game art.
EDIT : Feel free to PM me with more questions so as to not pollute this thread too much.
Don't waste your time. Just dynamesh it. Seriously. You're creating a ton of unnecessary work for yourself doing it in Max.
If it is a mesh you want to add details on, having a clean topology to sculpt is a crucial point though, cause it saves you alot
of work later on...
if you've gone hardcore and you want to retopologize after, Zremesher is not perfect, even with projection, and that mostly for hard surface... so you would retopo all that by hand or some trick... see that in the first case you won't retopo anything...
it will always look squarish when you just use squares to make the hole
usually you need at least 8 to make it appear more circular
Yep, in theory, smoothing should average a perfect circle out of a square of ratio 1-1
but in practice, the more sides you have the more perfect the circle is, if you still go lowpoly-style you certainly want at least 6 sides, then 8, 12, 16... etc.
ZRemesher is a godsend because before it took a good week to properly optimize everything now you can do it with the click of a button and what's better is you can protect and to some degree direct the flow of geometry.
Granted, you'd still want to optimize the results and check for errors if any occur but its a god send.
ZRemesher is a godsend because before it took a good week to properly optimize everything now you can do it with the click of a button and what's better is you can protect and to some degree direct the flow of geometry.
Granted, you'd still want to optimize the results and check for errors if any occur but its a god send.
ZRemesher is a godsend because before it took a good week to properly optimize everything now you can do it with the click of a button and what's better is you can protect and to some degree direct the flow of geometry.
Granted, you'd still want to optimize the results and check for errors if any occur but its a god send.
the point is, that in some way Dynamesh sucks (revolutionary feature indeed ) regarding topology,
and yeah for a short time Zremesher can save your life, if you want to use T-pose, etc...
Quick question guys: I imported this DAE file car from Sketchup (got it from the warehouse as a placeholder). Is there a way to combine this whole complicated model into one piece? There's lots of pieces, making it really hard to align it to the center of the round platform below. Here is an image: http://i.imgur.com/hDrazpO.jpg
Quick question guys: I imported this DAE file car from Sketchup (got it from the warehouse as a placeholder). Is there a way to combine this whole complicated model into one piece? There's lots of pieces, making it really hard to align it to the center of the round platform below. Here is an image: http://i.imgur.com/hDrazpO.jpg
Not a Max user, but in Maya you can select all them pieces and combine them with the combine command, but may I ask you why you want to combine these pieces ?
Because in such a complex project it can come really handy to hide/freeze this or that piece, make it simpler for your eyes so you can concentrate on one part, IMO it'll be better than dealing with isolation of hundreds of objects...
There is a combine option in Max, but you usually have to select one part of the model, hit combine, then choose each part to combine it with individually. I don't know of a command that combines it all at once (which I hope someone knows how to do so). I want to combine it all, because if it's just one object it's super easy to center it on another object, instead of having to move the darn thing manually to the center of an object. The car is just a placeholder, that's why I'm not worried if I combine it.
dadochudy:
It's all based on what your polycount limits are. Less is always better.
For the high poly I normaly stick to the real world examples, so instead of modelling the panel line etc. I normally simply modelling the panels itself.
I made the experience that this way building the high poly is much easier (support edges etc.) and it looks better/ more realistic as you don't have "beveled" connections between different objects.
hi i have question when i modeling something i trying to make it out of smallest amount meshes as possible but i was cheking another thread by huple http://www.polycount.com/forum/showthread.php?t=155488
and he post there a weapon Lanard X8 which has lot of separeted meshs and my qeustion is what is better to do i think by doing it like from lot of meshes it is more faster because he doesn't need to think so much about topology is there any pros and cons of this two technics like making meshes from "one piece" and making it from lot of piceces meshes
sorry for my bad english
I tend to model stuff how it's build in real life - sometimes there's areas where it's convenient to keep them as the same sub-object.
For example if I was building a simple Logitech Mouse - I'd build the body of the mouse as one sub-object, the scrolwlwheel as another sub-object, then the cord as its own sub-object - combine them into a single object consisting of multiple subobjects.
It's about finding the balance between efficiency and ease that works best for you. Personally I like building things as they are actually built, but if the topology allows for it, join stuff together. No one wants to spend hours monotonously tweaking topology just to make a mesh one sub-object instead of multiple sub-objects - because it isn't necessary, and it can be tedious! :-)
Honestly all I'd put some real thought into is your polycount/triangle count. Don't go overboard by trying to make everything seamlessly fit together as one subobject - you don't have to.
""hi i have question when i
modeling something i trying to make it out of smallest amount meshes
as possible but i was cheking another thread by huple http://www.polycount.com/forum/showthread.php?t=155488
and he post there a weapon Lanard X8 which has lot of separeted meshs
and my qeustion is what is better to do i think by doing it like from
lot of meshes it is more faster because he doesn't need to think so much
about topology is there any pros and cons of this two technics
like making meshes from "one piece" and making it from lot
of pieces meshes
sorry for my bad english "" like Dan said , it's a good idea to mimic reality, and
in general it's a bad idea to model in one big chunk, due to the lack of
'modularity' of such a technique, later on, if you do, you will also
miss the occasion of hiding, or isolate different elements of your
model.
No, build your HP model as it is done in reality. If it's made of several objects, do several objects. Making 1 object is overly more complex and time consuming, and as you'll struggle with edgeflow, will probably doesn't look as good. Nonsense !
Hey guys! I am new to the 3ds Max modelling and my question is, what is the easiest way to "turbosmooth" this weapon part, which was made in Solidworks. Or is there any tutorial, how to do that correctly?
Hey guys,a final thing i need for my project,I have issues modeling this Helix magazine. http://i.imgur.com/WdBPMED.png I tried using the bend modifier but it looked horrible and even after 3 hours of clean up it looked horrible so if anybody knows a way of creating this magazine with this pattern feel free to share it. thanks -Levi
Is that Modo? You can select the poly or polys, set your action center to Selection, and scale them on Z to average them out into a flat surface.
Yes! It's MODO 801. I tried this method before with a different model and it did make the selected surface planar but it also made some surrounding faces non-planar because of the way it moved the vertices around. Is there a way to do something like this but constrain the surrounding vertices to the edges of their other faces?
How do I fix this surface so it's co-planar/not concave? I have a lot of trouble with creating geometry and accidentally making these concave quads...
Just move the points around... Sometimes when you smooth your geo, it goes away...
I often work with concept artists that start with 3D as a base. They push, pull, drag and deform their blockout meshes like crazy. I want to use these meshes, but they have a metric ton of these shapes.
My solution: Use a script that can set a face to be planar from a whole selection of faces. Bind this to a key you can tap a bunch of times in a row.
The script below steps through all selected faces and planars them 1 by 1.
-- MixeScript snippet: make planar per face -- performs the make planar operation on each face of the selection
--USAGE -- select one or more objects or faces -- run script -- faces are made planar
-- SETTINGS numrepeats = 3
--if face selection mode if subobjectLevel == 4 then ( --only on selected faces obj = $ thisfaceselection = polyop.getFaceSelection obj
for i=1 to numrepeats do ( for eachface in thisfaceselection do ( polyop.makeFacesPlanar obj #(eachface)) ) )
else ( --all faces objarray = getcurrentselection()
for obj in objarray do ( for repeats=1 to numrepeats do ( for i=1 to (polyop.getNumFaces obj)do(polyop.makeFacesPlanar obj #(i)) ) ) )
RedrawViews()
Yes this will mess up adjacent faces. Yes this is still very useful for my use case (and maybe yours).
I often work with concept artists that start with 3D as a base. They push, pull, drag and deform their blockout meshes like crazy. I want to use these meshes, but they have a metric ton of these shapes.
My solution: Use a script that can set a face to be planar from a whole selection of faces. Bind this to a key you can tap a bunch of times in a row.
...
Yes this will mess up adjacent faces. Yes this is still very useful for my use case (and maybe yours).
Unfortunately I am using MODO and it looks like you posted a 3DSMax Script.
So, I've absolutely hacked this one together... And it kind-of worked! It's just a computer fan; looked like something hard to model, so I gave it a go. This is probably the filthiest topology I've ever put together for a shape haha. Obviously it's not perfectly circular because of the tiny distortion, but in practice it isn't noticeable. Had to use a couple of the oldest tricks in the book, such as a double-Turbosmooth, but that's not an issue to me as long as the end result works.
Would you guys have taken another approach? Feel free to share!
So, I've absolutely hacked this one together... And it kind-of worked! It's just a computer fan; looked like something hard to model, so I gave it a go. This is probably the filthiest topology I've ever put together for a shape haha. Obviously it's not perfectly circular because of the tiny distortion, but in practice it isn't noticeable. Had to use a couple of the oldest tricks in the book, such as a double-Turbosmooth, but that's not an issue to me as long as the end result works.
Would you guys have taken another approach? Feel free to share!
basically the trick is to add an extra fin border that no one will see. From here just duplicate array, also don't forget to match points at the end and at the start of the piece you duplicate-array...
pretend they had to make a support loop to support a hard shape. However the support loops runs through cylinder. What some people do is they tweak the extra loop. Well i learned not to do that. So how should one approach things like that?
OR you can simply plane on adding more sides/geo to your primitives next time.
SHINIGAMI, I wonder sometimes whether you ever look through this thread before asking. I mean hell, the thread title pretty much explains your question even before you open this page?
So I'm mainly familiar with max and I saw this video that Tor Frick did using Modo, and I was curious if the placement of the small details following edge loops was possible like seen in this video https://youtu.be/buHpJSAJshM?t=41m24s (I'd go to .25 speed, 41m 24s-41m 35s to to truly see what's going on). OR if it isn't possible in vanilla Max 2015, is there a script that's available?
Replies
Blenders subdivision modifier doesn't make squares into perfect circles. They're close but its noticeable enough to warrant a few more sides.
Hi,
Theres actually a good tutorial series out there called "modelling classical furniture - volume 2 by Viscorbel. Intro video is here:
[ame]
You end up with a collection for your own library. Really cool stuff.
please help me. How to learn 3D modeling ? What courses do you recommend ? Where to begin?
EDIT : Feel free to PM me with more questions so as to not pollute this thread too much.
it will always look squarish when you just use squares to make the hole
usually you need at least 8 to make it appear more circular
If it is a mesh you want to add details on, having a clean topology to sculpt is a crucial point though, cause it saves you alot
of work later on...
if you've gone hardcore and you want to retopologize after, Zremesher is not perfect, even with projection, and that mostly for hard surface... so you would retopo all that by hand or some trick... see that in the first case you won't retopo anything...
Yep, in theory, smoothing should average a perfect circle out of a square of ratio 1-1
but in practice, the more sides you have the more perfect the circle is, if you still go lowpoly-style you certainly want at least 6 sides, then 8, 12, 16... etc.
Granted, you'd still want to optimize the results and check for errors if any occur but its a god send.
what no, whaaat o_O
the point is, that in some way Dynamesh sucks (revolutionary feature indeed
and yeah for a short time Zremesher can save your life, if you want to use T-pose, etc...
Not a Max user, but in Maya you can select all them pieces and combine them with the combine command, but may I ask you why you want to combine these pieces ?
Because in such a complex project it can come really handy to hide/freeze this or that piece, make it simpler for your eyes so you can concentrate on one part, IMO it'll be better than dealing with isolation of hundreds of objects...
http://rapidmxs.com/?page_id=367
It's all based on what your polycount limits are. Less is always better.
For the high poly I normaly stick to the real world examples, so instead of modelling the panel line etc. I normally simply modelling the panels itself.
I made the experience that this way building the high poly is much easier (support edges etc.) and it looks better/ more realistic as you don't have "beveled" connections between different objects.
I tend to model stuff how it's build in real life - sometimes there's areas where it's convenient to keep them as the same sub-object.
For example if I was building a simple Logitech Mouse - I'd build the body of the mouse as one sub-object, the scrolwlwheel as another sub-object, then the cord as its own sub-object - combine them into a single object consisting of multiple subobjects.
It's about finding the balance between efficiency and ease that works best for you. Personally I like building things as they are actually built, but if the topology allows for it, join stuff together. No one wants to spend hours monotonously tweaking topology just to make a mesh one sub-object instead of multiple sub-objects - because it isn't necessary, and it can be tedious! :-)
Honestly all I'd put some real thought into is your polycount/triangle count. Don't go overboard by trying to make everything seamlessly fit together as one subobject - you don't have to.
and he post there a weapon Lanard X8 which has lot of separeted meshs and my qeustion is what is better to do i think by doing it like from lot of meshes it is more faster because he doesn't need to think so much about topology is there any pros and cons of this two technics like making meshes from "one piece" and making it from lot of pieces meshes
sorry for my bad english ""
like Dan said , it's a good idea to mimic reality, and in general it's a bad idea to model in one big chunk, due to the lack of 'modularity' of such a technique, later on, if you do, you will also miss the occasion of hiding, or isolate different elements of your model.
here`s a good start
http://imgur.com/ZIYrbee
-Levi
create a profile
use screw modifier (blender)
in max its called helix if i remember right
http://i.imgur.com/WdBPMED.png
I tried using the bend modifier but it looked horrible and even after 3 hours of clean up it looked horrible so if anybody knows a way of creating this magazine with this pattern feel free to share it.
thanks
-Levi
Yes! It's MODO 801. I tried this method before with a different model and it did make the selected surface planar but it also made some surrounding faces non-planar because of the way it moved the vertices around. Is there a way to do something like this but constrain the surrounding vertices to the edges of their other faces?
I think that makes sense at least.
My solution:
Use a script that can set a face to be planar from a whole selection of faces. Bind this to a key you can tap a bunch of times in a row.
The script below steps through all selected faces and planars them 1 by 1.
I bind this script to the down arrow: http://mixescript.blogspot.com/2013/03/make-planar-per-face.html
Yes this will mess up adjacent faces.
Yes this is still very useful for my use case (and maybe yours).
I used boolean cut to get what I have now but it obviously has horrible topology. How do I make the same kind of shape a nicer way?
Would you guys have taken another approach? Feel free to share!
http://puu.sh/lz2Xu.png
basically the trick is to add an extra fin border that no one will see. From here just duplicate array, also don't forget to match points at the end and at the start of the piece you duplicate-array...
http://polycount.com/discussion/56014/faq-how-u-model-dem-shapes-subd-mini-tuts-aka-use-the-right-amount-of-geo/p2
its great that you did something before you asked tho, thats progress !
OR you can simply plane on adding more sides/geo to your primitives next time.