@perna I Honestly don't get it , This image is right lol ? If you talk about the pinching that can be bought by edges near each other in the depth direction of the Cylinder I second that , Smooth good on my side anyway
The construction of the mesh is broken and the shading is not good with all those messy triangles and ngons.
If
it wasn't clear, my advice was to twist the entire cylinder. That way
the intersection lines up perfectly with the underlying structure,
instead of being completely at odds with it like in the models on this
page. This not only completely avoids any of the aforementioned
problems, but is significantly faster to construct.
To make it absolutely clear:
Blue/Red = Other models. Messy, requires lots of manual cleanup and dense geo, leads to bad shading. Green/Yellow = Clean, logical and efficient.
Will also point out that even If one would assume It's just an example, It's just not accuracy , In this context we have curvature and a hole ... In your just straight cubes , I know you can make it clean , the point is result on my part , and the fact I don't like to stress U (horizontal direction) and V neither (Vertical) , I assume you would accommodate all these new factors with edges running in the U direction . . .
"Will also point out that even If one would assume It's just an example, It's just not accuracy , In this context we have curvature and a hole ... In your just straight cubes , I know you can make it clean , the point is result on my part , and the fact I don't like to stress U (horizontal direction) and V neither (Vertical) , I assume you would accommodate all these new factors with edges running in the U direction . . . "
Dude...your mesh is just messy. Accept it. No shame on it...Beeing defensive and argumentative about a method that was JUST PROVED that is less efficient\clean is just....what....i cant even...
If i had to edit that mesh i would tell you to redo it in a way that makes edition on my end easy and not a pain that would require me to redo it...
So you guys are telling me you're getting High poly from others ? Even if the piece is "complete" didn't know about this... I just got it out fast as I can and in My way of working Pena's solution while It's the "cleanest" is not the intuitive thing for me. I really care about my surface on the other hand and there's no whoble
@perna Sorry, I posted that before I saw your explanation. (forgot to reload the page) I'm using blender and use a bevel modifier, so I use that as my control loops and clean up afterwards.
None of you are right, not even me, if you guys look again at the original picture that is made with CAD software, the chamfers are very big and intersect each other very nice without smoothing errors, to me that is hard to do with traditional sub-d.
If it were me i would do it in fusion 360 or even zbrush and call it done.
@s1dK maybe you're right but I'm not even sure OP will have had those hard chamfers, and honestly I wouldn't say no, to that in SUBD, yeah F360 and Zbrush are more efficient in the case and in most cases with hard surface though
s1dK: No. A base principle of subdivision meshes is to alter the design
to align with the technology. Also I can't even begin to understand why
you'd suggest ZBrush.
Because It's fast.
Your mesh would never pass approval here
ok but approval of what , be precise ? Some HP for low po Bakes ? I don't think you're hostile but Are you saying there's "a way" of modeling? sure nice topology exist, but there's certainly no " way of modeling " for me, and I'm not *cough* the first to say that , And I'm not even a fanatic of a particular workflow, I just do things that bakes right (no crappy surfaces from HP), please guys don't slice my throat I'm being honest.
we are just pointing that having easily editable/clean objects with nice subd flow is a good workflow practise. if someone else had to work from that it would be a nightmare and that person would be cursing the whole time.Good practises are also ones that dont make life harder for other artists that pick your stuff to work from.
we understand that it "works" with you , but that would never be approved by me if an artist sent me that .
it was pointed out what could be improved , now what you want to do with that info is up to you , but when you try to convince others of a broken workflow it defeats the purpose of this thread.
@Joao Sapiro Your work is inspiring my tools. But you want to know something funny ? I didn't even say @pena 's was bad I actually agreed if you read carefully . broken workflow is not the word you want to use though.
You're absolutely right about that, but once you go ZBrush you can't go back. Iteration on a mesh you've put into ZBrush becomes damn near impossible and could potentially cost you a lot of precious time.
Where'd the quote button get to now? TBH this assembly could be done with floaters just as easily.
@WayWO It's also important people learn how to make clean subd, and your support loops are anything but in this example. While the others would push for approval on their teams, this is the sort of thing I might buy off a website, and it would be a hard sell with that geometry if I knew I would need to change it to suit whatever I've got in mind. I know you didn't come to this thread with this kind of scrutiny in mind, but hey.
@TeriyakiStyle If the client/studio wants exactly the same mesh as in the concept you can talk with them and say` hey...with fusion we can get that exact mesh and trust me if you want to modifiy that mesh after some feedback it`s very easy compare to max sub-d.
Don`t get me rong, i use sub-d every day but for some meshes that has all kind of intersections like chamfers on top of chamfers it`s best to go with CAD software.
@perna i understand you but if your client wants that exact model you can`t alter the design just becase it`s not possible with sub-d, you must find another solutions to make that exact mesh, there is when CAD software gets prio vs sub-d.
Waywo: "yeah @gfelton ; most importantly people come here to learn Hard surface SUBD Modeling though"
I can't seem to quote individual posts so this will have to do..
I just wanted to chime in on the previous topic.
While it's true that you managed to accomplish the shape, the main problem here is not the fact that your mesh is all messy and shit. The main problem here is that you have this notion that, as long as you get the shape done it doesn't matter how messy it looks.
In some cases this is true, but with all aspects in life, we should strive to be elegant in our solutions and always be learning more and better ways to accomplish tasks in an elegant, clean and fast way.
This applies to everything in life.
There is always a smarter, faster, easier and elegant way to do things. Programmers will tell you this. There are coders who get shit done with their messy code with no regards to how clean their code looks... but then if you ask someone to maintain their code.. jesus fuck, what a clusterfuck. Do you mean what I'm saying?
Whilst Perna's post didn't show to to make the shape 1:1, it did show the most elegant solution to accomplish that in a clean procedural way. You can pick up that method and apply it to make the shape the OP wanted.
This is what learning is all about. Trying to figure out the best/smart/easy to maintain solution for if someone asks us to change something, you can do it easily.
I will give you an example it stuck with me when I was in high school. My math teacher once was telling a story when he went to the supermarket to buy bottled water.
The cashier was just a kid, and when he was counting the bottled waters to insert the number on the machine, he counted them one by one... My teacher was livid. He said, this is why you need to learn the basics and think logically so you put the least effort on yourself. In this case, the cashier accomplished his duty.. he managed to learn how many bottles my teacher was buying.. but he counted them one by one. Sure it worked.. but you know.. he could have just counted the vertical and horizontal number of bottles and then multiply them to get the same result, which would have been easier and would have demonstrated he knew basic logic.
TeriyakiStyle If the client want changes, you return to a previous, non destructed step of your mesh (you saved some, right?) and start from there; sometimes you must go past the point of no return and go destructive on your model... Not everything in the world is made simply of cubes and cylinders welded together.
Ok, at this point, I suggest the opening of another thread: How The F*#% Do I Model This with maximum maniacal accuracy? I dont care about client opinion, the mesh is mine and I want it reflect the reference 1:1:D Edit: read the above in a funny and relaxed tone obviously, it's a joke (even if not entirely );
Ok, at this point, I suggest the opening of another thread: How
The F*#% Do I Model This with maximum maniacal accuracy? I dont care
about client opinion, the mesh is mine and I want it reflect the
reference 1:1 Edit: read the above in a funny and relaxed tone obviously, it's a joke (even if not entirely );
@TeriyakiStyle relax man, latter replies didn't dismiss your / his theory , there's just not "one way"(cad, topo, dynamesh) of making one thing, just to cite HQ :
And secondly, if you would like to join in:
1. Multiple people can contribute to the same ref, if you think you have
a better way, feel free to post. This is all about sharing ideas.
and I imagine that if the Client or project director ask for things with some conditions one should and will respect it .
@TeriyakiStyle That's not a very mature reply; I dedicated the last 15 years to 3D modeling, so I hope to fall in the category of guys you mentioned... Nobody knows better here, it all depends on what someone needs; if shitty and unmanageable, but 1:1 accurate meshes aren't welcome here, it doesn't mean that they are useless to everybody.
Everything breaks down to primitives, but after that there is a lot more; also I don't think this thread is limited only to hi poly for baking workflow.
This is my effort, some could find it useless , but some could like it 1) Modeled 1 and 2 2) Copied 6 mesh #2 in a row and welded them 3) Bent it to create a circle and shelled it (at this point I positioned the pivot at the center of the circle) 4) I Deleted 5 tiles and only now I extruded the hole (highlighted in red) vertically to obtain mesh #3 5) Attached mesh #1 on top 6) I recreated the circle rotating 6 copies of the mesh, and welded them 7) At this point I selected the external loops and those at the base of the extrusion and chamfered them
PS: sorry for the far from perfect explanation A little tweak starting from the pretty manageable stadium to better match the reference (I think)
So I'm hitting a bit of a snag with modeling this hole and the inset its in. Trying to model it with Sub Ds but I cant seem to figure out how to run my edges for it to smooth properly. Especially right where the inset comes to a point at the side. As you can see in my current progress screen shot I have a highlighted N-gon where my main problem area is. All and any advice is greatly appreciated. Thanks!
So I may of just figured it out haha. Just kept at it until I got it working. Check out what I have wire frame wise below along with my render of the smooth result. Let me know if there is anywhere I could improve upon it. Thanks!
@Joao Sapiro In your design you have 2 edge loops at the top most part of the inset vs a single center point one (like mine). In your experience does having 2 give better smoothing results then 1. Or does it not really matter and that's just how you modeled it?
"@Joao Sapiro In your design you have 2 edge loops at the top most part of the inset vs a single center point one (like mine). In your experience does having 2 give better smoothing results then 1. Or does it not really matter and that's just how you modeled it?"
what do you mean ? the edgeloops i added are done by a modifier i didnt add anything manually :P
@Joao Sapiro In your design you have 2 edge loops at the top most part of the inset vs a single center point one (like mine). In your experience does having 2 give better smoothing results then 1. Or does it not really matter and that's just how you modeled it?
Doesn't really matter but more segments adds more accuracy to the curvature
Chop the two ends of the capsule off and all you have is a tube.
Model the tube flat with the extrusions, then turbosmooth it once.
Then bend it 360 degrees and add the two spherical capsule ends onto it. Then turbosmooth and it will work fine.
If you're having trouble making something subdivide on a spherical/cylindrical surface, just model it flat, subdivide it, then bend it.
Replying to this kind of late, but thank you for the suggestion. Unfortunately going into this I knew the "model it flat method" will not work: Quick exaggerated example but it creates tons of skewing problems. The left one was extruded before bending, the right one afterwards.
As stated before I do not have a problem modeling this shape, I have a problem modeling it to meet the criteria of perfect edge profile control without manual editing.
Can we please stop posting scripts that automate the proccess. AFAIK this thread is about topology and how to handle subdivision effeciently. If people keep posting script solutions, noone really benefits because one doesnt know (especially newbies) how topology affects the surface etc. These tools are awesome and time saving but lets keep this to the roots
Can we please stop posting scripts that automate the proccess. AFAIK this thread is about topology and how to handle subdivision effeciently. If people keep posting script solutions, noone really benefits because one doesnt know (especially newbies) how topology affects the surface etc. These tools are awesome and time saving but lets keep this to the roots
im not sure i follow your logic. if you are worried with newbies i think that the info in this whole thread is more than enough in terms of topology/subd modeling. using scripts that make things faster/non destructive should be encouraged unless they over complicate stuff...
think about it this way : if we share what scripts we use etc maybe a technicall artist in a studio sees something intrresting and tries to replicate on their tools, wich in turn makes artists life easy.
Replies
That's not really right compared to the original image though, the fronts aren't parallel to the edges, its more angled.
Here's what I did. Base 80 Circle though.
Doesn't really matter , I have no whacks with shinny blinn on BUT I do consider that it is not "friendly" for people learning SUBD basics.
And for the method , It didn't took me that much time.
If it wasn't clear, my advice was to twist the entire cylinder. That way the intersection lines up perfectly with the underlying structure, instead of being completely at odds with it like in the models on this page. This not only completely avoids any of the aforementioned problems, but is significantly faster to construct.
To make it absolutely clear:
Blue/Red = Other models. Messy, requires lots of manual cleanup and dense geo, leads to bad shading.
Green/Yellow = Clean, logical and efficient.
Will also point out that even If one would assume It's just an example, It's just not accuracy , In this context we have curvature and a hole ... In your just straight cubes , I know you can make it clean , the point is result on my part , and the fact I don't like to stress U (horizontal direction) and V neither (Vertical) , I assume you would accommodate all these new factors with edges running in the U direction . . .Dude...your mesh is just messy. Accept it. No shame on it...Beeing defensive and argumentative about a method that was JUST PROVED that is less efficient\clean is just....what....i cant even...
If i had to edit that mesh i would tell you to redo it in a way that makes edition on my end easy and not a pain that would require me to redo it...
Sorry, I posted that before I saw your explanation. (forgot to reload the page)
I'm using blender and use a bevel modifier, so I use that as my control loops and clean up afterwards.
Thanks for clearing things up.
If it were me i would do it in fusion 360 or even zbrush and call it done.
Because It's fast.
ok but approval of what , be precise ? Some HP for low po Bakes ? I don't think you're hostile but Are you saying there's "a way" of modeling? sure nice topology exist, but there's certainly no " way of modeling " for me, and I'm not *cough* the first to say that , And I'm not even a fanatic of a particular workflow, I just do things that bakes right (no crappy surfaces from HP), please guys don't slice my throat I'm being honest.
we understand that it "works" with you , but that would never be approved by me if an artist sent me that .
it was pointed out what could be improved , now what you want to do with that info is up to you , but when you try to convince others of a broken workflow it defeats the purpose of this thread.
You're absolutely right about that, but once you go ZBrush you can't go back. Iteration on a mesh you've put into ZBrush becomes damn near impossible and could potentially cost you a lot of precious time.
@WayWO It's also important people learn how to make clean subd, and your support loops are anything but in this example. While the others would push for approval on their teams, this is the sort of thing I might buy off a website, and it would be a hard sell with that geometry if I knew I would need to change it to suit whatever I've got in mind. I know you didn't come to this thread with this kind of scrutiny in mind, but hey.
Don`t get me rong, i use sub-d every day but for some meshes that has all kind of intersections like chamfers on top of chamfers it`s best to go with CAD software.
@perna i understand you but if your client wants that exact model you can`t alter the design just becase it`s not possible with sub-d, you must find another solutions to make that exact mesh, there is when CAD software gets prio vs sub-d.
I can't seem to quote individual posts so this will have to do..
I just wanted to chime in on the previous topic.
While it's true that you managed to accomplish the shape, the main problem here is not the fact that your mesh is all messy and shit.
The main problem here is that you have this notion that, as long as you get the shape done it doesn't matter how messy it looks.
In some cases this is true, but with all aspects in life, we should strive to be elegant in our solutions and always be learning more and better ways to accomplish tasks in an elegant, clean and fast way.
This applies to everything in life.
There is always a smarter, faster, easier and elegant way to do things.
Programmers will tell you this. There are coders who get shit done with their messy code with no regards to how clean their code looks... but then if you ask someone to maintain their code.. jesus fuck, what a clusterfuck. Do you mean what I'm saying?
Whilst Perna's post didn't show to to make the shape 1:1, it did show the most elegant solution to accomplish that in a clean procedural way. You can pick up that method and apply it to make the shape the OP wanted.
This is what learning is all about. Trying to figure out the best/smart/easy to maintain solution for if someone asks us to change something, you can do it easily.
I will give you an example it stuck with me when I was in high school. My math teacher once was telling a story when he went to the supermarket to buy bottled water.
The cashier was just a kid, and when he was counting the bottled waters to insert the number on the machine, he counted them one by one...
My teacher was livid. He said, this is why you need to learn the basics and think logically so you put the least effort on yourself. In this case, the cashier accomplished his duty.. he managed to learn how many bottles my teacher was buying.. but he counted them one by one. Sure it worked.. but you know.. he could have just counted the vertical and horizontal number of bottles and then multiply them to get the same result, which would have been easier and would have demonstrated he knew basic logic.
If the client want changes, you return to a previous, non destructed step of your mesh (you saved some, right?) and start from there; sometimes you must go past the point of no return and go destructive on your model... Not everything in the world is made simply of cubes and cylinders welded together.
Edit: read the above in a funny and relaxed tone obviously, it's a joke (even if not entirely
Edit: read the above in a funny and relaxed tone obviously, it's a joke (even if not entirely
LOL
1. Multiple people can contribute to the same ref, if you think you have a better way, feel free to post. This is all about sharing ideas.
That's not a very mature reply; I dedicated the last 15 years to 3D modeling, so I hope to fall in the category of guys you mentioned... Nobody knows better here, it all depends on what someone needs; if shitty and unmanageable, but 1:1 accurate meshes aren't welcome here, it doesn't mean that they are useless to everybody.
2) Copied 6 mesh #2 in a row and welded them
3) Bent it to create a circle and shelled it (at this point I positioned the pivot at the center of the circle)
4) I Deleted 5 tiles and only now I extruded the hole (highlighted in red) vertically to obtain mesh #3
5) Attached mesh #1 on top
6) I recreated the circle rotating 6 copies of the mesh, and welded them
7) At this point I selected the external loops and those at the base of the extrusion and chamfered them
PS: sorry for the far from perfect explanation
All and any advice is greatly appreciated. Thanks!
UPDATE
So I may of just figured it out haha. Just kept at it until I got it working.
Check out what I have wire frame wise below along with my render of the smooth result. Let me know if there is anywhere I could improve upon it.
Thanks!
this is accelerated , but it took me 2m56 secs
https://gfycat.com/LinearMadKoodoo
That's great, man! :thumbsup:
what do you mean ? the edgeloops i added are done by a modifier i didnt add anything manually :P
@perna
good shit man , u old fuk
Replying to this kind of late, but thank you for the suggestion. Unfortunately going into this I knew the "model it flat method" will not work:
Quick exaggerated example but it creates tons of skewing problems. The left one was extruded before bending, the right one afterwards.
As stated before I do not have a problem modeling this shape, I have a problem modeling it to meet the criteria of perfect edge profile control without manual editing.
think about it this way : if we share what scripts we use etc maybe a technicall artist in a studio sees something intrresting and tries to replicate on their tools, wich in turn makes artists life easy.