How The F*#% Do I Model This? - Reply for help with specific shapes - (Post attempt before asking)

Replies

  • Ausonian
    Offline / Send Message
    Ausonian polycounter lvl 8
    @DeathstrokeFTW
    To avoid the collapsing corners, I do as this:
    Instead of insetting all the way, I make a very small inset (or one with 0 as value), select the corner edges, scale them uniformily, and then scale the entire face.

  • Makkon
    Offline / Send Message
    Makkon interpolator
    DeathstrokeFTW I personally prefer the one on the right, I like the uniform curves more than the converging curves. Seems more like the sort of design choice artists in Star Citizen would make.
  • ActionDawg
    Offline / Send Message
    ActionDawg greentooth
    If you don't want to have collapsing chamfers on inset geometry then the right way to go about it is to do it the other way around. Do all the insets first from a rectangle shape, then chamfer. This keeps everything evenly sized. Order of operations is a big deal when it comes to chamfering.

    Bonus tip: If you want variable width chamfers then just do insets first, break off the geo where you want different chamfer width second, chamfer, then reconnect.

    If anyone wants examples let me know. Pls @ me so I'll see it,
  • DeathstrokeFTW
    Offline / Send Message
    DeathstrokeFTW polycounter lvl 4
    Alright, thanks guys! Im going to move on and do the rest of the area first and then panic later xD
  • ActionDawg
  • PancakeMSTR
    Offline / Send Message
    PancakeMSTR vertex
    perna said:
    Admiral, you don't need a lot of sides. Use sub-division modeling instead:


    Yeah dude except not if the other side of the block doesn't match up  with the cylinder such that its topology acts as a supporting/controlling edge.

    What do you propose we do then, huh? 

    You know, you treated KarlP like a jerk, and then a trivially identifiable problem with this graphic flew right over your head. 

    Maybe there's a solution to this graphic that doesn't involve more geometry, but it's not obvious to me. So instead of just talking, why don't you walk the walk and show us how it's done? 

    My opinion? This is an edge case (no pun intended) that doesn't generalize to modeling in practice, which involves vastly less ideal topology than that of this example. 

    @KarlP, Perna is being a dick. Keep practicing, don't let anyone put you down. 

    An @Perna, instead of condescending with statements like "use sub-d," why don't you think before you post a virtually useless graphic? 



  • Joao Sapiro
    Offline / Send Message
    Joao Sapiro polycounter
    perna said:
    Admiral, you don't need a lot of sides. Use sub-division modeling instead:


    Yeah dude except not if the other side of the block doesn't match up  with the cylinder such that its topology acts as a supporting/controlling edge.

    What do you propose we do then, huh? 

    You know, you treated KarlP like a jerk, and then a trivially identifiable problem with this graphic flew right over your head. 

    Maybe there's a solution to this graphic that doesn't involve more geometry, but it's not obvious to me. So instead of just talking, why don't you walk the walk and show us how it's done? 

    My opinion? This is an edge case (no pun intended) that doesn't generalize to modeling in practice, which involves vastly less ideal topology than that of this example. 

    @KarlP, Perna is being a dick. Keep practicing, don't let anyone put you down. 

    An @Perna, instead of condescending with statements like "use sub-d," why don't you think before you post a virtually useless graphic? 



    the ammount of entiltement on your post is amazing. Its basically saying "you wrote something that i didnt even bother to properly research\try on  my own because im used to beeing spoonfed knowledge , so its your obligation to do it for me since i think that my time is more precious than yours"

    man , you suck.
  • PancakeMSTR
    Offline / Send Message
    PancakeMSTR vertex
    Joao Sapiro said:
    the ammount of entiltement on your post is amazing. Its basically saying "you wrote something that i didnt even bother to properly research\try on  my own because im used to beeing spoonfed knowledge , so its your obligation to do it for me since i think that my time is more precious than yours"

    man , you suck.
    First of all, no, I don't at all expect to be spoonfed knowledge, but you can strawman me all you want if it makes you feel better. No, By using that graphic, in whatever context he did, the onus is on Perna to understand and, more importantly, identify to beginners its limitations. 

    Second, WooOOOoooOOOooo strong words from someone who couldn't be bothered to even consider the problems with the graphic I noted. Solve the problem I proposed without simply using more geometry and I'll shutup. 


    I'll admit the following: I demonized @Perna perhaps more than he deserves, but nonetheless the amount of condescension his words carry is palpable. 

    Additionally, I'm not saying the graphic isn't useless, but it WON'T work in every circumstance. Which I see was indeed stated. Maybe I jumped the gun here, but nonetheless I saw a lot of undue condescension the last few pages as well. 


  • Joao Sapiro
    Offline / Send Message
    Joao Sapiro polycounter
    1- Grow a thicker skin
    2- Be more proactive and search the various pages of this thread starting from page 1 to get the answer you seek...
    3- Dont act like a child when you dont understand basic concepts and blame it on the person that tried to help you , literally biting the hand that feeds you...
  • s1dK
    Offline / Send Message
    s1dK interpolator
    This thread is becoming a blackhole. If you can`t handle the feedback dont post, easy.
  • Thanez
    Offline / Send Message
    Thanez greentooth
    Chiming in cause I'm not a butthurt party.
    @KarlP You should plan your model out so you don't end up with triangles or poles that negatively affect your smoothing. If you're done with your model and see a triangle but your sub-d looks perfect, then try and learn why it happened so you don't make that mistake again and move on, IMO.
    Sometimes using an 8sided cyl is better because it'll flow better with the rest of your model. Sometimes that magic number is 6, 7 or 13 depending on the surrounding GEO. 
    Spacing of edges is only important if it gives shape, is placed on a curved surface or otherwise alters the result of the sub-d.
    If you have trouble following my train of thought I can do pics for you.

    Irrelevant for everyone else:
    As for your attitude, and I say this with the most positive intention: You write like an intelligent person who has pride in that fact. Stop it, or you'll take twice as long learning even the simplest things. When perna gives it to you straight and without lube, take it like a man and move on. Getting hurt feels and stumbling on language is not conductive to progress and learning :)
  • perna
    Offline / Send Message
    perna quad damage
    Pancake, I will only touch on *that* portion of your post to say - You miss the irony of meeting what you consider condescension (subjective, debatable) with open hostility and non-ambiguous insults (flagrant and clearly in violation of community rules). Harsh directness is the norm in the culture I grew up in, not an effort to rile you up.


    Now for the on-topic portion - All your criticism of the graphic is wrong. I address your points below.

    except not if the other side of the block doesn't match up  with the cylinder such that its topology acts as a supporting/controlling edge.


    Adjust positioning, rotation, number of segments until it does match up. You can't just hope for elements to line up by themselves.

    why don't you walk the walk and show us how it's done?

    That graphic is a repost of a repost. The subject has come up in this thread many times before and has been thoroughly discussed by me and others.

    This is an edge case (no pun intended) that doesn't generalize to modeling in practice

    No. Offsetting curved geometry so that the intersection happens off the segment edge is a fundamental principle in sub-d modeling. There's a very large amount of meshes posted here made without that knowledge, and consequently it's one of the most valuable pieces of general-purpose modeling advice I can give.

    why don't you think before you post a virtually useless graphic?

    Now I remember you. You found my advice to be insufficient once before, and promised to demonstrate why. Still waiting for that follow-up, 10 months later.

  • acealmighty13
    Offline / Send Message
    acealmighty13 polycounter lvl 5
    1- Grow a thicker skin
    2- Be more proactive and search the various pages of this thread starting from page 1 to get the answer you seek...
    3- Dont act like a child when you dont understand basic concepts and blame it on the person that tried to help you , literally biting the hand that feeds you...
    This right here.  I still have a slight protection towards something I model or create in Substance Designer.  I think everyone does, to a certain extent.  I've learned that taking the advice of others to make my work easier and less messy has helped more than it hurts. 
  • supaclueless
    Online / Send Message
    supaclueless polycounter lvl 8
    This thread has stood the test of time, no amount of insanity would stop this thread from its honesty.
    (I'm probably spewing garbage)
  • PancakeMSTR
    Offline / Send Message
    PancakeMSTR vertex
    perna said:

    Now I remember you. You found my advice to be insufficient once before, and promised to demonstrate why. Still waiting for that follow-up, 10 months later.

    You know what, everyone is right. I won't damage this thread by starting a flamewar. 

    And indeed, you're correct, I did enlist your advice many months ago, where you didn't fail to condescend to me then as well with the statement "chokra school of modeling." 

    But like I said, this thread deserves better than a flamewar. 

    1.) I never reposted because, in all honesty, I have a habit of doing that. That being said, 3d modeling is a hobby, and at the time my career got in the way. 

    2.) I still haven't found a solution to that part, but I'm biding my time working on other things so I can come back to it with a fresh mind. Nonetheless, here is my attempt 

    Here's the end result: 
  • [Deleted User]
    Offline / Send Message
    [Deleted User] insane polycounter
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • metalliandy
    Offline / Send Message
    metalliandy greentooth
    No fuck that Andy I'm Prince Tulip Pumpernickle and I deserve all the Peepy hamburgers I want!  If I can't bevel you have to show me how but you can't say I'm wrong because that's wrong-shaming me.  You just have to keep showing me over and over so when I finally do it right I can feel like it was my idea all along.  THIS IS MY INTERNET!1

  • PancakeMSTR
    Offline / Send Message
    PancakeMSTR vertex
    I agree with @metalliandy completely. This thread is, IMO, one of the best things on the internet, and it's value nearly incalculable. Hence why I'm not going to continue an argument. 
  • [Deleted User]
    Offline / Send Message
    [Deleted User] insane polycounter
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Neox
    Offline / Send Message
    Neox ngon master
    @PancakeMSTR: why not using a triangle?
  • PancakeMSTR
    Offline / Send Message
    PancakeMSTR vertex
    Neox said:
    @PancakeMSTR: why not using a triangle?
    Dunno, just thought those were to generally be avoided with Sub-D. 
  • NoRank
    Offline / Send Message
    NoRank polycounter lvl 3
    Poor little triangles, 2017 and people still hate them.
  • throttlekitty
    Offline / Send Message
    throttlekitty Polycount Sponsor
    Neox said:
    @PancakeMSTR: why not using a triangle?
    Dunno, just thought those were to generally be avoided with Sub-D. 
    Simply not true, they're situational but are sometimes the better answer to solving a shape in sub-d.

    Ok, so this whole thread is designed to teach people. If there's one single thing that perna and the others try to impress on people is to think and experiment for themselves. It's one thing to be taught that X is right or wrong for Y reasons, and another to hear that someone said X so it's always true.
  • PancakeMSTR
    Offline / Send Message
    PancakeMSTR vertex
    Neox said:
    @PancakeMSTR: why not using a triangle?
    Dunno, just thought those were to generally be avoided with Sub-D. 
    Simply not true, they're situational but are sometimes the better answer to solving a shape in sub-d.

    Ok, so this whole thread is designed to teach people. If there's one single thing that perna and the others try to impress on people is to think and experiment for themselves. It's one thing to be taught that X is right or wrong for Y reasons, and another to hear that someone said X so it's always true.
    Well I absolutely do try to experiment as much as possible. But I nonetheless thought quads were the most preferable polygon for subdivision, paramount to triangles. 

    So when are triangles okay? Do we still want to favor quads as a rule? What is the occasional triangle vs being sloppy? 
  • iacdxb
    Offline / Send Message
    iacdxb polycounter lvl 3
    Hi,

    How the edges are parallel going, when I am trying extrude and inner extrude.... at end its overlapped....?
    Is there any other way to do...?

    Thanks.
       
  • Internet Friend
    Offline / Send Message
    Internet Friend polycounter lvl 8
    Instead of beveling and extruding model it with a 90 degree angle and then bevel it after the extrusions.
  • Neox
    Offline / Send Message
    Neox ngon master
    Neox said:
    @PancakeMSTR: why not using a triangle?
    Dunno, just thought those were to generally be avoided with Sub-D. 
    why did you think this?

    there are good reasons when and why to avoid triangles

    but quadonly just for the sake of quadonly is a shit dogma
  • [Deleted User]
    Offline / Send Message
    [Deleted User] insane polycounter
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • throttlekitty
    Offline / Send Message
    throttlekitty Polycount Sponsor
    Well I absolutely do try to experiment as much as possible. But I nonetheless thought quads were the most preferable polygon for subdivision, paramount to triangles. 

    So when are triangles okay? Do we still want to favor quads as a rule? What is the occasional triangle vs being sloppy? 
    I've been trying to remember the thread that had good visual examples and can't come up with anything, sorry. The "classic" example was capping the inside face the cylinder from a revolver, IIRC, but that can be done with quads just as easily. Personally, I terminate loops into triangles on flat surfaces often, or sometimes on curves if it isn't going to hurt the shape much and I don't have the time to go quad only simply for the sake of.
  • [Deleted User]
    Offline / Send Message
    [Deleted User] insane polycounter
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • PancakeMSTR
    Offline / Send Message
    PancakeMSTR vertex
    Well I absolutely do try to experiment as much as possible. But I nonetheless thought quads were the most preferable polygon for subdivision, paramount to triangles. 

    So when are triangles okay? Do we still want to favor quads as a rule? What is the occasional triangle vs being sloppy? 
    I've been trying to remember the thread that had good visual examples and can't come up with anything, sorry. The "classic" example was capping the inside face the cylinder from a revolver, IIRC, but that can be done with quads just as easily. Personally, I terminate loops into triangles on flat surfaces often, or sometimes on curves if it isn't going to hurt the shape much and I don't have the time to go quad only simply for the sake of.
    You should post some examples, if you get a chance. 
  • iacdxb
    Offline / Send Message
    iacdxb polycounter lvl 3
    Thanks guys your tips.
  • ActionDawg
    Offline / Send Message
    ActionDawg greentooth
    iacdxb said:
    Hi,

    How the edges are parallel going, when I am trying extrude and inner extrude.... at end its overlapped....?
    Is there any other way to do...?

    Thanks.
       
    For the record when going to snap the screenshot on the left you were sitting on the same page as your answer:
    somedoggy said:
    If you don't want to have collapsing chamfers on inset geometry then the right way to go about it is to do it the other way around. Do all the insets first from a rectangle shape, then chamfer. This keeps everything evenly sized. Order of operations is a big deal when it comes to chamfering.

    Bonus tip: If you want variable width chamfers then just do insets first, break off the geo where you want different chamfer width second, chamfer, then reconnect.

    If anyone wants examples let me know. Pls @ me so I'll see it,

  • [Deleted User]
    Offline / Send Message
    [Deleted User] insane polycounter
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • ActionDawg
    Offline / Send Message
    ActionDawg greentooth
  • iacdxb
    Offline / Send Message
    iacdxb polycounter lvl 3
    Here is my try....!
    Extrude and then scaled by figure from x and y axis.



    After extrude.... Is there way to get equal space (X & Y) by scale rectangle shape by dragging....?

    Thanks Guys.
  • [Deleted User]
    Offline / Send Message
    [Deleted User] insane polycounter
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • iacdxb
    Offline / Send Message
    iacdxb polycounter lvl 3
    That I got....Thanks, I am talking about scaling.....!
  • DeathstrokeFTW
    Offline / Send Message
    DeathstrokeFTW polycounter lvl 4
    So far I've done this much but I hate my topo xD thanks for the tips earlier though!

  • .Wiki
    Offline / Send Message
    .Wiki polycounter lvl 7
    iacdxb said:
    Here is my try....!
    Extrude and then scaled by figure from x and y axis.



    After extrude.... Is there way to get equal space (X & Y) by scale rectangle shape by dragging....?

    Thanks Guys.
    This problem occurs when your base geometries transforms are not frozen... Just freeze your transform before you apply the bevel and everything will be fine.
  • iacdxb
    Offline / Send Message
    iacdxb polycounter lvl 3
    Thanks WiKi, I saw that freeze transform but not used any time.....sure I will try now.

    Thanks.

  • Evidenz
    Offline / Send Message
    Evidenz null
    Hi, not gonna lie, i know this its pretty basic, but its driving me crazy.. (maybe i'm just obsessive)
    When i'm doing hard surface, in certain corners i get some pinchy in my shading due to the support loops.
    I dont know if i'm putting them wrong or if it is for the shading to look that way, since i cant really see the pinchy effect unless i use certain matcaps..
    The "solution" i finded it's to add another edge loop, or to slide the rest loops only supporting the initial part..
    (the last image its another model)


  • Ausonian
    Offline / Send Message
    Ausonian polycounter lvl 8
    @DeathstrokeFTW
    I see nothing wrong with that topo; why you hate that?
    @Evidenz
    If the surface is flat (like your first example) , I see no reason to not relax the corner more, like this:


  • DeathstrokeFTW
    Offline / Send Message
    DeathstrokeFTW polycounter lvl 4
    Ausonian said:
    @DeathstrokeFTW
    I see nothing wrong with that topo; why you hate that?
    I know its fine but I just think there could be a better way to make it look efficient. 
  • Joao Sapiro
    Offline / Send Message
    Joao Sapiro polycounter
    Ausonian said:
    @DeathstrokeFTW
    I see nothing wrong with that topo; why you hate that?
    I know its fine but I just think there could be a better way to make it look efficient. 
    if you obcess over small things like that , its the contrary to efficiency since it will literally make you waste your time trying to get something ( that will have no better visual impact ) to be perfect. Its good to search for clean ways to do stuff mind you, but if it looks good and clean, move onto next piece :D
  • ActionDawg
    Offline / Send Message
    ActionDawg greentooth
    ^ This.

    It could be said that some of these loops are unnecessary as they don't contribute to the shapes:

    But it could also be that they're necessary for vertex painting and stuff like that. In the end I wouldn't bother to invest the time removing them unless needed.
  • cookedpeanut
    Offline / Send Message
    cookedpeanut polycounter lvl 8
    This page is hilarious. Tris are bad, mockery, quad to quad is origin of whatever the hell... I'm balling over here. This thread is great but sometimes I think people just refuse to look, learn and listen to what people say.

    For one, the whole triangles are bad thing is simply a newbies misinformation concept that is thrown way out of proportion. Let me put it like this, it's useful to plan out your geometry but it's almost inevitable that you'll eventually model a detail that was unaccounted for and requires more or less geometry to support its form. At this point most novices stop modelling, rip their hair out and then start over thinking that they've done something wrong. Instead you either want to find a way to re-route your geometry, simplify it or try and terminate geometry into a triangle dump somewhere on a flat or hidden area...
  • DeathstrokeFTW
    Offline / Send Message
    DeathstrokeFTW polycounter lvl 4
    somedoggy said:
    ^ This.

    It could be said that some of these loops are unnecessary as they don't contribute to the shapes:

    But it could also be that they're necessary for vertex painting and stuff like that. In the end I wouldn't bother to invest the time removing them unless needed.
    They are necessary :P I still am not finished with the wall and the floor, most of them help me place a few small details and Normal map decals(making a trimsheet after im done here)
Sign In or Register to comment.