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

Replies

  • sixbysix
    Offline / Send Message
    sixbysix polycounter lvl 5
    Thank you both! @sacboi ; I think how easy it is to manipulate the mesh (make additional cuts etc) is also a consideration, wouldn't you say?
  • KungFuCactus
    Hi, I use Blender and have been trying to make these diamond shaped spikes (see Figure 1) on the back of this revolver's hammer. So far I haven't been able to find a solution that creates them without causing massive smoothing errors. The final model will be baked down to make a game-ready asset.

    Figure 1 - Diamond Spikes on Revolver Hammer



    At present, I have tried projecting a grid of squares onto my geometry and remaking this part of the hammer with the correct kind of geometry and bending it to shape. So far I've been going for a couple hours and I can't think of anything else. I would be grateful of any help (see Figure 2 for current state). If you happen to use other software I am well versed enough to translate some techniques into Blender.

    Figure 2 - Current State



    In addition, I would like to ask if using subsurf modelling is the best way to go about creating hard surface models. This revolver project has been going on for a while, and I spend most of my time struggling to fix all the issues so that the subsurf algorithm won't mess up the smoothing rather than actually creating the shapes. The boolean workflow sounds promising, but I know it has difficulty making smooth curves easily. Sculpting is very versatile, but I don't know very much about it. Any information about a good workflow for hardsurface modelling would be much appreciated.
  • Mahaweilo
    Hi @KungFuCactus
    The easiest way to get those Grid details on your Geometry would be just using Normal / Height Details in your texturing program. If for some reason this isn't sufficient enough I'd create a plane with the general outline of the diamond details and project / wrap this plane on top of your existing geometry so you basically have a floater with just those diamond grids.

    Yes subsurface modeling is the standard practice for creating hard surface models. What you can do is try and use multiple workflows in one piece they don't have to be exclusive. I often use the boolean workflow in conjunction with just normal subsurface modeling and you can do a damage pass in your sculpting packet of choice. Remember if you bake down your details from a high poly model it doesn't matter what the wireframe looks like as long as you have a clean low poly :D

    If you want to know more information about good hardsurface modelling workflows check out the polycount wiki as there are tons of articles explaining more about the different workflows. Also this thread is a gold mine of information :)
  • Zoddo
    Offline / Send Message
    Zoddo node
    I am a Max user and am currently at work, so can't show any images.
    What I would do to create those diamond shapes on the cock;
    Is to create more loops, and from the quads > extrude all the faces that you want to become diamonds outwards > scale everything down a little bit > create meshflow or crease sets to make the diamond shapes sharp for the turbosmoothing.
    And then you can bake that detail onto a low poly mesh.

  • Zoddo
    Offline / Send Message
    Zoddo node
    @Thanez That's a nice way of doing it. My way would be a little more hell with geometry creation.
    Thanks for posting this!
  • sacboi
    Offline / Send Message
    sacboi polycounter

    @KungFuCactus in addition to the above advice offered thus far, another technique that'll achieve the Knurling pattern non-destructively on the hammer is by utilising Blender's modifier stack using the addon Speedflow.


    https://twitter.com/pitiwazou



    ...also in answer too your subd hard surface query, the same applies. Non-destructive workflows are really the cornerstone enabling both efficient and effective asset generation, either pre-rendered or realtime for that matter. As a point of interest I'll link this BlenderArtists thread: 


    NITROX3D: A new hard surface workflow for designers


    An extremely insightful discussion, well practically a dev forum, in all intents and purposes : P

    NITROX3D Manifesto


    An Introduction to Non-Destructive Techniques in Blender for Industrial Designers


    by Chipp Walters


    WHAT IS NITROX3D ?


    NITROX3D is the short name I will use to refer to a collection of non-destructive techniques and strategies for creating HD (Hard Surface) models in Blender. The acronym stands for:


    N on-destructive I terative T echniques for R apid O bject e X ploration in 3D .


    It’s basically a Non-Destructive Hard Surface Modeling. workflow which helps create product and concept designs quickly. The techniques work with the Open Source 3D software Blender and uses Blender’s non-destructive modifiers, which in CAD terms is often referred to as parametric tools.


    The point of parametric CAD software is to allow designers and engineers to go back and change parts of an object’s design, including wall thicknesses, fillets, and boolean operations. These industry CAD systems are expensive, difficult to learn, and have many drawbacks including very high pricing, lack of realtime photoreal renders along with an inherent inability to quickly and easily adjust for proportion. It also focuses on the complete documentation of an object, including draft angles, bosses, rib structures and molding requirements, which are typically not necessary for concept design models.


    All of this complexity makes CAD systems poor choices for designers when they want to quickly ideate on a few concept or product designs for review.


    NITROX3D combines the power of CAD based parametric modeling with the ease of editing found in polygon based modeling. It excels at providing many of the above features but focuses on quick iterative changes for proportion and detail studies. Because NITROX3D works with Blender’s EEVEE rendering subsystem, it provides instantaneos photoreal feedback-- which is most helpful for designers in both reviewing their work and presenting it to others.


    The NITROX3D workflow creates simple polygon geometry which when combined with the power of Blender’s modifier stack, provides fast and iterative parametric modeling-- and has the added advantage of being able to easily change the level of detail (number of polygons) for any object created. This is especially helpful if you’re looking to create Virtual or Augmented Reality experiences for design reviews. Because EEVEE is so fast, 5 minute animations of a product design can be rendered over a lunch break at HD resolutions.


    While not required, NITROX3D can use a Blender only kit bashing system called KIT OPS to drag and drop onto models familiar components such as connectors, displays, screws and bolts, vents and other details with just a few clicks of the mouse. This again expedites the overall concept to finished product design as these objects are already modeled and part of different libraries called KPACKS. More info on KIT OPS can be found at kit-ops.com 42.


    WHAT IS IT NOT?


    NITROX3D is not a set of Blender addons. In fact it uses ZERO addons and instead focuses on the breadth and depth of the native Blender modifiers.


    NITROX3D is not CAD (solid modeling) and it is not meant to take the place of CAD for final design drawings. While NITROX3D can be very accurate, polygon modelers are not typically used in industry to create documentation files. Because Blender and other modelers like 3D Max, Modo, Maya, Cinema 4D, and SketchUp are polygon based, they are called surface modelers. Surface modelers can be used to create manifold or “watertight” models for 3D printing, but not with the ease and accuracy of CAD based solid modeling software used in production environments.


    While basic subdivision surface modeling can be used, it’s important to stress NITROX3D is not a workflow for creating organic objects, like cars. characters, vegetation and the like. It is more tuned to working with geometric hard surface forms.


    While there are certainly some objects which may struggle within the confines of the NITROX3D workflow, it is truly surprising the number of complex objects which do work and can in fact be simplified to only a handful of polygons.


    WHO IS IT FOR?

    This introduction video series targets Industrial and Concept Designers. Designers understand a good part of the time creating a design is the continued refining of scale and proportions after the first pass. NITROX3D allows for multiple iterations of tweaking a design, with the added benefit of being able to use libraries of existing components, including decals and materials, to add the finishing touch to a concept design.
    Being able to actually work in a realtime photoreal environment, allows the designer to visualize exactly how light and reflections will affect surfaces. This critical design phase is called CMF (Color, Material, Finish) and can actually take as much design time as form creation.

    WHO IS IT NOT FOR?

    This first video series is not a comprehensive “HOW TO” for NITROX3D. It is also not a beginner modeling course for new Blender users.
    It’s goal is to explain the NITROX3D workflow and theory, and show many examples. It does not use any of the non-destructive workflow addons (of which there are many), and instead tries to provide a basic foundation and understanding of how the modifiers work with simple geometry to create complex forms.

    WHY THIS VIDEO SERIES?

    I’m a big believer in the 80/20 rule which states “get 80% there with 20% the time and effort.” My hope is many designers think similarly. This new workflow does exactly that, and cuts down on time spent doing customer tweaks.

    Professional designers know iteration is the key to a successful design. Years ago in graduate design school we would create 50 different sketches for a simple radial symmetric 12 ounce shampoo bottle, then choose two favorites and create 50 refinements for them as well. Somewhere between 40-50 you actually find the one that “works.” As designers gather more experience, much of this iterative workflow becomes second nature, but it’s still important to be able to adjust and quickly review new refinements to an existing design.

    Scale and proportion are two of the hallmarks of a great design-- and NITROX3D workflow simplifies both in a huge way. I’ve personally used this workflow on a number of client based projects in the past year, and wanted to continue to pursue it and share my findings by trying to model some existing designs to see just how well it works and how far it can go.

    So, let’s push a few polys around, add some modifiers, and see what we end up with!


  • KungFuCactus
    Thank you Mahaweilo, Zoddo, Thanez, Zoddo, sacboi. Ultimately, I used a heightmap to displace the geometry and constrained the axis to z. This way it wouldn't distort. The object was flat, but I bent it with a Lattice modifier, equivalent to FFD in Max.





    I used this pattern for the heightmap.


  • KungFuCactus
    Hi. The cylinder of this revolver is giving me trouble.





    The method I was using to make it was to create my details on a plane (the concaves, and locks), use an array to duplicate 6 times and make it circular by curving with a circle curve. The main problem I'm having is that the supporting geometry for the details is causing pinching.





    To fix this I made the geometry conform to a high poly cylinder.



    However this is causing other issues.



    Long story short there are too many problems being caused by this fix which was necessitated by the pinching. Please help me find another way to model it, preferably one that still enables me to modify it a bit when I need to.
  • sacboi
    Offline / Send Message
    sacboi polycounter
    Your topology is too dense. Go back a couple of pages, there's solutions modeling indented cylinders flat then using Blender's modifier stack to bend (deform) back into shape. Also for those small indents causing artefacts I'd use floaters instead.
  • FrankPolygon
    Online / Send Message
    FrankPolygon polycounter lvl 3
    @KungFuCactus To build on what sacboi said:

    The uneven line segments around the notches are the problem. Keep the cylinder's edge segments parallel and use them as support loops. Inset and cutout geometry should fall between edge segments and not on edge segments. This can be done in the round or in a flat strip bent into a circle.


    Rough sketch of the basics.
    You may need more geometry to support details.
    Modeled flat and bent round with a 2X subdivision modifier.





  • dizzi
    Offline / Send Message
    dizzi triangle
    Hello, 
    I have been having a lot of trouble with this piece, it has taken me several hours with multiple attempts but i still cannot get it right. 
    when i add thickness and apply the smooth modifier its really hard for me to maintain those edges on the cut in squares, and it just looks awful. I know that i could use booleans but i am being stubborn and i want to learn how to do this in maya.

  • Adesh
    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.
  • FrankPolygon
    Online / Send Message
    FrankPolygon polycounter lvl 3

    Grid topology with even spacing and straight edge loops will fix a lot of those problems. Figure out how much geometry is needed to hold the sharpness in the corners and build off of that. This could be modeled flat and deformed or it could be done in the round. Either way you'll have to match the segments of the curved face plate to the geometry of the diamond cut outs.


    The smallest cut outs are a little ratchet but if it shades correctly then it's fine.
    It all depends on the acceptable level of sharpness and detail.



    Scaling down the inner verts will sharpen the corners but past a certain point you'll need to add more geometry to support the tighter loop.



  • markzhangdesign
    sorry just discover this thread. So figure just post here would be better. So I am using maya to model. any tips on maya helps better. 

    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.


  • Adesh
    @markzhangdesign
     
    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.
  • markzhangdesign
    Adesh said:
    @markzhangdesign
     
    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. 
  • markzhangdesign


    what I have come up with, seems a little better. Still not quite right. :(
  • Adesh
    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. :)
  • markzhangdesign
    Adesh said:
    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. :)
    big appreciation man. will keep practising. 
  • Prutsirs_JayJay

    Ive been trying to figure this out forever. Cylinders with holes in them are the bane of my existance, someone please help :(
  • Zoddo
    Offline / Send Message
    Zoddo node
    @KungFuCactus

    Ive been trying to figure this out forever. Cylinders with holes in them are the bane of my existance, someone please help :(


    your problem is your meshflow

  • Prutsirs_JayJay
    Adesh said:
    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.
  • sacboi
    Offline / Send Message
    sacboi polycounter

    Zoddo said:

    Ive been trying to figure this out forever. Cylinders with holes in them are the bane of my existance, someone please help
    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  
  • Prutsirs_JayJay
    sacboi said:

    Zoddo said:

    Ive been trying to figure this out forever. Cylinders with holes in them are the bane of my existance, someone please help
    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?
  • Paskuihernandez
    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!! 


  • Prutsirs_JayJay
    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..

  • Paskuihernandez
    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.
  • Prutsirs_JayJay
    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?
  • Thanez
    Offline / Send Message
    Thanez greentooth
    Grab those verts, constrict movement to edge and move them back. ortographic top/down view should help line it all up.
  • Prutsirs_JayJay
    Thanez said:
    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.
  • Paskuihernandez
    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
    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!
  • Thanez
    Offline / Send Message
    Thanez greentooth
    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.
  • rage288
    Offline / Send Message
    rage288 polycounter lvl 3
    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?

  • dixi
    Offline / Send Message
    dixi polycounter lvl 6
    Need more geometry. Never make holes in cylinders with minimal geometry.


  • wirrexx
    Offline / Send Message
    wirrexx greentooth
    dixi said:
    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.

  • tynew
    Offline / Send Message
    tynew polycounter lvl 6
    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.

    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.  







  • Paskuihernandez
    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.


  • wirrexx
    Offline / Send Message
    wirrexx greentooth
  • tynew
    Offline / Send Message
    tynew polycounter lvl 6
    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.  
  • FrankPolygon
    Online / Send Message
    FrankPolygon polycounter lvl 3
    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.

    Hope this helps!
  • tynew
    Offline / Send Message
    tynew polycounter lvl 6
    @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. 



  • FrankPolygon
    Online / Send Message
    FrankPolygon polycounter lvl 3
    @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.

  • wirrexx
    Offline / Send Message
    wirrexx greentooth
    1/8 is corrct, been learning blender over the last 2 weeks and the answer i gave was without correctly thinking
  • HAWK12HT
  • tynew
    Offline / Send Message
    tynew polycounter lvl 6
    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. 
  • HAWK12HT
    Offline / Send Message
    HAWK12HT polycounter lvl 7
    @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. 
     
  • Thanez
    Offline / Send Message
    Thanez greentooth
    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:


  • tynew
    Offline / Send Message
    tynew polycounter lvl 6
    @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. 
Sign In or Register to comment.