I did not plan on saying this, but I will shamefully admit that I have no idea how I should model the wing and main body. This is what my second attempt looks like and there are many problems. The biggest mysteries is how the topology should be done and what the modeling process should be. I am desperately requesting for help.
heybro, sorry for being late again, i've been sick still am, but i tried to do something to explain what we mean easier. Dont use a subd modell, use a mesh that is less dense, it's easier to control.
Step one, i have three seperated pieces.
step two, i align them to eachother
step three i use boolean operaters and then merge vertices.
step four add your support loops.
I would lie if i am happy with results, but I just gave it ago 15 min ago and my head is killing me!
As mentioned you've made progress already just take a minute to step back a bit for a moment and try too absorb the various techniques we've shared. Believe it or not all of us, at one point or another have similarly been where you are, grinding away learning this stuff full on like a 'Trojan' until *that ball* happened to finally drop so stay frosty you'll get it and I definitly believe that.
Thank you everyone, I took your advice and have started redoing everything. However, the wing poses a huge problem: the shape is too sophisticated. It has a strange curve I currently know two ways of modelling it without subsurf and none of them work out. I can make the airfoil shape first from the side view, then make the rest of the wing with extrusions. This leads to a bad wing surface (the surface is full of random bumps rather than being a smooth surface). I can model the wing surface first from the top view, then position the loop cuts vertically, but this leads to a bad airfoil (the side shape of the wing is very awkward and each vertice has an inconsistent angle). I'm out of ideas on the modelling operation
IronLover64 said: Thank you everyone, I took your advice and have started redoing
everything. However, the wing poses a huge problem: the shape is too
sophisticated. It has a strange curve I currently know two ways of
modelling it without subsurf and none of them work out. I can make the
airfoil shape first from the side view, then make the rest of the wing
with extrusions. This leads to a bad wing surface (the surface is full
of random bumps rather than being a smooth surface). I can model the
wing surface first from the top view, then position the loop cuts
vertically, but this leads to a bad airfoil (the side shape of the wing
is very awkward and each vertice has an inconsistent angle). I'm out of
ideas on the modelling operation
If you're able, can you please post shaded with wireframe screencaps of what you currently have?
Another person I spoke to says that I will have to sculpt the whole thing. Would this be the best way to do it?
As one possible alternative to define displacement detail using a base mesh, sculpting complex surface variation would certainly capture an intended result however I think at this stage, will hinder more than be in anyway helpful in terms of firstly nailing down those key aspects of subd modeling, prior too implementing additional workflows.
edit:
I'll also point out @wirrexx recent example that basically outlines those underlying concepts, including:
- Blocking out either a low poly shape or separated meshes
- Then further refine using existing geo alongside support loops too control the object's overall silhouette
Whilst keeping in mind throughout the modeling process, making use of constrain too axis or indeed the 'Edge Slide' transform function to help preempt potential shading errors from occurring, I'd initially touched on in the previous page.
Here's what Ive been doing: I modeled the wing from the top orthographic view so I can get the cuves right and add loop cuts. Then I select each half loop and move it to the top or bottom one by one. However, the airfoil is as rough as rock. The process isn't finished yet as I still need to move the bottom ones and some of the top ones
another reason why I had to resort to subsurf a few months back was because not even my best blueprints were able to show what the inner wing's airfoil, and since subsurf was able to create a decent wing at the time, I went for it.
IronLover64 said: Thank you everyone, I took your advice and have started redoing
everything. However, the wing poses a huge problem: the shape is too
sophisticated. It has a strange curve I currently know two ways of
modelling it without subsurf and none of them work out. I can make the
airfoil shape first from the side view, then make the rest of the wing
with extrusions. This leads to a bad wing surface (the surface is full
of random bumps rather than being a smooth surface). I can model the
wing surface first from the top view, then position the loop cuts
vertically, but this leads to a bad airfoil (the side shape of the wing
is very awkward and each vertice has an inconsistent angle). I'm out of
ideas on the modelling operation
If you're able, can you please post shaded with wireframe screencaps of what you currently have?
Another person I spoke to says that I will have to sculpt the whole thing. Would this be the best way to do it?
As one possible alternative to define displacement detail using a base mesh, sculpting complex surface variation would certainly capture an intended result however I think at this stage, will hinder more than be in anyway helpful in terms of firstly nailing down those key aspects of subd modeling, prior too implementing additional workflows.
edit:
I'll also point out @wirrexx recent example that basically outlines those underlying concepts, including:
- Blocking out either a low poly shape or separated meshes
- Then further refine using existing geo alongside support loops too control the object's overall silhouette
Whilst keeping in mind throughout the modeling process, making use of constrain too axis or indeed the 'Edge Slide' transform function to help preempt potential shading errors from occurring, I'd initially touched on in the previous page.
I did try to follow those instructions and started to make the thing in subsurf 1 (hardsurface modelling the wing does not result in a good airfoil as mentioned) until I realized that I had to somehow connect the back of the wing and body together as seen here. Subsurf doesn't allow that and neither does hardsurface for the obvious reason.
Your last post shows your main problem. Working on subdivision levels all the time is the easiest way to messy model that you simply can't edit.
I will give you a little bit different approach to this. And that is: Take a break. Don't get me wrong, i don't want to discurage you at all. What i mean is to take a break from this specific model. You are throwing everything at it, and you will burn sooner or later. Learning through frustration is not that good.
To be honest, i think this model is super tricky to start with. It is fairly simple, it does look very simple. But modeling a model with this amount of nice curves all over is very difficult. And this is bad place to start learning fundamentals of modeling.
That is why i recommend you to take a break. For a week, for a month and do something else. Something simplier, to learn different workflows and solutions. Then go back to this model, and you will see a massive difference. There is one more bonus to that and this is also something very important. Success. Almost any success boosts confidence, and solidifies knowledge. You have a finished solution, that you know is working, and you can apply it. A lot of ppl before proper work, does some kind of warmup. Modeling something small and fairly easy, just to relax and boost said confidence.
Now going back to first thing i said. You are misunderstanding a lot of feedback here. Even without reading anything, looking on pictures ppl posted, you can get what is common ground in every of them. And that is simple geometry. Subdividing is just a cherry on top. But the base model is very simple. Managable. Easy to edit. You build whole form like that, and then work on subdividing it. You are just starting with wrong step.
About that sculting thing. Don't do that to yourself. Sculpting will not solve any of your problems and will add magnitude of it's own. Sculpting is different and hard skill. Sculpting nice hardsurface is just a completly different beast. Work on base skills first.
Those are different, easy and hard hardsurface problems. But there you can find solutions to all of them, wireframes, shaded models and different approaches to problems. Do some of these models, do all of them if you feel like it. There is even more: https://polycount.com/discussion/132146/week-40-the-weekly-hard-surface-challenge
Another 30 weeks of challanges. Trust me and i bet most of ppl here will agree, this will skill you up much much faster. Work on it for some time and then do your space ship.
And if you want to persist on this model, there is another thing you can try. Instead of subdividing model, do the oposite. Limit yourself. Try to make whole shape and use max 1000 tri or poly. Make it 2k if it is too hard. Build a full base mesh. Edit it nicely. And then you can work on each part to make it look good smoothed. Just don't go straight to 10-20k, that amount could be a nice mid poly model ready for subd including support loops.
Best of luck to you. You will get it, sooner or later.
@IronLover64 I recommend you take a few steps back and use a less complex object for practice. Try to get comfortable with subd modelling first.
Generally if a surface is continuous, like the wing and body, you should model it as a continuous surface, otherwise don't. Wirexx already showed you how to do this.
So, this. I'm doing an exercise on subd modeling and I want to make a sphere with triangular-ish incision with sharp edges. I know I have to quadify the area around the triangle, but I can't figure out the edge flow. Here is the obj if anyone wants to help me solve the case https://www.sendspace.com/file/bh992d
Is there any reason why you did the intrusion in such a weird angle? The quad-sphere you were using gives you the perfect base topolgy for this intrusion. If you want it to be rotated then simply rotate the whole sphere.
@pr3stl1@ned_poreyra As Eric and Axel have mentioned, the issues with both models can be solved by using the same topology strategy:
Block out the shapes so the segment counts match and use the existing geometry of the primary shapes as support with the secondary shapes intersecting between the edge loops of the primary shapes.
In the first example: the segment counts on both the rounded end of the subtracted shape and the wall of the truncated cone are adjusted to match where they intersect. All intersecting geometry also lands between the edge loops on the wall of the truncated cone. This provides support and a place to run parallel support loops without disrupting the overall flow of the shape.
The additional support loops are added with a chamfer / bevel operation and the two perpendicular loops are slid along the edges that make up the wall of the cone to even out the smoothing stress near the corner. There's some minor undulation in this area but it's only visible when viewed up close, at an extreme glancing angle with a highly reflective material. The subdivision previews show that it's unlikely to be a major issue but it could be resolved by adjusting the mesh along the edge normals to give the artifact a larger area to run out on or by increasing the segment counts to reduce the size of the artifact. It's a case of close enough is good enough.
In the second example: the same principles apply. Block out the primary shapes and intersect any secondary shapes between the existing edge loops. Inset the subtracted area and use a chamfer / bevel operation to add support loops. Shown are three different strategies for connecting up the corners. Each produces a unique visual artifact. Whether or not this is acceptable depends on the size of the object, normal texture details and desired quality level.
Increasing the segment count on the primary shape provides more support geometry and a better result. As Eric and Axel mentioned: use the existing geometry in the shape. Since it's a sphere it should be possible to rotate it into a position so the geometry matches the angle of the subtracted segment. If there's an edge case where this isn't possible then the same strategy of blocking out the shape, matching the segment counts and using existing geometry for support still applies.
It may be counter intuitive to leave space between the edge loops of intersecting shapes but for round object it's often the correct answer. Connecting directly to the grid of edge loops only seems to be correct because it's convenient.
Fight the urge to be lazy. Skipping the block out phase just ends up costing more time and frustration. The block out mesh isn't a throw away item. It's a jumping off point for adding details and working into the subdivision cage mesh. A good block out is the cage mesh without the support loops and a starting point for the low poly mesh.
Is there any reason why you did the intrusion in such a weird angle?
Yes. I'm doing it as an exercise. It's intentionally made this way, this is not a real thing I need to model. I want to learn how to make any shape with quad topology. I've been recently watching Arrimus on youtube and his workflow is amazing. He combines smooth shapes with sharp shapes, doesn't care about angles or amount of detail needed, he just brute forces through everything. I want to learn to be like that, so I started simple with the sharp pyramid inside a smooth sphere.
Nothing wrong with testing different workflows but it's important to focus on the results and evaluate whether or not a given strategy justifies the time spent. Work through each modeling strategy and pick the one that produces the best results for the least amount of time and effort spent.
Here's a few more examples of the previously mentioned strategy of blocking out the shapes, matching the segment counts on intersecting shapes and using the primary shape geometry as support loops. Like Eric mentioned, simply rotating the sphere to match the cut out solves the problem.
The last example is not a direct copy but an abstract illustration. Producing sharp corners on these sort of shapes is relatively more difficult than producing rounded corners so if this approach works here it will also work on the previous example in the original question.
Not going to critique a three year old video but there's a few things of note: It's a concept type sample model, there's a lot of manual work and both n-gons and tris are used in various places on the model.
With most concept models the focus is the artistic aspect rather than the technical. I have seen a few other long time professionals who do 3D concepts and they do tend to do a lot of manual work. Tweaking each vertex one at a time, cutting in additional loops one segment at a time, etc. This might be fine for 3D concept work but the time cost of manually adjusting every facet of the model could be problematic in a reasonably busy production environment.
Just because a mesh is all quads doesn't mean the topology is any good. Likewise triangles and n-gons don't mean a mesh is inherently bad. It all comes down to how and where they are used. When used correctly n-gons are a huge time saver and the results are visually indistinguishable from an all quad mesh that takes longer to make and is more difficult to edit.
There are numerous comparisons, discussions and examples of topology strategies in the pages of this thread. To anyone interested in different modeling and topology strategies, just roll back over the last 20-30 pages and take the time to test each of them. There's very little magic here. It's all repeatable, testable and verifiable. Everyone builds their own modeling process and has their favorite strategies.
Using all quad geometry solely for the purpose of using all quad geometry, without a specific and legitimate technical reasons to do so, does not make the work better nor is it an optimal strategy. Manually brute forcing all quad or even grid topology is, in my opinion, an egregious waste of time. It would be more efficient to leave these tasks to automated re-meshing tools.
This is just my general philosophy and not pointed at any one person in particular, so that said: There's a difference between well organized neatness and the compulsive pursuit of perfection. There comes a distinct point where perfect is the enemy of good enough because nothing is ever going to be perfect. There's no benefit to suffering for technical art. Time wasted on
the unnecessary fetishization of technical details is time that can't be
spent doing more productive and enjoyable things.
Nothing wrong with testing different workflows but it's important to focus on the results and evaluate whether or not a given strategy justifies the time spent.
He's like 10x faster than me. And I've been doing 3D for 7 years. Does it mean I should basically quit? Because time is the primary reason why I want to learn his technique. I bet he can model a full car with insides and everything in like a day.
@ned_poreyra At the risk of going off topic, that particular question is something that you and only you can answer. My schedule is somewhat limited but if you want an honest evaluation of your modeling process (and some feedback with links to resources that may help) then record a video of your high poly modeling process, upload it to YouTube and PM me the link. No need for a voice-over or anything special. It can be a simple 5-10x time-lapse.
We say here: "the harder you try, the faster you get". But man, don't be exaggerated/hyperbolic @ned_poreyra.
BTW, I think all time wasted with logic in modelling is justified (playing videogames would be different, and that's what too many people do instead of improving).
If ned_poreyra says he's practicing to get better/faster, well that's good, and there's nothing wrong with that. Doing things in a more difficult way makes us to analyze things better, but one thing is this, and other that "sphere". Like it's said here, your doing it in the wrong way, and you know what, you are going to nowhere.
With time and effort we can achieve great things, that's for sure, but effort applied without logic gives us nothing. I'll be honest and i'd say you are wasting your time, and as result, others are wasting time trying to help you with an exercise i find stupid and noobish.
I've lurking this thread since years, and i'm astonished, perplexed to see that too many people still don't use triangles or pentagons in their meshes. But if they are 2 of the 3 pillars of subdivison modeling, for god's sake!!. It may be the result of not trying harder? not knowing anything about 3d modelling?. Do you really have 7 years doing 3D? really? quality years? 5-12+ hours per day of modeling!? i have very serious doubts.
Frankpolygon nailed it with its reply and help. kudos for him.
You could save time, effort, and have a clean and better topology using triangles where they are needed. And Pentagons aswell. A Quad polygon would be like a sheep, and triangles and pentagons shepherd dogs.
If you can't imagine it, a 100% quad mesh has "poles", and there's always poles with 3 and 5 edges. So you can use triangles and pentagons without fear in the lvl 0 of a subdivision model and take advantage of them. And later, if you need more geo, apply a subdivision iteration and that's all. That's the methodology of subdivision modelling, you are not making a "raw" mesh directly.
Try harder, but try harder to be smarter in the way you work. In a job we can't waste time, and we are asked a lot. You can't pretend to do a "hyperbole". The topology is defined by the shape and edge flow. It's not intelligent to do a sphere with a box cut in the way you pretended. If I were your teacher, and you present me that sphere, I would suspend you without doubts. And i'm not being harsh.
If you want to get faster, don't mimic/copy what others do, analyze the what and the why. Try to understand if something could be done in a faster way instead of copying a way of doing things. Don't waste your years without trying to understand what others are doing. We work with geometry, and geometry is maths. don't memorize tutorials, understand them, and if you can, improve them.
You either completely misunderstood my goal or I'm still horrible at communication.
I want to create meshes that:
- can have any shape that could possibly exist
- are lightweight (to share, to load, to have in viewport)
- easy to modify (no rebaking anything, no dependencies on specific software or plugins)
- clean (easy to understand by someone else)
And I want it fairly fast.
Let's say I want this thing:
Doesn't matter what it is. I want it precisely this way, up to a milimeter, no compromises. You'll say: "just sculpt it"! Ok, but then I have a high poly mesh that I can't easily unwrap, load or share. "Then retopo and bake normals". Ok, but I can't easily modify it, I have to retopo and rebake every time, I have to share it with textures. "Well then don't bake normals, just do a full retopo for subd with details". So... why wouldn't I just model it that way in the first place? Because that's exactly what I'm trying to learn here.
If you can't imagine it, a 100% quad mesh has "poles", and there's always poles with 3 and 5 edges. So you can use triangles and pentagons without fear
I don't know why you all sticked to that "100% quad mesh". I used "all quad" as a synonym of subdivision modeling - a mesh that doesn't have pinching or artifacts when smooth is applied. Of course I'll leave triangles or ngons if they're on a flat surface, not causing pinching etc. But that's not my case. My case is a sharp-edged incision on an organic shape. Sphere is there just as an example - like I already said - it could be any soft, curvy shape and the pyramid incision could be inserted at any angle.
ned the reason they are explaining it the way they are is because what you expect is a pipe dream and not realistic. You have just said you want is every possible thing that professional artists must make choices about throughout their day to day. You just want a perfect pipeline where programs know what you want before you do it. Reality doesn't work like this. Polygons don't work like this. Sub-D doesn't work like this. Arrimus is a talented artist but as mentioned it's concept and he has been doing that kind of concept for a while so he knows what geo and kind of shapes can go in various geo types because he has experienced similar forms before.
He isn't doing things completely random even though it may seem he is. If you want that thing work within the bounds of the technology or get to work with modeling in clay and photoscanning things. You want clean geo without the work of creating and maintaining clean geo? No plugins? Too bad. It just isn't how things work, or you better be damn good at coming up with the technical methodology and programming as to how a machine could do it.
You are spending more time bashing your head at this hypothetical problem which is one you've fabricated presumably because you are having an art block at the moment or are finding frustration in your work. Stop trying to find ways around things that thousands of professionals everyday are dealing with and haven't found a better method. Just bunker down and do the work man, you have skill, refine it, grow with it, and learn. If it is speed you want making things harder for yourself doesn't help. Try also to stop consuming tutorials and what not, some are scripted and planned before hand. Some people are just really fast. Some people take forever and do weird things. Focus on yourself and not what others are doing and stop comparing yourself.
If big groundbreaking geometry modeling tools suddenly come out of the woodwork that allow for this freeform auto clean modeling everyone will know and a lot of people will be happy. This is not what's happening currently though nor in the foreseeable future.
Take some time, maybe step away from tutorials and other peoples work or even your own. Realize that every one of us on Polycount and outside have failed much more than we have succeeded and that everyone grows and learns and performs differently. Give yourself a break man.
So you simply want to use sub-d modeling. Then why not align the sphere
cutout properly the way it should be done with sub-d modeling?
Because maybe I would want a shape like this.
How do you use your edge aligning trick here? You can't, you just have to figure out how to insert those triangles at any possible angle, into any possible geometry. How many times do I have to explain that the sphere is just a hypothetical example?
@ned_poreyra you are making things more complicated than needed. Those examples can be modelled with subdivision modelling, but it's a total waste of time because those shapes are not very realistic for hard surface models. You'll need too much time for a small piece, and you'll need to work with a good amount of polygons, a very dense mesh. The mesh wouldn't be the typical low poly subdiv model.
For those kind of weird meshes is faster to use Meshmachine for Blender, or Zremesher used wisely in Zbrush.
Anyways, if you want to do that in subdivision modelling, you would need to do booleans or mesh projections/inserts and mesh cleanups like crazy. We also have kitbash tools. Don't forget to always use subdiv primitives/meshes as boolean operators.
I've been trying to model a helmet lately (in Maya, no ZBrush) as practice for hard surface subd modeling as opposed to sculpt + retopo.
However, I'm stuck trying to figure out how to best connect these different shapes with optimal topology while preserving the sharp insets in the visor as seen in the reference image.
I modeled the base of the helmet using a cylinder scaled then moved into place via soft selection, is there a better way to get a more accurate curve for this kind of shape using pure subd? I'm using holding edges to keep parts of the visor sharp but that seems to cause some shading issues with super visible seams, would changing edge hardness/softness fix this?
In ZBrush I'd just take a sphere and gizmo extrude it, dynamesh and go to town, any general workflow tips for approaching this type of model (hardsurface but organic) in pure subd with interesting shapes and insets would be greatly appreciated.
Should I be modeling each piece separately like my current attempt or should I model out a half sphere + extrude out the cylindrical base and then add on the visor and other parts later? Then boolean the different intersections?
Hey guys! I've been working on my subd modeling lately and one of my challenges was a Clone Trooper helmet. I've run into some issues with my usual workflow on this as I've modeled separate pieces using different techniques making it a little difficult to combine without pinching. How would I also best ensure the shapes line up because as it stands the base is not following the same curvature as the rest of the helmet, and simply bridging edges causes some nasty shading issues.
Any general workflow tips for how to approach this type of model would be appreciated, It's definitely a nice puzzle when compared to the zbrush gizmo extrude + dynamesh and going to town with a clay brush.
I've posted the wireframe of my current progress as well as the reference image with different problem areas circled. As it stands the base is modeled using a cylinder (16 sides) and soft selection to move vertices into place, is there a way to make it conform more accurately to the shape in the reference image in perspective? Looking at it just feels off but I can't place my finger on why. Any advice regarding the topology for the visor and cheek regions as well as the inset/cutout area in the back of the helmet would be greatly appreciated.
Should I change up how I approach the model? The shapes didn't seem coherent enough to block out with a cylinder and sphere + extrusions but that is most likely just my inexperience with modeling this type of object using SubD.
Getting accurate curvature has also been tricky, parts of the visor are off when compared to the reference and adding something like a lattice deformer to fix it causes some strange shading issues. Any advice for that? Should I be using curves in Maya for the base and visor?
So you simply want to use sub-d modeling. Then why not align the sphere
cutout properly the way it should be done with sub-d modeling?
Because maybe I would want a shape like this.
How do you use your edge aligning trick here? You can't, you just have to figure out how to insert those triangles at any possible angle, into any possible geometry. How many times do I have to explain that the sphere is just a hypothetical example?
actually thats a pretty easy example to do with subd fast, notice that i added ass tier edgeloops in 2 mins and still got a smooth result. What perna is saying is 100% true.
There are many articles etc explaining why modeling clean stuff and mastering subd is the best base before attempting other workflows. It doesnt mean you HAVE to, it would just help you immensely.
I tried making sky whale's wing again and decided to put wirrexx's idea to the test. Somehow, the subsurf isn't working as well as I thought. Is there a solution to this?
@IronLover64 You have the basic idea but the difference is that Wirrexx's cage mesh has support loops.
Here's a breakdown of what happens to the shape when subdivision smoothing is applied: The basic shapes look fine on their own but when subdivision is applied the smoothing effect deforms the mesh and the shape melts away.
This happens because the subdivision algorithm takes the existing geometry elements, averages the distance between them and adds additional vertices at these averaged points. In a mesh without sufficient geometry to describe the shape this will result in severe deformation and visual artifacts. Granted this is an overly simplistic description of what's happening but that's the basic idea.
Additional details on this process can be found in the Polycount wiki:
Here's an example of a basic mesh that accurately describes the desired shape until subdivision is applied. The smoothing effect of the subdivision algorithm deforms the mesh and it no longer describes the desired shape.
In the base mesh the distance between the existing geometry elements is rather large and this means the mesh smoothing will be very pronounced. Adding additional edge loops near existing edges effectively reduces the distance to adjacent geometry elements and this can be used to control the smoothing behavior of the subdivision modifier.
These additional edge loops are often referred to as control loops or support loops since they control the smoothing effect and support the overall shape of the surface. Support loops can be added with tools like cut, insert edge loop, inset, chamfer, bevel, etc or they can be created by leaving space around additional mesh details when merging shapes, extruding new geometry, etc.
Manually adding every single support loop or worse yet cutting in each segment of each support loop can be extremely time consuming, inefficient and inaccurate. Tools and modifiers like chamfer / bevel can be used to automatically generate accurate and consistent edge loops. Combined with other tools like edge loop select this strategy becomes a quick and consistent way to add support loops.
Here's an example showing the selection (done in a couple of clicks with edge loop select) and the support loops added by running a chamfer / bevel operation. Below that is an example of how edge width (the distance between the outer edges and the support loop) impacts the subdivision smoothing effect. A narrower edge width creates tighter smoothing round overs and wider edge widths creates softer smoothing round overs.
Adjusting the edge width allows for the creation of hard edges or soft rounded transitions with the same amount of geometry. Where accuracy is concerned, it may be desirable to add the rounded edges to cage mesh but there's a trade-off between efficency and accuracy here. For most general subdivision modeling this will be passable.
Here's an example of using the loop-select-chamfer strategy to quickly add support loops to the basic shape. Note the difference in edge width between the first and second step and how this effects the smoothing behavior. Two additional support loops are inserted towards the end of the shape to help reduce the smoothing effect that occurs over the long distance between the geometry in the middle and ends of the shape.
It's also worth mentioning that the more vertical topology layout is causing some pinching artifacts along the outer edges. These issues are resolved when the outer support loops are added but could potentially be more problematic on rounded shapes. This is where alternate topology strategies and segment matching on intersecting shape geometry becomes important.
Here's a variation of the same process with a more horizontal topology layout. The first set of edge loops are added with an insert edge loop operation and subsequent support loops are added with loop-select-chamfer operations. Note how this topology doesn't generate pinching artifacts along the outer edges and uses less geometry overall which makes the mesh easier to work with.
Here's another example which uses n-gons and the loop-select-chamfer strategy to maximize time efficiency and reduce manual work.
Blocking out the basic geometry and routing topology is the first part of the subdivision modeling process and adding in support loops is the second part. Though there's a fair amount of shape related questions in this thread, many more are fundamentally about the strategies used to add support loops to the mesh while maintaining a higher degree of time and resource efficiency. When studying subdivision modeling solutions and strategies it's important to focus on how the topology is routed and where the support loops are placed.
Another issue with the mesh in question is the entire mesh is set to hard shading which is producing a faceted effect. Here's some additional documentation from the Blender manual on subdivision and mesh shading modes:
This isn't pointed at anyone in particular. It's just some thoughts I've had on the topic of learning subdivision modeling.
One of the problems (in general) with learning about subdivision modeling is there's a lot of dogma and misconception about topology and modeling strategies. Some of this is based in fact (since there are very specific and contextual reasons behind certain approaches to subdivision modeling) but for most game modeling tasks (hard surface props in particular) a lot of these so called rules are, at best, counter productive.
Where this becomes problematic is a lot of of tutorials present these rules as absolute fact, without providing adequate context as to why a certain strategy must be used, when it's acceptable to deviate from it and why it may even be desirable to deviate. Quads only, working off a dense grid and avoiding Booleans and N-gons completely are just a few of these absolute statements that are used as a crutch to hide a lack of technical knowledge and understanding. Qualifying or verifying the validity of these ideas will help filter out this sort thing.
The key to learning this process is to research what other game artists are doing, why they're doing it and then testing these strategies to see if they apply to your particular project and evaluate whether or not it works for you. After that it pretty much comes down to practicing and testing. Getting better at 3D modeling in general and subdivision modeling in specific requires a near constant cycle of researching, testing and evaluating until the skill set develops and a fundamental understanding of the processes is established.
This thread is a great resource so definitely take the time to go back, search, skim, read, do a site restricted image search here, etc. Really appreciate everyone who participates here by asking and answering questions.
Hey guys, first post here. Been trawling this page for all the brilliant information available for what must be at least a year. Anyhow, first time I've been stumped on something for a while so I thought I might as well give y'all a shout.
Basically I'm working on a post-apocalypse rifle in Maya and I wanted to put a scope on it, so I'm modeling the scope mount off of a Mosin Nagant Sniper rifle. I was basically done - just looking over for any pinching. I found two points with pinching that I've been unable to fix, they're not awful by any case but It'd definitely bother me if I just left them there. I feel like I'm missing something really painfully obvious, I've messed around on a simplified version of the geometry but everything I've tried so far has failed to get rid of it - some things made it a little less obvious but I still wasn't satisfied. Simplified object geometry. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Hey guys, first post here. Been trawling this page for all the brilliant information available for what must be at least a year. Anyhow, first time I've been stumped on something for a while so I thought I might as well give y'all a shout.
Basically I'm working on a post-apocalypse rifle in Maya and I wanted to put a scope on it, so I'm modeling the scope mount off of a Mosin Nagant Sniper rifle. I was basically done - just looking over for any pinching. I found two points with pinching that I've been unable to fix, they're not awful by any case but It'd definitely bother me if I just left them there. I feel like I'm missing something really painfully obvious, I've messed around on a simplified version of the geometry but everything I've tried so far has failed to get rid of it - some things made it a little less obvious but I still wasn't satisfied. Simplified object geometry. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
you just need aditional support loops to strenghten that part.
Hey guys, first post here. Been trawling this page for all the brilliant information available for what must be at least a year. Anyhow, first time I've been stumped on something for a while so I thought I might as well give y'all a shout.
Basically I'm working on a post-apocalypse rifle in Maya and I wanted to put a scope on it, so I'm modeling the scope mount off of a Mosin Nagant Sniper rifle. I was basically done - just looking over for any pinching. I found two points with pinching that I've been unable to fix, they're not awful by any case but It'd definitely bother me if I just left them there. I feel like I'm missing something really painfully obvious, I've messed around on a simplified version of the geometry but everything I've tried so far has failed to get rid of it - some things made it a little less obvious but I still wasn't satisfied. Simplified object geometry. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
you just need aditional support loops to strenghten that part.
Thanks for the speedy reply!
Your suggestion completely removed the pinching along the flat face which was my main worry. I could honestly happily leave it as it is now, however for curiosity/perfectionist sake. From this above view would it be possible to get this point to transition with a harder edge, as in do you think it's possible to remove that ledge? Thanks Again!
Hey guys, first post here. Been trawling this page for all the brilliant information available for what must be at least a year. Anyhow, first time I've been stumped on something for a while so I thought I might as well give y'all a shout.
Basically I'm working on a post-apocalypse rifle in Maya and I wanted to put a scope on it, so I'm modeling the scope mount off of a Mosin Nagant Sniper rifle. I was basically done - just looking over for any pinching. I found two points with pinching that I've been unable to fix, they're not awful by any case but It'd definitely bother me if I just left them there.
I feel like I'm missing something really painfully obvious, I've messed around on a simplified version of the geometry but everything I've tried so far has failed to get rid of it - some things made it a little less obvious but I still wasn't satisfied.
Simplified object geometry.
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
you just need aditional support loops to strenghten that part.
Thanks for the speedy reply!
Your suggestion completely removed the pinching along the flat face which was my main worry. I could honestly happily leave it as it is now, however for curiosity/perfectionist sake. From this above view would it be possible to get this point to transition with a harder edge, as in do you think it's possible to remove that ledge? Thanks Again!
would you mind showing me the wireframe on that part?
Hey guys, first post here. Been trawling this page for all the brilliant information available for what must be at least a year. Anyhow, first time I've been stumped on something for a while so I thought I might as well give y'all a shout.
Basically I'm working on a post-apocalypse rifle in Maya and I wanted to put a scope on it, so I'm modeling the scope mount off of a Mosin Nagant Sniper rifle. I was basically done - just looking over for any pinching. I found two points with pinching that I've been unable to fix, they're not awful by any case but It'd definitely bother me if I just left them there.
I feel like I'm missing something really painfully obvious, I've messed around on a simplified version of the geometry but everything I've tried so far has failed to get rid of it - some things made it a little less obvious but I still wasn't satisfied.
Simplified object geometry.
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
you just need aditional support loops to strenghten that part.
Thanks for the speedy reply!
Your suggestion completely removed the pinching along the flat face which was my main worry. I could honestly happily leave it as it is now, however for curiosity/perfectionist sake. From this above view would it be possible to get this point to transition with a harder edge, as in do you think it's possible to remove that ledge? Thanks Again!
would you mind showing me the wireframe on that part?
Hey guys, first post here. Been trawling this page for all the brilliant information available for what must be at least a year. Anyhow, first time I've been stumped on something for a while so I thought I might as well give y'all a shout.
Basically I'm working on a post-apocalypse rifle in Maya and I wanted to put a scope on it, so I'm modeling the scope mount off of a Mosin Nagant Sniper rifle. I was basically done - just looking over for any pinching. I found two points with pinching that I've been unable to fix, they're not awful by any case but It'd definitely bother me if I just left them there.
I feel like I'm missing something really painfully obvious, I've messed around on a simplified version of the geometry but everything I've tried so far has failed to get rid of it - some things made it a little less obvious but I still wasn't satisfied.
Simplified object geometry.
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
you just need aditional support loops to strenghten that part.
Thanks for the speedy reply!
Your suggestion completely removed the pinching along the flat face which was my main worry. I could honestly happily leave it as it is now, however for curiosity/perfectionist sake. From this above view would it be possible to get this point to transition with a harder edge, as in do you think it's possible to remove that ledge? Thanks Again!
would you mind showing me the wireframe on that part?
Hey guys, first post here. Been trawling this page for all the brilliant information available for what must be at least a year. Anyhow, first time I've been stumped on something for a while so I thought I might as well give y'all a shout.
Basically I'm working on a post-apocalypse rifle in Maya and I wanted to put a scope on it, so I'm modeling the scope mount off of a Mosin Nagant Sniper rifle. I was basically done - just looking over for any pinching. I found two points with pinching that I've been unable to fix, they're not awful by any case but It'd definitely bother me if I just left them there.
I feel like I'm missing something really painfully obvious, I've messed around on a simplified version of the geometry but everything I've tried so far has failed to get rid of it - some things made it a little less obvious but I still wasn't satisfied.
Simplified object geometry.
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
you just need aditional support loops to strenghten that part.
Thanks for the speedy reply!
Your suggestion completely removed the pinching along the flat face which was my main worry. I could honestly happily leave it as it is now, however for curiosity/perfectionist sake. From this above view would it be possible to get this point to transition with a harder edge, as in do you think it's possible to remove that ledge? Thanks Again!
would you mind showing me the wireframe on that part?
Sure
I've fixed the messy geometry, however the problem persists. I think, however many support edge loops I add won't disappear. As I've illustrated above the above piece (red) want's to curve that edge and the below (blue) want's to curve in the opposite direction. Thus it has to generate the ledge as it comes into contact to transition. Since as far as I know there isn't a way to make 90 angles when subdividing since technically irl there is no hard edges as it is.
Unless you can think of any way to bypass that? Cheers very much for your continued help!
@Domlz Subdivision modeling is more approximate than exact so it's a little unrealistic to expect CAD levels of accuracy from the process. Before sinking a lot of time into removing minor artifacts like this it's worth considering:
Will the artifact be visible when baked down and viewed from an in-game perspective?
Will the texture details cover this artifact? (Dirt, scratches, surface finish, etc.)
Will the player regularly see this area of the model?
Will the player notice the artifact if the area is visible?
If the artifact isn't visible or noticeable because of camera angle, view distance or normal micro surface details then there's marginal value in spending a large amount of time on something this small.
Late war production PU scope mounts had a fairly rough machined surface finish and since this has a post-apocalyptic backstory then it's probable that other normal details like machining marks, wear patterns, dirt and refinishing treatments would overpower minor smoothing artifacts in an out of the way place.
When viewed from a distance the artifact isn't even that noticeable since the edge width is very narrow and the subdivided model is very sharp. It's worth arguing that over sharpened edges on the high poly are more of an issue than this minor smoothing artifact. Edges that sharp won't bake well and can cause issues when the textures mip down. A slightly wider edge width would soften the transitions and draw attention to larger shapes. It's good practice to check edge width from the player perspective and judge the model off of that.
Here's a comparison of three different edge widths viewed at a reasonable distance. When approximating the player's perspective the sharper edges almost disappear completely and the minor smoothing artifact near the shape intersection isn't that noticeable. The softer edges catch more light and this helps highlight the shapes of each surface. Extrapolating this to a normal bake on a smaller texture map and it's likely the sharper edges would be barely visible on the low poly model.
A few ways to reduce this smoothing artifact are: increase the geometry density by adding support loops, even out the distance between the support loops, adjust the topology layout, offset the intersecting shape, use edge creases to sharpen the subdivision smoothing, etc. Below is an example of how using n-gons and less support geometry can reduce or redirect the smoothing stress near the intersection.
Like Wirrexx mentioned: Maintaining a consistent edge width on the support loops and reducing the superfluous edge loops on flat surfaces will make the mesh cleaner and easier to work with. Depending on what's available in your software package, these strategies could be combined with edge creases to help control the sharpness of the subdivided edges near the intersection.
Here's a comparison of double support loops and offset intersection geometry. Adding the offset between the intersecting shapes helps reduce the artifact by reducing the number of transition angles but introduces a jog in the shape that may not be desirable.
To recap:
Evaluate the visibility and severity of the smoothing artifact.
Reduce smoothing stress by adjusting the topology.
Maintain a reasonable and consistent edge width.
Use flat surfaces to terminate edge loops.
Subdivision modeling has a limited degree of accuracy so avoid over
complicating support geometry on flat surfaces or focusing on minor
smoothing issues that won't normally be visible to the player. Test
different mesh densities, topology layouts and periodically evaluate the
model from the player's perspective. Consider texture based
micro-surface normal details that may cover over minor smoothing
artifacts. If something isn't visible or causing major issues then it's
passable. Overly dense meshes with excess support loops can be difficult
to edit so try to use the minimum amount of geometry necessary and end
excess support loops on flat surfaces.
@Domlz Subdivision modeling is more approximate than exact so it's a little unrealistic to expect CAD levels of accuracy from the process. Before sinking a lot of time into removing minor artifacts like this it's worth considering:
Will the artifact be visible when baked down and viewed from an in-game perspective?
Will the texture details cover this artifact? (Dirt, scratches, surface finish, etc.)
Will the player regularly see this area of the model?
Will the player notice the artifact if the area is visible?
If the artifact isn't visible or noticeable because of camera angle, view distance or normal micro surface details then there's marginal value in spending a large amount of time on something this small.
Late war production PU scope mounts had a fairly rough machined surface finish and since this has a post-apocalyptic backstory then it's probable that other normal details like machining marks, wear patterns, dirt and refinishing treatments would overpower minor smoothing artifacts in an out of the way place.
When viewed from a distance the artifact isn't even that noticeable since the edge width is very narrow and the subdivided model is very sharp. It's worth arguing that over sharpened edges on the high poly are more of an issue than this minor smoothing artifact. Edges that sharp won't bake well and can cause issues when the textures mip down. A slightly wider edge width would soften the transitions and draw attention to larger shapes. It's good practice to check edge width from the player perspective and judge the model off of that.
Here's a comparison of three different edge widths viewed at a reasonable distance. When approximating the player's perspective the sharper edges almost disappear completely and the minor smoothing artifact near the shape intersection isn't that noticeable. The softer edges catch more light and this helps highlight the shapes of each surface. Extrapolating this to a normal bake on a smaller texture map and it's likely the sharper edges would be barely visible on the low poly model.
A few ways to reduce this smoothing artifact are: increase the geometry density by adding support loops, even out the distance between the support loops, adjust the topology layout, offset the intersecting shape, use edge creases to sharpen the subdivision smoothing, etc. Below is an example of how using n-gons and less support geometry can reduce or redirect the smoothing stress near the intersection.
Like Wirrexx mentioned: Maintaining a consistent edge width on the support loops and reducing the superfluous edge loops on flat surfaces will make the mesh cleaner and easier to work with. Depending on what's available in your software package, these strategies could be combined with edge creases to help control the sharpness of the subdivided edges near the intersection.
Here's a comparison of double support loops and offset intersection geometry. Adding the offset between the intersecting shapes helps reduce the artifact by reducing the number of transition angles but introduces a jog in the shape that may not be desirable.
To recap:
Evaluate the visibility and severity of the smoothing artifact.
Reduce smoothing stress by adjusting the topology.
Maintain a reasonable and consistent edge width.
Use flat surfaces to terminate edge loops.
Subdivision modeling has a limited degree of accuracy so avoid over
complicating support geometry on flat surfaces or focusing on minor
smoothing issues that won't normally be visible to the player. Test
different mesh densities, topology layouts and periodically evaluate the
model from the player's perspective. Consider texture based
micro-surface normal details that may cover over minor smoothing
artifacts. If something isn't visible or causing major issues then it's
passable. Overly dense meshes with excess support loops can be difficult
to edit so try to use the minimum amount of geometry necessary and end
excess support loops on flat surfaces.
Wow, thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed reply. I'd already come to the conclusion that it wasn't going to be seen from the players pov but I guess I was being a little pedantic for perfectionist sake. I haven't had the chance to do a whole lot of baking yet, so this really is a treasure trove of useful information for me moving forward.
This might be the simplest way, using just the bevel tool with a selection of edges, and some edge support loops.
Using 3 sided bevels/chamfers we can obtain good rounded results, with enough details on corners. Blender do the bevel job very well.
And this is the "Pentagon" way, a tricky one with a nice smooth look with H-type topologies (i just posted one direction). You must understand how to use them and why. With just a simple chamfer, all is done, and we may add some additional edge loops. The final mesh is also very clean and you can control the bevel radius, if you want, of course.
@Domlz I found a gif i posted back in 2009. In subdivision modelling you should avoid the common mistake of "edge propagation". It only will give you more work and an ugly mesh, a mess and nothing clean. It produces too many artifacts on curved shapes aswell. You can work with less polygons and obtain a better result. Here's the example, using support edge loops.
I've been struggling to find means to an end for days now with the problem I'm facing here. I'm trying to model an intersection here and while I was able to establish the correct shape, I just can't figure out a way to fill in the middle with healthy topology. I have an ngon sitting inside right now and it's giving me such a headache. Am I doing something wrong here (I merged two roads into one) or am I too clueless to find a solution to getting the proper flow? Attached is an image that shows the current state of the model on the left, and what I'd like to achieve on the right. Thank you all in advance!
@apb Your goal and use aren't quite clear, except that it's a road. Is subdivision important here? How about textures? Would it be easier to not have the two overlap in the middle?
I've been struggling to find means to an end for days now with the problem I'm facing here. I'm trying to model an intersection here and while I was able to establish the correct shape, I just can't figure out a way to fill in the middle with healthy topology. I have an ngon sitting inside right now and it's giving me such a headache. Am I doing something wrong here (I merged two roads into one) or am I too clueless to find a solution to getting the proper flow? Attached is an image that shows the current state of the model on the left, and what I'd like to achieve on the right. Thank you all in advance!
@apb are you looking for a clean subdivision topology? or just two "roads" intersecting?
For the second, wirrexx gave you a solution.
If you are looking for the first one, here's 2 solutions. Quads only, and with the Pentagonal way, useful in Subdivision Level 0. In any case, you will only need to work in a 1/4 of the mesh, and it's a matter of a few minutes. Hope it helps.
Replies
Your last post shows your main problem. Working on subdivision levels all the time is the easiest way to messy model that you simply can't edit.
I will give you a little bit different approach to this. And that is: Take a break. Don't get me wrong, i don't want to discurage you at all. What i mean is to take a break from this specific model. You are throwing everything at it, and you will burn sooner or later. Learning through frustration is not that good.
To be honest, i think this model is super tricky to start with. It is fairly simple, it does look very simple. But modeling a model with this amount of nice curves all over is very difficult. And this is bad place to start learning fundamentals of modeling.
That is why i recommend you to take a break. For a week, for a month and do something else. Something simplier, to learn different workflows and solutions. Then go back to this model, and you will see a massive difference. There is one more bonus to that and this is also something very important. Success. Almost any success boosts confidence, and solidifies knowledge. You have a finished solution, that you know is working, and you can apply it. A lot of ppl before proper work, does some kind of warmup. Modeling something small and fairly easy, just to relax and boost said confidence.
Now going back to first thing i said. You are misunderstanding a lot of feedback here. Even without reading anything, looking on pictures ppl posted, you can get what is common ground in every of them. And that is simple geometry. Subdividing is just a cherry on top. But the base model is very simple. Managable. Easy to edit. You build whole form like that, and then work on subdividing it. You are just starting with wrong step.
About that sculting thing. Don't do that to yourself. Sculpting will not solve any of your problems and will add magnitude of it's own. Sculpting is different and hard skill. Sculpting nice hardsurface is just a completly different beast. Work on base skills first.
There is a perfect topic on this forum i think to learn all of this:
https://polycount.com/discussion/129938/week-8-the-weekly-hard-surface-challenge
Those are different, easy and hard hardsurface problems. But there you can find solutions to all of them, wireframes, shaded models and different approaches to problems. Do some of these models, do all of them if you feel like it. There is even more:
https://polycount.com/discussion/132146/week-40-the-weekly-hard-surface-challenge
Another 30 weeks of challanges. Trust me and i bet most of ppl here will agree, this will skill you up much much faster. Work on it for some time and then do your space ship.
And if you want to persist on this model, there is another thing you can try. Instead of subdividing model, do the oposite. Limit yourself. Try to make whole shape and use max 1000 tri or poly. Make it 2k if it is too hard. Build a full base mesh. Edit it nicely. And then you can work on each part to make it look good smoothed. Just don't go straight to 10-20k, that amount could be a nice mid poly model ready for subd including support loops.
Best of luck to you. You will get it, sooner or later.
I recommend you take a few steps back and use a less complex object for practice.
Try to get comfortable with subd modelling first.
Generally if a surface is continuous, like the wing and body, you should model it as a continuous surface, otherwise don't.
Wirexx already showed you how to do this.
BTW, I think all time wasted with logic in modelling is justified (playing videogames would be different, and that's what too many people do instead of improving).
If ned_poreyra says he's practicing to get better/faster, well that's good, and there's nothing wrong with that. Doing things in a more difficult way makes us to analyze things better, but one thing is this, and other that "sphere". Like it's said here, your doing it in the wrong way, and you know what, you are going to nowhere.
With time and effort we can achieve great things, that's for sure, but effort applied without logic gives us nothing. I'll be honest and i'd say you are wasting your time, and as result, others are wasting time trying to help you with an exercise i find stupid and noobish.
I've lurking this thread since years, and i'm astonished, perplexed to see that too many people still don't use triangles or pentagons in their meshes. But if they are 2 of the 3 pillars of subdivison modeling, for god's sake!!. It may be the result of not trying harder? not knowing anything about 3d modelling?. Do you really have 7 years doing 3D? really? quality years? 5-12+ hours per day of modeling!? i have very serious doubts.
Frankpolygon nailed it with its reply and help. kudos for him.
You could save time, effort, and have a clean and better topology using triangles where they are needed. And Pentagons aswell. A Quad polygon would be like a sheep, and triangles and pentagons shepherd dogs.
If you can't imagine it, a 100% quad mesh has "poles", and there's always poles with 3 and 5 edges. So you can use triangles and pentagons without fear in the lvl 0 of a subdivision model and take advantage of them. And later, if you need more geo, apply a subdivision iteration and that's all. That's the methodology of subdivision modelling, you are not making a "raw" mesh directly.
Try harder, but try harder to be smarter in the way you work. In a job we can't waste time, and we are asked a lot. You can't pretend to do a "hyperbole".
The topology is defined by the shape and edge flow. It's not intelligent to do a sphere with a box cut in the way you pretended. If I were your teacher, and you present me that sphere, I would suspend you without doubts. And i'm not being harsh.
If you want to get faster, don't mimic/copy what others do, analyze the what and the why. Try to understand if something could be done in a faster way instead of copying a way of doing things. Don't waste your years without trying to understand what others are doing. We work with geometry, and geometry is maths. don't memorize tutorials, understand them, and if you can, improve them.
this is incredible.
For those kind of weird meshes is faster to use Meshmachine for Blender, or Zremesher used wisely in Zbrush.
Anyways, if you want to do that in subdivision modelling, you would need to do booleans or mesh projections/inserts and mesh cleanups like crazy. We also have kitbash tools. Don't forget to always use subdiv primitives/meshes as boolean operators.
this is an example of mesh projection:
and this one aswell, with cuts:
I've been trying to model a helmet lately (in Maya, no ZBrush) as practice for hard surface subd modeling as opposed to sculpt + retopo.
However, I'm stuck trying to figure out how to best connect these different shapes with optimal topology while preserving the sharp insets in the visor as seen in the reference image.
I modeled the base of the helmet using a cylinder scaled then moved into place via soft selection, is there a better way to get a more accurate curve for this kind of shape using pure subd? I'm using holding edges to keep parts of the visor sharp but that seems to cause some shading issues with super visible seams, would changing edge hardness/softness fix this?
In ZBrush I'd just take a sphere and gizmo extrude it, dynamesh and go to town, any general workflow tips for approaching this type of model (hardsurface but organic) in pure subd with interesting shapes and insets would be greatly appreciated.
Should I be modeling each piece separately like my current attempt or should I model out a half sphere + extrude out the cylindrical base and then add on the visor and other parts later? Then boolean the different intersections?
Thanks!
Any general workflow tips for how to approach this type of model would be appreciated, It's definitely a nice puzzle when compared to the zbrush gizmo extrude + dynamesh and going to town with a clay brush.
I've posted the wireframe of my current progress as well as the reference image with different problem areas circled. As it stands the base is modeled using a cylinder (16 sides) and soft selection to move vertices into place, is there a way to make it conform more accurately to the shape in the reference image in perspective? Looking at it just feels off but I can't place my finger on why. Any advice regarding the topology for the visor and cheek regions as well as the inset/cutout area in the back of the helmet would be greatly appreciated.
Should I change up how I approach the model? The shapes didn't seem coherent enough to block out with a cylinder and sphere + extrusions but that is most likely just my inexperience with modeling this type of object using SubD.
Getting accurate curvature has also been tricky, parts of the visor are off when compared to the reference and adding something like a lattice deformer to fix it causes some strange shading issues. Any advice for that? Should I be using curves in Maya for the base and visor?
Thanks!
There are many articles etc explaining why modeling clean stuff and mastering subd is the best base before attempting other workflows. It doesnt mean you HAVE to, it would just help you immensely.
Basically I'm working on a post-apocalypse rifle in Maya and I wanted to put a scope on it, so I'm modeling the scope mount off of a Mosin Nagant Sniper rifle. I was basically done - just looking over for any pinching.
I found two points with pinching that I've been unable to fix, they're not awful by any case but It'd definitely bother me if I just left them there.
I feel like I'm missing something really painfully obvious, I've messed around on a simplified version of the geometry but everything I've tried so far has failed to get rid of it - some things made it a little less obvious but I still wasn't satisfied.
Simplified object geometry.
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Your suggestion completely removed the pinching along the flat face which was my main worry. I could honestly happily leave it as it is now, however for curiosity/perfectionist sake. From this above view would it be possible to get this point to transition with a harder edge, as in do you think it's possible to remove that ledge?
Thanks Again!
would you mind showing me the wireframe on that part?
I've fixed the messy geometry, however the problem persists. I think, however many support edge loops I add won't disappear. As I've illustrated above the above piece (red) want's to curve that edge and the below (blue) want's to curve in the opposite direction. Thus it has to generate the ledge as it comes into contact to transition. Since as far as I know there isn't a way to make 90 angles when subdividing since technically irl there is no hard edges as it is.
Unless you can think of any way to bypass that? Cheers very much for your continued help!
Thanks very much!
This might be the simplest way, using just the bevel tool with a selection of edges, and some edge support loops.
Using 3 sided bevels/chamfers we can obtain good rounded results, with enough details on corners. Blender do the bevel job very well.
And this is the "Pentagon" way, a tricky one with a nice smooth look with H-type topologies (i just posted one direction). You must understand how to use them and why. With just a simple chamfer, all is done, and we may add some additional edge loops. The final mesh is also very clean and you can control the bevel radius, if you want, of course.
A bigger bevel, smooth result. Shading - wireframe - Subdivided x1
I had a lot of these in my blog, but i lost them.
Attached is an image that shows the current state of the model on the left, and what I'd like to achieve on the right.
Thank you all in advance!
For the second, wirrexx gave you a solution.
If you are looking for the first one, here's 2 solutions. Quads only, and with the Pentagonal way, useful in Subdivision Level 0. In any case, you will only need to work in a 1/4 of the mesh, and it's a matter of a few minutes. Hope it helps.