Home Technical Talk

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

Replies

  • FrankPolygon
    Offline / Send Message
    FrankPolygon sublime tool
    @guitarguy00 Not a problem.

    That loop part starts out as a circle with a segment count that's matched to the area it will attach to. The back end of this part doesn't matter that much since it will be lost in the Boolean operation.

    Land the part between two of the vertical segments and use those segments as support loops. Add support loops to the sides and cut across the flat to give the extra edge loops some where to run out on.


    I think the best answer to the question of how it works with so little geometry is: using the surrounding geometry as support for every part that's added on. It could be made more accurate with more geometry but the question is how accurate is accurate enough?

    Some of these examples use very little geometry because it makes it easier to see the edge flow and it emphasizes that most shapes don't require a ton of geometry. What's right will depend entirely on what you're trying to model and how accurate it needs to be. A background prop doesn't need to be perfect it just needs to be passable. What's passable will depend on the project and the artist. So the examples are more of a baseline or a starting point.

    Another thing that can help is playing to the strengths of how an object was made and what it was made out of.

    Most hydrants are cast in either bronze or iron. Metal casting is still a very hands on process in many parts of the world. It's only in the exotic and high precision casting where machines take over most of the process. That's slowly changing but it's still common for a lot of hand work to go into molding, shake out, grinding and blasting. By the time something leaves the foundry there's a good chance that there's some superficial or cosmetic imperfections. It's just the nature of the process. The roughness and texture is part of what makes an honest casting.

    Casting patterns also need a lot of draft (taper) and soft shape transitions. Otherwise it's too difficult to pull the pattern out of the sand molds without destroying the mold in the process. This means that most high volume and low cost castings are going to have softer shapes than something that's machined out of a billet. It's a similar sort of thing with injection molded plastics and blow molded plastics.

    There's always going to be some distortion on a sub-d mesh and it comes down to a question of where to hide it. Sometimes the distortion is averaged out over a wide area and sometimes it's constrained to a smaller area. You can use this basic understanding of how things are made to try and figure out where's the best place to hide distortion in the mesh and how wide support loops and edge widths need to be.


    The smaller cylinders on the side don't have dedicated support loops on the stand pipe side of the mesh. The wall of the stand pipe is acting like a support loop and the support loop that's on the base of the small outlet is doing all of the work. So the distortion is averaged out across the transition.

    As for where to merge down existing geometry, it depends on the shape and how it's reacting to the subdivision. When using chamfer to add a support loop around the base of an intersection, the base of the intersecting object (the inside of the support loop) usually stays where it's at. Running a Boolean operation there might be some stray geometry on this inside loop. Merge that down to the verts on the intersecting object. The outside loop is usually (but not always) merged down to the verts on that object to maintain shape accuracy. Whatever happens between these two loops usually doesn't matter that much and that's where the difference between the intersecting objects is averaged out.



    I think the sample you posted looks fine. At a glance everything seems smooth and the transitions are soft. What's "right" depends on the project. If there's a lot of little details that need to be blended into the standpipe then it's going to require more geometry.


  • aregvan
    Offline / Send Message
    aregvan polycounter lvl 5
    @aregvan It looks like you're on the right track.

    The key to clean cylinder intersections is to match the number of segments on both shapes near the intersection. Try matching the wall segments on the critical part first and adjust the perpendicular loops second. The alignment doesn't have to be perfect. Close enough should be good enough. (Page 171 has a discussion about cylinder intersections on hydrants.)

    Manually pushing or sculpting geometry into place isn't that accurate and can become very time consuming.

    Block out the shapes, match the segments near the intersections and rely on tools to generate the geometry. After the basic shapes are correct, run a Boolean union operation, add support loops around the intersections with a bevel or chamfer operation and merge down any left over geometry. Use the gap between the support loop and the base of the intersecting shape to take up any difference between the cylinders. Repeat as necessary to add additional details.

    -

    Looking at images of Bayard hydrants, there's a couple variants and they have different shapes. One has this barrel shape and the other has a uniform outer diameter. The one with the uniform diameter has a curve at the back of the stand pipe that (when viewed from the side) makes it look like the diameter of the stand pipe is larger than the diameter of the outlet. Cross check several references when working through the block out to make sure the basic shapes are correct and the rest should fall into place.

    Perfect! Simple and to the point. This has helped me more than I was expecting! 

    Problem is, I begin modeling before I even have the basic shape, and always thinking it's harder than it really is.
    And what do you mean by "rely on tools to generate the geometry"?

    Thanks all!
  • guitarguy00
    Offline / Send Message
    guitarguy00 polycounter lvl 2
    @guitarguy00 Not a problem.

    That loop part starts out as a circle with a segment count that's matched to the area it will attach to. The back end of this part doesn't matter that much since it will be lost in the Boolean operation.

    Land the part between two of the vertical segments and use those segments as support loops. Add support loops to the sides and cut across the flat to give the extra edge loops some where to run out on.



    I think the best answer to the question of how it works with so little geometry is: using the surrounding geometry as support for every part that's added on. It could be made more accurate with more geometry but the question is how accurate is accurate enough?

    Some of these examples use very little geometry because it makes it easier to see the edge flow and it emphasizes that most shapes don't require a ton of geometry. What's right will depend entirely on what you're trying to model and how accurate it needs to be. A background prop doesn't need to be perfect it just needs to be passable. What's passable will depend on the project and the artist. So the examples are more of a baseline or a starting point.

    Another thing that can help is playing to the strengths of how an object was made and what it was made out of.

    Most hydrants are cast in either bronze or iron. Metal casting is still a very hands on process in many parts of the world. It's only in the exotic and high precision casting where machines take over most of the process. That's slowly changing but it's still common for a lot of hand work to go into molding, shake out, grinding and blasting. By the time something leaves the foundry there's a good chance that there's some superficial or cosmetic imperfections. It's just the nature of the process. The roughness and texture is part of what makes an honest casting.

    Casting patterns also need a lot of draft (taper) and soft shape transitions. Otherwise it's too difficult to pull the pattern out of the sand molds without destroying the mold in the process. This means that most high volume and low cost castings are going to have softer shapes than something that's machined out of a billet. It's a similar sort of thing with injection molded plastics and blow molded plastics.

    There's always going to be some distortion on a sub-d mesh and it comes down to a question of where to hide it. Sometimes the distortion is averaged out over a wide area and sometimes it's constrained to a smaller area. You can use this basic understanding of how things are made to try and figure out where's the best place to hide distortion in the mesh and how wide support loops and edge widths need to be.



    The smaller cylinders on the side don't have dedicated support loops on the stand pipe side of the mesh. The wall of the stand pipe is acting like a support loop and the support loop that's on the base of the small outlet is doing all of the work. So the distortion is averaged out across the transition.

    As for where to merge down existing geometry, it depends on the shape and how it's reacting to the subdivision. When using chamfer to add a support loop around the base of an intersection, the base of the intersecting object (the inside of the support loop) usually stays where it's at. Running a Boolean operation there might be some stray geometry on this inside loop. Merge that down to the verts on the intersecting object. The outside loop is usually (but not always) merged down to the verts on that object to maintain shape accuracy. Whatever happens between these two loops usually doesn't matter that much and that's where the difference between the intersecting objects is averaged out.



    I think the sample you posted looks fine. At a glance everything seems smooth and the transitions are soft. What's "right" depends on the project. If there's a lot of little details that need to be blended into the standpipe then it's going to require more geometry.


    Thanks again for your time and effort, much appreciated.
  • FrankPolygon
    Offline / Send Message
    FrankPolygon sublime tool
    @aregvan @guitarguy00 You're welcome. Glad it was helpful. Thank you to everyone else who posts questions and answers too.

    Relying on tools to generate geometry just means avoid doing unnecessary manual work when there's a tool or modifier that will do the job quicker and more accurately.

    Here's an example of manual work. Please, for the love of all that's holy, don't do this sort of stuff.

    The verts are moved into place freehand, edge loops cut in one segment at a time and the fillet is scaled up manually. Yes, the result is usable but the amount of work that went into it doesn't justify the result. There are tools that can do most of this in just a few keystrokes and will be more accurate than an artist pushing geometry.



    Here's an example where using the correct tools speeds things up. Generate the primitives. Block out the intersection and match the segment counts. Run a Boolean operation. Run a chamfer operation. Merge down the left over geometry. Add three edge loops and join them up with the base of the intersection. The tools have done all the work and kept the geometry reasonably accurate.

    If shape accuracy isn't a big deal then the Boolean operation could have been cleaned up with a merge by distance operation and the perpendicular edge loops could have been added before the chamfer operation. This would have been even faster but less accurate.


    There's a fine line between manual work and manual adjustment. Manual adjustment is part of the process and the important thing is to use tools that will keep the mesh co-planar and parallel along edge normals, etc.

    If the shape requires an excessive amount of manual adjustment then it might be time to re-evaluate how the shapes were blocked out. Sometimes it just doesn't matter and the project calls for something quick and dirty. Some shape intersections can be fudged and others can't.

    Here's an example where the geometry was created using tools and some minor manual adjustment was required at the end. The vert was moved along the edge normal to alleviate the stress where the support loop came close to the cylinder's edge segment.



    Generally speaking, as long as the geometry remains in plane and subdivides cleanly then it's OK to use tools to move things around accurately. There's also exceptions to this where the geometry has to be purposefully distorted to counter subdivision smoothing but that's a different discussion.

    Here's a subdivision preview of all the meshes. They all work. It's just that some took significantly longer to make than others. Manually creating everything and manually adjusting everything can be a huge time sink. Avoid it where you can and spend time wisely.



    The big take away is avoid having to manually bash things into shape by moving every vert, cutting every edge loop and smoothing shapes by hand. If things are falling apart and causing smoothing errors then there's a fundamental problem with the geometry. Stop and take the time to block things out and work through each problem.

    Also don't get caught up on perfection. It's subdivision modeling, not CAD. There's going to be some imperfection. Get it as good as it needs to be and move on to the next part.


  • aregvan
    Offline / Send Message
    aregvan polycounter lvl 5
    @FrankPolygon

    This truly helps for this project and future ones!

    You are right; things are more simple than we perceive them as. 
    I always stayed away from boolean operations, but seems its inevitable for any detailed mesh play.

    Thank you again for a great discussion, Frank.

  • headachedotpng
    the boolean-less method would require less cleanup and it goes like this choose 4 or more faces (in this case 16 ) then inset and use the loop tools addon (or the to sphere tool) to turn it into a circle extrude flatten the face turn the front faces into an ngon and bevel https://imgur.com/a/0iMmEkv this was done with a 16 side cylinder itself and it still has no pinching or artifacts 
  • headachedotpng
    keep in mind there are many more ways of extruding a cylinder from another one but iam too lazy to show off everything so iam just gonna direct you to the https://motionworks.net/shop/making-it-look-great-11/ course its a bit pricey but its a damn good course for learning the fundamentals imo. though keep in mind its made in c4d so u need figure out which tools are which in another software 
  • FrankPolygon
    Offline / Send Message
    FrankPolygon sublime tool
    @headachedotpng Thank you for sharing these resources.

    I have a question about this process. It's very fast and there's no cleanup but the topology seems to cause problems when it's subdivided. Any thoughts on how to resolve these edge flow problems or another way to use the same process to end up with an edge flow similar to the Boolean workflow? The to sphere operator and loop tools circle operator both create geometry that has leaves notches in the corners.



    The inset circle and extrude geometry could be adjusted to even out the notch (both examples using this workflow have it) but then it ends up being the same amount of work as the Boolean workflow. If this method can be used to produce the same edge flow as the Boolean intersection method than it would be a powerful way to deal with this type of shape intersection.

    This topology comparison shows both edge flows at extreme angles and they both have some smoothing issues. There's some soft undulations around the circle and extrude geometry that phases in and out as the object is rotated. This could could cause problems when baking normals and when viewed from glancing angles. The Boolean intersection isn't perfect either but it appears to be significantly cleaner and it doesn't have these surface undulations. There seems to be a trade-off here between speed and shape accuracy.


    The inset circle and extrude method is very fast and probably good enough for background props. It seems to work very well with 8 segment circles but with higher segment counts it starts to push the edge flow a little too hard. Where it seems to break down is in the offset it creates when it pulls the edge flow away from the edge segments on the wall of the large cylinder.

    The way to avoid artifacts around this type of intersection is to match the segments on the intersecting geometry with the edge segments on the cylinder wall. As long as that happens the topology should produce minimal smoothing errors.
  • headachedotpng
    i guess knife projection could be one way where you put an object in front of another after aligning it ofc and having it projected on the main shape though the speed of that method is prolly comparable to using a boolean if you dont count addons that make the boolean workflow way faster 
  • headachedotpng
    the last one i know about is shrinkwrapping but thats a headache of its own depending on how shrink wrapping works in your software of choice https://imgur.com/a/wMOCptO
  • JordanDaushvili
    Offline / Send Message
    JordanDaushvili polycounter lvl 2
    Hello there! I was working on a recent project of mine and noticed black edges on my normal map after baking.

    So i know this is a problem that happens when your low poly doesn't have enough subdivisions to meet with your high poly especially on round corners. The problem is visible only on couple of spots of the model and i was wondering if there would be a problem if i added some edges only on the areas that need topology. Is this a terrible solution if i want to avoid extra polygons? is there any other way instead of just subdividing the whole model ? Thank you!
  • JordanDaushvili
    Offline / Send Message
    JordanDaushvili polycounter lvl 2
    @Thanez
    Thank you very much! I was waiting for someone to give a good piece of advice for couple of days and i couldn't wait because i wanter to proceed with the project. I made the changes right away after i got home and honestly the results are great thanks again!


    There is no more skewing and the topology looks ok i guess.


  • feraud
    Offline / Send Message
    feraud polycounter lvl 6
    Hi.

     Not sure how to solve this polygon flow in this model I'm doing just for practicing. Just starting so not a good distribution of polys yet.  A few lines showing how to do it better  will be appreciated. Thanks



    Front view of the model:

  • amoeba
    Offline / Send Message
    amoeba polycounter lvl 9
    I'm a bit ashamed of the issues I'm having as it's perhaps not as complex as some of the other shapes in here but I've been trying to model this partitioned plastic cover over the window.

    Here are my low polys:
    Close up from the side
    From above

    and here it is subdivided

    It's not perfect but it's the closest I've gotten while keeping each part about the same width and mostly similar. I'm wondering if I'm way off with this? 

    My steps are these roughly.
  • wirrexx
    Offline / Send Message
    wirrexx interpolator
    amoeba said:
    I'm a bit ashamed of the issues I'm having as it's perhaps not as complex as some of the other shapes in here but I've been trying to model this partitioned plastic cover over the window.

    Here are my low polys:
    Close up from the side
    From above

    and here it is subdivided

    It's not perfect but it's the closest I've gotten while keeping each part about the same width and mostly similar. I'm wondering if I'm way off with this? 

    My steps are these roughly.

    What car modell is it? Do you have higher res pictures. If it sub-ds good and there's no big issues. go for it.
  • amoeba
    Offline / Send Message
    amoeba polycounter lvl 9
    wirrexx said:

    What car modell is it? Do you have higher res pictures. If it sub-ds good and there's no big issues. go for it.
    A Ford mustand II King Cobra. I've had some issues finding good high-res references and couldn't find any proper blueprints, some versions have these window covers while others don't. I don't know anything about cars so it might be different year models.

    Here are a few clearer ones:
    http://assets.mustangandfords.com/f/240552494.jpg?width=620&
    https://www.car.info/en-se/image/ford-mustang-side-power-big-meet-2015-1-133384
    https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47969877271_f381a9d871_b.jpg

    The subdivided mesh seems mostly fine, some minor artifacts where it's the densest so I'll have to spread the edges out a bit and tweak the overall shape here and there but I'm always worried I'm doing things terribly wrong.
  • sacboi
    Offline / Send Message
    sacboi ngon master
    @amoeba there are no hard and fast 'rules' when it comes to modeling something, just general optimisation techniques shared over time among people passionate for our craft which by the way are really worthwhile keeping in mind, like here, for example. Anyway as mentioned, if your mesh overall sub divides with a few minor shading errors and does not compromise the object's aesthetic fidelity you're specifically aiming for, then I'd say all good. However, that said an automotive polygonal workflow will on occasion throw up a challenge every now and again, unique to 'class A' surfaced objects, simply because in the modern era, manufacturing methods are typically reliant upon CnC/CAD design principles so trying to replicate double precision smoothness can be a right old head ach. Although during my time modeling cars I've stumbled across one or two gems and this resource I'd highly recommend...for what it's worth, insights shared here helped level up my skillset:
         

    Cheers.
  • amoeba
    Offline / Send Message
    amoeba polycounter lvl 9
    sacboi said:
     there are no hard and fast 'rules' when it comes to modeling somethin
    I'm aware, it's just I feel so inadequate compared to you guys. It's just mindblowing how clever you guys are and some of the solutions I've seen here. Incredibly helpful stuff. I absolutely love this thread.

    Also, holy cow, thanks for that link! Very useful stuff there.

     It's probably a bad habit but often when I run into ugly reflections, I create a higher density mesh of the broken part (usually with inefficient topology though) and use the Blender modifier "shrinkwrap" on my "more" efficient lowpoly mesh to wrap it onto the higher density mesh underneath and that takes care of things sometimes (and creates seamless reflections across separate parts as well) although it creates some extra work.
  • headachedotpng
    @amoeba here's a video on something similar to what you're trying to do https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOfhaQadahc
  • holy_loli
    Hello everybody
    This thread is majestic (and it helps a lot) but i can't figure out how to inset rectangle in ellipsoid form at it's border. And second question - how to optimize topology in all quads. i think i do it in wrong way (trying to figure out about month, hate it). can't attach obj(
    sorry for english(



  • Thanez
    Offline / Send Message
    Thanez greentooth
    holy_loli said:


    I fail to see a problem here. Is this not the result you were going for? And why do you want the topology in all quads? Are the n-gons giving you issues?
  • rage288
    Offline / Send Message
    rage288 polycounter lvl 3
    ^ What he said ^
  • LouisPhilippe
    Offline / Send Message
    LouisPhilippe greentooth
    What do you guys think would be the best way to model this type of braided rope? I'm kind of out of ideas.

    this is pretty much my best try so far :/

  • Jackskullcrack
    What do you guys think would be the best way to model this type of braided rope? I'm kind of out of ideas.

    this is pretty much my best try so far :/

    That looks good too me..
  • holy_loli
    Outside of specific project requirements, stock 3D certification programs and technical edge cases, there really isn't anything wrong with using triangles and n-gons in subdivision modeling. Flat surfaces are arguably the least effected by messy topology. As long as the corners are supported and the surfaces are co-planar then it should subdivide without causing any major problems. If a mesh is easy to edit and subdivides cleanly, without any major smoothing errors, then it's passable. There's a point where done is better than perfect.

    As an example: here's four subdivision previews (left column) and four topology strategies (right column) can anyone spot the subtle differences and match up which subdivision preview belongs to which mesh?



    The four topology samples (right column) are:
    1. Triangles and quads.
    2. N-gons, triangles and quads.
    3. Quads only (manual cleanup)
    4. Quads only (tool generated)

    The matching subdivision previews are directly across from the mesh samples.

    For most high poly baking models, what happens on the flat areas between the edge loops doesn't make much difference. As long as the shape intersections and the support loops are properly structured the flat areas will remain flat. They generally subdivide and bake without causing any major issues.

    There are edge cases like highly reflective surfaces where the quality of the mesh does effect some things but whether or not this is relevant for a project is something that can be validated with some test bakes.

    The n-gon mesh is easier to edit but there are some cases where curves need the stress from triangles to help pull the edge loops into shape.

    Manually cleaning up a mesh to make it all quads is a major pain and often a waste of time. Avoid throwing more work into bad geometry. If it's broken enough that it needs a lot of manual cleanup then it's probably worth rebuilding correctly.

    Take the time to plan out the shapes and match the segment counts between adjacent shapes. Plan out the edge flow so edge loops can be added without effecting critical shapes.

    Here's an example of how planning out the edge flow and working through the shapes will result in all quads with minimal cleanup. The segment count is a little higher than I would generally recommend for a game model of this scale but the assumption is that the corners on the USB ports need to be curved. This could have been done using a wider support loop on the corners but leaving it in shows how to deal with similar shapes that require more geometry.

    Start out with the basic shapes and define a clear path for the support loops to run out on. Match segment counts to minimize the amount of geometry required to support the shape. Rely on tools for creating basic geometry, curves and edge loops whenever possible.


    The support loops around the Micro USB port are added with a chamfer operation and run out between the two USB ports. The support loops inside the USB port are added with a loop cut and run out to the sides of the case and around the Micro USB port topology.



    Use a chamfer operation to add the support loops around the face of the USB port. Adjust the segment count on the circular case geometry and bridge the edge loops so all of the segments are connected. This side is now complete. The other side will have the same number of segments.


    Use the same segment count for the opposite side of the case and the button cut out. There's a support loop that holds the shape for the outside of the case and it eats up one segment of the button so an edge loop needs to be added between the case and the button to equalize the segment count. Additional support loops could be added to the right side of the button if necessary. Bridge the faces to close the geometry. The basic shape is now complete.


    Add additional support loops around the button and outside of the case. Move the center loops back to set the button depth and the seam depth between the case and face plate. Extrude the rest of the shape out to form the rest of the case. All quads and no manual cleanup work to remove triangles or n-gons. How much geometry is required will depend on the desired shape accuracy.


    Subdivision modeling is about planning out the edge flow and shape intersections while choosing the right trade-offs between efficiency and shape accuracy. If there's no hard requirement for all quads then use the minimum amount of geometry required to hold each shape. Triangles and n-gons that aren't causing smoothing problems are fine. In most cases (if they aren't causing smoothing errors) it's not worth the time to edit them out.

    Here's a comparison of two extremes: a mesh that leverages a lot of n-gons and a mesh that has been made all quads for compliance. The n-gon strategy is easy to work with but may not pass some strict QA / QC processes for stock 3D. The all quads compliance strategy hits this metric but the over optimized edge flow makes it difficult to add or remove loops. The geometry is locked in.

    What's right depends on the project and part of the process is balancing technical demands with the art process and time management. A product visualization model is going to have different requirements than a background prop for a mobile game. Narrowing down the scope of the project will help determine which strategies will work best.


    If a project genuinely requires all quad geometry: Take the time to plan the edge flow and block out the shapes ahead of time. Match each shape's segment count with surrounding geometry and run out edge loops where they won't disturb adjacent shapes.

    The mesh you already have shows a good compromise between efficiency and accuracy. There's only a couple spots that could cause problems with subdivision and even then it might not be a problem if the smoothing errors aren't visible when baked out and textured.

    Add the rest of the support loops and subdivide the mesh to see if there are any major smoothing problems. If the mesh looks good with subdivision then it's fine.


    OMG, thank you so much :o you definetely need to combine all your tips in great tutorial, very inspiring
  • yaakov_weinstein
    Offline / Send Message
    yaakov_weinstein polycounter lvl 2
    Hi guys. Glad there's already a post for asking how to model things....
    I'm stuck on this one braided band on the handle of an axe in this concept art and was wondering if anyone had any ideas how to go about modeling it? I tried doing this coil of alternating half cylinders but it didn't overlap properly.
    ATTEMPT:

    GOAL:


    Thanks
  • headachedotpng
  • sacboi
    Offline / Send Message
    sacboi ngon master
    There's definitely a lot of ways to approach this shape so it really depends on what you're working with and what you're looking for.

    Agreed, a non destructive method to achieve a braided weave, leveraging splines:

    ...and simplified:

  • yaakov_weinstein
    Offline / Send Message
    yaakov_weinstein polycounter lvl 2
    @FrankPolygon
    Wow, those are great tips. Really helps. I figured it had something to do with helices but didnt know how many or where Dx.
    I'm working on a hand-painted game character from concept and the first one seems low poly enough. Thanks!
  • Povilas
    I'm trying to find a good way of adding supporting loops without affecting the round shape. The build end tool (3ds max) sort of works for the top one but I can't find a way to solve the bottom one. Maybe someone knows a good or better way to solve it?
  • Kanni3d
    Offline / Send Message
    Kanni3d greentooth
    @Povilas

    Similar issue regarding cylindrical/round details repeated in this thread countless times, same solution. You need a lot more base geometry. If you're adding a support loop to the bottom of the planar flat detail (on the right), you'll get a gnarly pinch on the curved detail on the left. 

    A good way to establish curvature/base geometry without affecting the model, or redoing the model rather, is to just delete all unnecessary edges/support loops, double check your smoothing groups to be correct, and add a turbosmooth modifier with smoothing groups checked. This will keep all your hard edges, and round out any faces that are set up with smoothing groups properly. You may find that you'll have to tweak your SGs in a certain way that doesn't break the geometry, like adding multiple SG's on a flat planar area to get the correct result.
  • lindsay_han
    hey guys, what should i do to build the curving pipe with all those convex on it like the ref. 1&2.
     
    and this is what I got for now. I dont now if i do it in the right way? and what should i do next to get that kind of convex.

  • wirrexx
    Offline / Send Message
    wirrexx interpolator
    hey guys, what should i do to build the curving pipe with all those convex on it like the ref. 1&2.
     
    and this is what I got for now. I dont now if i do it in the right way? and what should i do next to get that kind of convex.


    create a spline (line in 3ds max) and use the filet tool. to create that curve.
    1. Line tool with three points,
    2. file the point you want to have the bend
    3.voila

  • Thanez
    Offline / Send Message
    Thanez greentooth
    @lindsay_han
    As I understand you, you're looking for the ribs on the tube going from the 90° bend pipe to the wall. 
    I would make a new spline, linear, with as few verts as possible to achieve the desired curve, trying to space them as evenly as possible, and avoiding 90° bends, something like this:

    For segments and setup, I chose an even number of segments (6), then an edit poly modifier to delete the end caps:

    Now a turbosmooth modifier and an edit poly modifier. In the edit poly, I select one edge, hit loop, then a dot ring selection that I will delete:

    This has essentially doubled the smoothness of the curve without adding uneccessary segments around the pipe. Repeat that step 4-5 times to end up with this, a tube with a very smooth curve, but low segments:

    RIB TIME! In a new edit poly modifier, select one ring, then dot loop, convert selection to polygons, and extrude. The extruded polygons should be square.

    Now just turbosmooth that result and yer done.
    This is where my love for modifiers in max comes in. I can go back to the spline and change the thickness, or grab verts of the spline and move them around with an instand result



  • Udjani
    Offline / Send Message
    Udjani greentooth
    Can someone shed some light on how to make this shape? I tried some stuff but i just can't get it right.

    Notice how on the original the sides are the same width, i don't know hot to make that cut and keep it like that.

  • sacboi
    Offline / Send Message
    sacboi ngon master
    I'm about to walk out the door, so can't post any workflow pics, sorry.

    Ok well, a simple straightforward approach I'd suggest which pretty much works for me most of the time. Is to first breakdown the shape into basic forms, much like blocking out. So what I can see in your image, is a half cylinder with two extruded double sided edges of equal width, now basically what I'd advise is to model perpendicular (vertical) too horizontal axis.

    In other words roughly eyeball it's dimensions, loop cut a cylindrical shape, extrude the sides (mirrored) then further refine tweaking the overall piece into it's final state.

    If that dosen't make any sense :) go back 3 or 4 pages, I recall a @FrankPolygon tute about generating a basic object with inclined surfaces, from scratch...it's easy peasy to follow rather than spend your life trying to decipher the mess I wrote :/

    Cheers.     
  • apb
    Hello everyone,
    I'm fairly new to modelling and as you would expect, I'm finding struggles with things that may appear to be rather easy to solve (at least I hope so). Regardless, I'm asking for your help so I can overcome these headaches that I just can't figure out.



    In this example, I've laid down a surface (green mesh) to which, I've decided to extend the border of and curve it in a way so the slope acts like a border wall (grey mesh). The problem I have is that the topology of the two is different enough to present me with this problem:



    Due to the edges not accurately connecting with each other, I'm left with tiny holes in between. My question is: what would be the best solution to this? I'm certain I'll need to recreate the border wall but I'm wondering which would be the best way to do it because I'd like to retain the kind of pretty, uniform quad size and topology I got with it so I don't have issues UV mapping it later on.


    The second question I have (I hope it's okay to bundle them into one post) regards this model right here:



    I'd like to recreate it from scratch and make a slightly altered version of it but I have no ideas on how to even begin to generate the kind of topology flow that it has. I'm mostly referring to the outer flat border which surrounds the inner piece, as well as the center which ascends in the middle and gradually flattens as it extend towards the ends of the mesh. I haven't gotten far with my own take on it as I've only been able to make an outline for it.

    Anyhow, I'd really appreciate any sort of help with these two concerns I posted. Thanks all! :)
  • Udjani
    Offline / Send Message
    Udjani greentooth
    @FrankPolygon Thank you very much! Your last example is spot on i think, looking closely at the reference i can see some shading difference from manual adjustments.

    Just to clarify, the original piece was done with sub-d.
  • Udjani
    Offline / Send Message
    Udjani greentooth
    @apb Hey, you might not have been yet introduced to the wonders and sadness of sub-d modeling, but that is usually the way to got for organic shapes if you are using a polymodeling software. 

    For both of your examples my suggestion would be the same, you will have to model it thinking about how the hole shape will look like, figuring out things like. Should i extrude it and then bevel?, or bevel and then extrude? etc. This way you don't get problems like your first images. Doing simple-ish models like those is usually very easy with sub-d.

    When i was first starting i didn't know that sub-d was a thing, then i learned and it melted my mind just as it melts topology. Here is a good introduction. 

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFckVSyvVy4



  • guitarguy00
    Offline / Send Message
    guitarguy00 polycounter lvl 2
    Hey there, I am trying to model these chains for a fire hydrant I am working on:



    This is what I have come up with. You can see it is lopsided and warped. I made the basic shape with the Line tool in 3DS in a planar fashion and then used the Twist and 3FFD modifiers to manually twist the shape but it didn't turn out great. Any ideas on how to get it smoother?  The very top of the individual chain is too sharp/warped to me.

    |

    Any help would be very much appreciated!
  • iacdxb
    Offline / Send Message
    iacdxb polycounter lvl 3
    Hi,

    Anyone can help me in this modeling...! I think I am stuck in its corner edges.
    Top arch have to extrude from base... and if it is then thickness how..?
    And this needs smooth nurbs or without...?

    Thanks.


  • ApachEsH
  • wirrexx
    Offline / Send Message
    wirrexx interpolator
    ApachEsH said:
    Hello guys help me


    Taking a look at it, weld vertices there? send me the mesh as a obj or fbx


Sign In or Register to comment.