Hi, I'm no expert but I used to have the same problem as you and I found out that it was due to bad topology, vertices not aligned. Try to average the vertices which are causing the dents.
Here is my result Also try to avoid unnecessary edge loops, its easier to handle fewer vertices.
Hi, I'm no expert but I used to have the same problem as you and I found out that it was due to bad topology, vertices not aligned. Try to average the vertices which are causing the dents.
Here is my result Also try to avoid unnecessary edge loops, its easier to handle fewer vertices.
perfect Adesh! Can I have a look at the unsmoothed wireframe? I am really new to 3d modeling. Thanks a lot. Your topology is way better, makes sense.
Keep on modeling, you will get better over time. Here is the unsmoothed mesh
I have attached the file, you can find it below. It might not be perfect. I would be nice if a mod looked at it, just to be safe. As im no expert, i dont want to teach you something that im doing wrong.
Keep on modeling, you will get better over time. Here is the unsmoothed mesh
I have attached the file, you can find it below. It might not be perfect. I would be nice if a mod looked at it, just to be safe. As im no expert, i dont want to teach you something that im doing wrong.
Hi, I'm trying to model this track, but im not sure how im gonna unwrap and texture it. Here's what i have done so far I just want to know if im doing it right or is there any better way to do it.
You wouldn't want to have the whole track and surrounding area be 1 mesh, unless you're going to see it from VERY far away. So if this is a background object this is fine. However if the intent is to drive on the track, you'd want to make a piece of straight track with a few different texture variety versions. Then you want to make some different bends- you can make exactly the bends from your reference, or be smart about it and try to see what type of bendy track pieces you could use to make those bends so you can make a modular kit for yourself to build different tracks with. The grass should just be terrain, and not tied to the track at all.
Yes, the example Zoddo had linked is correct. So for future reference please search this thread before asking for help and since curved surface issues tend to crop up with some frequency, you won't have too look far for a solution...page 163
Yes, the example Zoddo had linked is correct. So for future reference please search this thread before asking for help and since curved surface issues tend to crop up with some frequency, you won't have too look far for a solution...page 163
Yes and I thought I already tried that solution here, but I will give it another shot. I do think i'm doing something wrong haha.
Still no success.. Or wait..Do I need to model my highpoly seperately (rather than turbosmoothing my lowpoly) if I want this to work with a truly low poly object?
Hi Prutsirs_JayJay , in order to use turbosmooth u will need to properly use a mesh ready for it, not only your low poly with turbo. You have to had support loops to control the curvature of each edge and also a good polygon density to avoid pinching. Try to avoid tris or n-gons in your subdivided mesh .
This is my solution... as you want to have this hole in the middle of a curved mesh what i did was first model on a straight plane and then apply a Bend modifier. Hope it helps!!
Hi Prutsirs_JayJay , in order to use turbosmooth u will need to properly use a mesh ready for it, not only your low poly with turbo. You have to had support loops to control the curvature of each edge and also a good polygon density to avoid pinching. Try to avoid tris or n-gons in your subdivided mesh .
This is my solution... as you want to have this hole in the middle of a curved mesh what i did was first model on a straight plane and then apply a Bend modifier. Hope it helps!!
Thanks! I know about support loops, i'm just trying to figure out how to make a hole in a cylinder and have both a rather low polycount lowpoly and a smooth cylindrical high poly. The reason i'm using only part of a cylinder is because I intend to duplicate it 3 times because I need 3 identical holes with equal spacing. That said, is there any consistent way to make a bend like that and duplicate it in a rotation around an axis? Or would it be faster to take 1/3rd of a cylinder like i'm doing?
Ive now got this, problem here is that I work went high to low here, and if i want to get a lower poly count i'd have to model them completely seperately, unable to use the lowpoly to make the high poly or vise versa. I also dont know how I would go about making the beveled edges pinch on the walls of my hole, without creating pinches in the cylindrical shape..
Welll... you could calculate the size and the bend angle you need and then duplicate it. A good option it's to use directly a cilinder, cut it, make the process on one side and then duplicated. Again, check the link Zoddo shared to model on rounded shapes. I'm not sure if you know what bake is but i highly recommend you to search about it. A common workflow is to model a high poly mesh and then duplicate it, delete the turbo and by adjusting edges and deleting some of them you get the low poly version. Once you have both you can bake high poly information into low-poly and get a low polycount simulating high-poly details with a normal map.
Welll... you could calculate the size and the bend angle you need and then duplicate it. A good option it's to use directly a cilinder, cut it, make the process on one side and then duplicated. Again, check the link Zoddo shared to model on rounded shapes. I'm not sure if you know what bake is but i highly recommend you to search about it. A common workflow is to model a high poly mesh and then duplicate it, delete the turbo and by adjusting edges and deleting some of them you get the low poly version. Once you have both you can bake high poly information into low-poly and get a low polycount simulating high-poly details with a normal map.
Yes I know what baking is haha. I usually work low to high poly and working high to low feels very weird to me..But I guess i can work low to high for other shapes and high to low for cylinders like this when i run into them? Reducing the polycount from the high to make it low gives me stuff like this. Should I be concerned about this, or will baking the nicely rounded highpoly onto this messy lowpoly fix things?
Grab those verts, constrict movement to edge and move them back. ortographic top/down view should help line it all up.
Ahh dope, thanks! Any resources on how all the constraints can be used and what they do? I've never used them before i tried tackling this problem haha.
Prutsirs_JayJay you can search on Google, Youtube and even here at Polycount forum about them. There are a ton of info about constraints. Also you can check the "User Guide" of the software you use to learn about it. Hope you find what you need!
Prutsirs_JayJay you can search on Google, Youtube and even here at Polycount forum about them. There are a ton of info about constraints. Also you can check the "User Guide" of the software you use to learn about it. Hope you find what you need!
Yes I know, but it's always either too specific or too broad information, or a lot of redirects, but i'll see what i can find, thanks!
Googling "3ds max constrict vertex movement by edge" netted me this vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMPM6lWNL_4 Play around with those constraints and see what they do.
Welll... you could calculate the size and the bend angle you need and then duplicate it. A good option it's to use directly a cilinder, cut it, make the process on one side and then duplicated. Again, check the link Zoddo shared to model on rounded shapes. I'm not sure if you know what bake is but i highly recommend you to search about it. A common workflow is to model a high poly mesh and then duplicate it, delete the turbo and by adjusting edges and deleting some of them you get the low poly version. Once you have both you can bake high poly information into low-poly and get a low polycount simulating high-poly details with a normal map.
Yes I know what baking is haha. I usually work low to high poly and working high to low feels very weird to me..But I guess i can work low to high for other shapes and high to low for cylinders like this when i run into them? Reducing the polycount from the high to make it low gives me stuff like this. Should I be concerned about this, or will baking the nicely rounded highpoly onto this messy lowpoly fix things?
Need more geometry. Never make holes in cylinders with minimal geometry.
Not entirely true, you are still getting issues on the edges of your mesh. Look back a couole of pages we have ( a lot of us) shown 100 of examples too this issue. One is, yes you need enough geo to support the cut. But you also need to understand where the cuts should happen so you you dont overdo it with the geo. This way you can easily control the hp cage without having to many vertices to move around in case you need to edit the mesh.
Hey Guys, looking for input from the 3ds max experts here. I've modeled this car rim but it took me around 4 hours manually. I feel like something this repetitive in shape could be entirely done in the modifier stack with parametric tools in much less time right? More specifically the gold rim section. Defining the base shape took the longest time, plus cutting in the insets and such.
original ref, closer inspection you can see alternating sections have a deeper cut in that follows along the spokes PLUS the diagonal ones are wider/deeper towards the center than the vertical/horizontal sections. I found it impossible to use the modifier stack past defining the amount of spokes.
It depends of the model but in your case you could work on a 1/4 part of the wheel and then setting the pivot point in the middle and duplicate it 3 times by rotation. Once you have the 4 parts duplicated apply a weld and it should be fine. Also applying two differents symmetry will work.
While you can cut the mesh into sections, variable widths makes it a lot more difficult. My question is if there is a way to model this mesh without manual adjustment of such things like the blue line below. You have to move the GREEN vertex back for a deeper cut but that misaligns the rest of your RED line topology in pic below.
The top part of the images show all the alignments required, with the last pic showing variable section widths. The bigger sides with black bolts are almost double the width. I can manually hand place all these verts and align everything but it's messy and I'm most likely modeling the base wrong with all these insets and and cuts required. ignore the messy topology its just an example of the red line area.
Moving the green vertex to get a deeper cut in messes up the rest of the edge alignments. The red arrow edges now require a stronger taper to match. This is why I'm curious if stuff like variable edge widths can be modeled in without manual adjustment of moving verts by hand, using the max stack possibly.
Manual alignment sucks. Avoid it when you can. Follow the lines and look for intersecting points. People are lazy so the angles of the intersecting lines are probably whole numbers and have some commonality. Start simple and work into the complexity. Avoid over complicating things. Lots of flat surfaces to hide tris and ngons in.
It looks like splitting it into 1/4 segments and mirroring is easiest but wirrexx is right: it is possible to do this with a lone 1/6th (Edit: it's 1/8th) segment. Less geometry means less work. A more orthographic reference photo is helpful for strategizing how to break it down. Cut each unique spoke in half and work with that small section.
Prep time:??!?
Cook time: 45 minutes or less...
Add support loops to taste.
Step 1: Establish the large forms of each spoke.
Step 2: Add perpendicular edge loops where necessary. Inset. Inset. Inset. (This keeps the pattern draft / wall taper consistent.)
Step 3: Add a few edge loops. More insets for the pocket holes.
Step 4: Mirror modifier.
Step 5: Circular array modifier.
Step 6: Bevel weight where flat surfaces meet tapered walls and add the bevel / chamfer modifier.
Step 7: Subdivision modifier 2x or 3x.
Notes:
I was too lazy to add another set of bevel weights to the little triangular pockets so that's why they're so sharp. You could add all kinds of crazy bevels to the corners and make it super precise but it's a subdivision model so let the subdivision smooth out the corners.
This part of the rim is probably cast so all of the walls need pattern draft and all the inside corners need a fairly large radius. No need to go overboard with the geometry. Even my model is too sharp for the surface finish you'd find on budget to mid tier rims.
Ngons... Tris.. Yeah there's a couple in there... Somewhere. The subdivision is doing all the heavy lifting and the bevels around the flat area keep the nasties on the flats so?!?! I think it's ok.
Another option:
Make a basic shape for each of the 6? unique pocket and through hole operations. Add a bevel modifier to radius the edges. Setup a cylinder with the appropriate number of segments and Boolean it. Do a little cleanup so it subdivides nicely or send it through Zbrush. This might take just as long as doing it natively with subdivision. It all depends on your workflow and end goals.
@FrankPolygon Hey mate thanks for the write up, it's really appreciated. I was a little confused as to the 1/6th segments when really it's 1/8th. The most difficult part is defining the stages between 1 and 2 you labeled. Once you commit to the angle/depths you can't really revert. Meaning you'd have to go all the way back to stage 1. I was hoping there was a more non destructive way to easily go back and adjust stage 1? I remodeled this version and took a couple hours only to realize the depths of the 4 circular sections aren't deep enough, moving those now would ruin the alignment again.
Also are there any indepth writeups/tutorials out there that talk about planning before modeling? I haven't found anything, and most posts on polycount people don't exactly elaborate on it. Considering its one of the most important stages I assumed there would be a lot more material on it.
@tynew You're right. It's a 1/8th segment. I should have double checked that. Updated the original post to reflect that. Thanks!
Your new geometry looks like it's easier to handle and if you're working on a 1/8th segment then making changes to it should be less work than having to rebuild the entire thing. If you've gone from around four hours to two then I'd say that's an improvement. It's also something where your efficiency will increase as you practice.
Adjusting features like the lug nut pockets is fairly straightforward: dissolve the existing geometry and run the inset again at the proper depth.
If the back wall of the lug pocket needs to be closer to the hub (not shown) you can grab the outer corner and move it down the spoke with a normal constraint. Follow up by moving the bottom center of the pocket the same distance along the same constraint.
If you have to adjust both the back wall and the depth: dissolve the geometry, adjust the back wall position and run the inset again. This will be faster than trying to move lots of geometry around.
The same idea applies to the through holes on the spokes. Cutting them back is fairly straightforward. If they need to be thicker then dissolve the geometry and run the inset again.
Small adjustments like this will only take a couple of minutes and will be more accurate than trying to push geometry around manually. For linear parts you can sometimes get away with moving geometry along a normal constraint. It's cases like this where less is more since it's easier to adjust. If partial edge loops are needed then cut them in so they terminate on a flat.
Subdivision models aren't meant to be as accurate as CAD models and
depending on the issue and the size of the part it might be OK for some
imperfection. The minor changes to the base geometry should propagate
through the modifier stack and into the final model?
There's a balance between a model being easy to edit but having enough support geometry that it still looks good and subdivides correctly. If you're looking for something completely nondestructive or almost
procedural then I can think of a few other ways to do it but I'd have to
test them to see if they work reliably.
As for planning and resolving issues that come up when modeling...
I'd
say it depends: If it's a minor mistake, the hope is that you catch it
before it becomes a major problem. Blocking out the rough shapes and
taking a few minutes to compare everything to multiple references helps
catch issues in the early stages. Finding and using stated dimensions is
also helpful but not always possible.
With stuff like this I try to go through and identify the different surface heights and transitions between them. That way I'm always going back and checking these areas against references to keep everything is where it needs to be.
When it comes to planning out a model... Study the references. If you're not sure about something do a small sample so you're able to fail early and fail fast. That way you're not hung up on having time sunk into something that doesn't work.
Another thing that comes to mind is: manual adjustment (where you're
using tools that maintain the geometry and do most of the work for you)
is different from manually aligning and moving things. Sometimes you
have to do manual tweaks to correct problems and that's ok. But for
things like parallel lines, angles, circles, bevels, round overs, etc
it's better to rely on tools and modifiers than to be pushing polies
around.
You bring up a good point about the discussion around planing and working through things. I can't think of any deep write-ups or tutorials on the subject but maybe someone else could chime in here?
Overall, with hard surface art, a lot comes down to having good references, learning to read shapes and learning about the different manufacturing processes / machine tools. This can be a deep rabbit hole to go down so I wouldn't say it's mandatory for everyone. Long term I think that learning CAD processes is probably worth something since things seem to be headed that way.
Awesome thanks a lot for the information @FrankPolygon , complex shapes like these need to be broken down. Usually, I rush headlong into stuff and just trial and error so I have to work on my analysis and planning of the model. I also suppose you're right, such minor inconsistencies may never matter in a production environment, where a player won't notice. CAD work would be a more accurate method of approach.
@HAWK12HT The rim shape in that tutorial is a lot more simple than the rim I made, you have 5 singular spokes. The rim we are talking about has easy misalignment issues. There are 6 spokes but basically the angles rely on the neighboring spoke. If you move sections of the mesh it misaligns the parallel spokes with it.
@tynew just sharing a write up you asked for, did not know you want a tutorial for exactly same issue you are having. I see 8 spokes here though and perfect symmetry frankpolygon did a great breakdown too. Issue would be 7 spokes with 4 or 5 lug nuts.
Hey buddy, this is a nice practice in studying your references properly and planning it out. As seen below: You have two repeating patterns of spoke A and spoke B. 4 of each, 8 in total. Two axises can be mirrored using symmetry, so 3/4ths of this can be ignored. One additional symmetry can be placed at the center of the B column at a 45° angle, so you only have to model half of A and half of B, defined below as working area. All you then need to do is start with a primitive that has the appropriate amount of geometry to let you use symmetry at a vertex. An 8-sided cylinder gives me nice edges at 90° and 45° angles. 8*X=amount of sides. I chose 8*4=32:
@Thanez Yeah I understand working with segments/sym The main discussion was about altering important geo further into the process. Because the rim's spokes are all following corresponding angles, if you alter an angle of one spoke it basically ruins the other spokes. Frank's method was informative, but proof that attempting to fix the issues will provide inconsistencies. Planning ahead seems to be the important factor here since these operations are destructive, but only for this design anyway.
@lukx I'd suggest spline or curve modelling too visualise that shape, there's a ton of online resource material to reference so make an attempt and see how you go
I'm trying to place the watch along this path. I don't want to use path deform because i dont want to deform the individual elements. I tried to use a path constraint but all the pieces lose their initial location and are all placed at the same place. I would love to know if somebody has a solution for this.
personally i'd just spend a few mins rotating each piece until the watch band is closed.
if you really need it to follow a spline you can do a SplineIK but you need to rig it up with bones, and start off with a straight line which you bend into the desired circle
The left part, the "gut" part. I was
thinking about using a square as primitive then deleting the top face
and make the square a very long rectangle, add lots of loop cuts and
finally bevel then solidify, but the curve part is really problematic,
It seem to lack precision big time and it's a mechanical part.
Anyone would have an idea? Maybe only model modules of it and then assemble them? The U turns and straight lines
@Hoodelali Usually, free form or 'on the fly' modeling would invariably be a method too output an object, especially if ortho refs are not available so what you've suggested I'd say give those workflows a try and see if 'eyeballing' the specific details you had pin pointed captures a near enough 1:1 comparison.
I am struggling with the topology of corners on my hardsurface jet model with subd modifier having some unwanted bumpiness on the model. Jet is supposed to have partially organic look, but with few of the hard edges here and there. Similar feel to how F35 lightning have it.
Question is: How to achieve the smoothness with your topology the proper way?
@Jantaaa Your problem is that you have two edge loops really close to eachother. To solve this smoothing issue, make sure that the vertices on the corner of the outer edge are away from the corner. This way you give subdivision more space to smooth it out.
Hope this helps
Edit:
When doing subdivision modelling and you encounter problems. Try to adjust your meshflow by simply sliding a vertices away along an edge, and thus you can see what it does to the smoothing.
@Zoddo Thank you for your quick response! Forgot to mention, that I use Blender, but this is more like a general topology question, anyway.
Having the edges close to each other was just partially the problem, but it helped a little. Actually, main problem was that, some vertexes, especially in the corner, were creating uwanted edge (bump), and I had to smooth it along X axis manually, but with the proportion editing on. I tried it without proportion editing tool, and it looked just more bulky. Having overall more even spacing in the corner and smoother edgeflow helped me to achieve what I wanted.
Still gotta way to smooth it out a little, but I think, that I understand it a little better now One fundamental rule I "forgot", having the wireframe cage being as close as possible to the subdivided end result, was the key.
@Jantaaa No problem, I was waiting for GIT so had some time to check out the forums.
I am glad you could get a better result than you had previously and that you managed to get things working by yourself!
As of always from my experience when it comes to smoothing, it's always editing and tweaking the meshflow to solve problems like these. Sometimes increasing your subdiv amount also helps, that's why in Max I OpenSubDiv about 3 times.
I also learned that with subdivision modelling, you never want to have edges too close to eachother as it can result in unwanted smoothing. Unless you want a sharp edge ofcourse, but there are better solutions for that like CreaseSets and smoothing groups.
So this a little weird and out of the subject area, forgive me...
Imagine I have a compound curve mesh like a bowl and the walls of the bowl have a varying thickness. Say I wanted to unfold this bowl flat, as one would for papercraft, but wanted to retain the thickness of the walls. Is there a software, a script, anything at all, that could unwrap the outer surface (like a UV unwrap) and retain this varying distance (height) topology between the outer and the inner surface, so that once folded back up, the varying thickness of the bowl is retained?
The screenshot is a manual version of what I'm looking to do automatically. The inner surface of the bowl's wall is made from perpendicular projections from each vertice from the outer surface. (1 & 2) (almost like the solidify modifier in blender). By UV unwrapping the mesh and importing it back into blender (3), I can take the distance between each of the vertices on the outer wall, and the corresponding vertices on the inner wall, and apply those numbers to the flattened mesh to get the thickness (4 & 5).
I know this example wouldn't actually fold back up very well but for my purposes, it would be totally fine. Any help on where to go with this would be super appreciated. Cheers guys
Replies
Specifically, I am having a real hard time struggling with creating smooth clean curved surface without lumpy / pinching areas.
Was it the topologies? or some tools to fix this?
Here is the concept and the 3D blockout. Thanks.
Hi, I'm no expert but I used to have the same problem as you and I found out that it was due to bad topology, vertices not aligned. Try to average the vertices which are causing the dents.
Here is my result
Also try to avoid unnecessary edge loops, its easier to handle fewer vertices.
what I have come up with, seems a little better. Still not quite right.
Here is the unsmoothed mesh
I have attached the file, you can find it below. It might not be perfect. I would be nice if a mod looked at it, just to be safe. As im no expert, i dont want to teach you something that im doing wrong.
Ive been trying to figure this out forever. Cylinders with holes in them are the bane of my existance, someone please help
Still no success..
Or wait..Do I need to model my highpoly seperately (rather than turbosmoothing my lowpoly) if I want this to work with a truly low poly object?
This is my solution... as you want to have this hole in the middle of a curved mesh what i did was first model on a straight plane and then apply a Bend modifier. Hope it helps!!
Ive now got this, problem here is that I work went high to low here, and if i want to get a lower poly count i'd have to model them completely seperately, unable to use the lowpoly to make the high poly or vise versa.
I also dont know how I would go about making the beveled edges pinch on the walls of my hole, without creating pinches in the cylindrical shape..
I'm not sure if you know what bake is but i highly recommend you to search about it. A common workflow is to model a high poly mesh and then duplicate it, delete the turbo and by adjusting edges and deleting some of them you get the low poly version. Once you have both you can bake high poly information into low-poly and get a low polycount simulating high-poly details with a normal map.
Reducing the polycount from the high to make it low gives me stuff like this. Should I be concerned about this, or will baking the nicely rounded highpoly onto this messy lowpoly fix things?
Play around with those constraints and see what they do.
Heres the max file if you want to have a look: https://drive.google.com/file/d/19swtKybmWkzT_aepb7fuDNu8fjxSQqBu/view?usp=sharing
original ref, closer inspection you can see alternating sections have a deeper cut in that follows along the spokes PLUS the diagonal ones are wider/deeper towards the center than the vertical/horizontal sections. I found it impossible to use the modifier stack past defining the amount of spokes.
The top part of the images show all the alignments required, with the last pic showing variable section widths. The bigger sides with black bolts are almost double the width. I can manually hand place all these verts and align everything but it's messy and I'm most likely modeling the base wrong with all these insets and and cuts required. ignore the messy topology its just an example of the red line area.
Moving the green vertex to get a deeper cut in messes up the rest of the edge alignments. The red arrow edges now require a stronger taper to match. This is why I'm curious if stuff like variable edge widths can be modeled in without manual adjustment of moving verts by hand, using the max stack possibly.
Hey mate thanks for the write up, it's really appreciated. I was a little confused as to the 1/6th segments when really it's 1/8th. The most difficult part is defining the stages between 1 and 2 you labeled. Once you commit to the angle/depths you can't really revert. Meaning you'd have to go all the way back to stage 1. I was hoping there was a more non destructive way to easily go back and adjust stage 1? I remodeled this version and took a couple hours only to realize the depths of the 4 circular sections aren't deep enough, moving those now would ruin the alignment again.
Also are there any indepth writeups/tutorials out there that talk about planning before modeling? I haven't found anything, and most posts on polycount people don't exactly elaborate on it. Considering its one of the most important stages I assumed there would be a lot more material on it.
http://www.onnovanbraam.com/index.php?tutorials/polygon_modeling_8_car_rims/
@HAWK12HT
The rim shape in that tutorial is a lot more simple than the rim I made, you have 5 singular spokes. The rim we are talking about has easy misalignment issues. There are 6 spokes but basically the angles rely on the neighboring spoke. If you move sections of the mesh it misaligns the parallel spokes with it.
As seen below:
You have two repeating patterns of spoke A and spoke B. 4 of each, 8 in total.
Two axises can be mirrored using symmetry, so 3/4ths of this can be ignored.
One additional symmetry can be placed at the center of the B column at a 45° angle, so you only have to model half of A and half of B, defined below as working area.
All you then need to do is start with a primitive that has the appropriate amount of geometry to let you use symmetry at a vertex.
An 8-sided cylinder gives me nice edges at 90° and 45° angles. 8*X=amount of sides. I chose 8*4=32:
Yeah I understand working with segments/sym
@lukx I'd suggest spline or curve modelling too visualise that shape, there's a ton of online resource material to reference so make an attempt and see how you go
EDIT:
Re-post if you run into issues.
I would love to know if somebody has a solution for this.
if you really need it to follow a spline you can do a SplineIK but you need to rig it up with bones, and start off with a straight line which you bend into the desired circle
1. posted question
2. spent time reading wiki
3. found videos of subdiv hard surface modeling techniques
4. found Arrimus 3D
5. Thank you PC<3
Help! How do I model this simple thing please !
The left part, the "gut" part. I was thinking about using a square as primitive then deleting the top face and make the square a very long rectangle, add lots of loop cuts and finally bevel then solidify, but the curve part is really problematic, It seem to lack precision big time and it's a mechanical part.
Anyone would have an idea? Maybe only model modules of it and then assemble them? The U turns and straight lines
I am struggling with the topology of corners on my hardsurface jet model with subd modifier having some unwanted bumpiness on the model. Jet is supposed to have partially organic look, but with few of the hard edges here and there. Similar feel to how F35 lightning have it.
Question is: How to achieve the smoothness with your topology the proper way?
Thank you for your quick response! Forgot to mention, that I use Blender, but this is more like a general topology question, anyway.
Having the edges close to each other was just partially the problem, but it helped a little. Actually, main problem was that, some vertexes, especially in the corner, were creating uwanted edge (bump), and I had to smooth it along X axis manually, but with the proportion editing on. I tried it without proportion editing tool, and it looked just more bulky. Having overall more even spacing in the corner and smoother edgeflow helped me to achieve what I wanted.
Still gotta way to smooth it out a little, but I think, that I understand it a little better now
One fundamental rule I "forgot", having the wireframe cage being as close as possible to the subdivided end result, was the key.
Thx for help
Imagine I have a compound curve mesh like a bowl and the walls of the bowl have a varying thickness. Say I wanted to unfold this bowl flat, as one would for papercraft, but wanted to retain the thickness of the walls. Is there a software, a script, anything at all, that could unwrap the outer surface (like a UV unwrap) and retain this varying distance (height) topology between the outer and the inner surface, so that once folded back up, the varying thickness of the bowl is retained?
The screenshot is a manual version of what I'm looking to do automatically. The inner surface of the bowl's wall is made from perpendicular projections from each vertice from the outer surface. (1 & 2) (almost like the solidify modifier in blender). By UV unwrapping the mesh and importing it back into blender (3), I can take the distance between each of the vertices on the outer wall, and the corresponding vertices on the inner wall, and apply those numbers to the flattened mesh to get the thickness (4 & 5).
I know this example wouldn't actually fold back up very well but for my purposes, it would be totally fine. Any help on where to go with this would be super appreciated.
Cheers guys