Home Technical Talk

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

Replies

  • ArcticTauntaun
    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?


    Thanks!
  • Di-box
    Offline / Send Message
    Di-box polycounter lvl 9
    Hello everyone here are a couple of lessons on polygon rules
  • IronLover64
    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?
  • FrankPolygon
    Offline / Send Message
    FrankPolygon polycounter
    @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.
  • Domlz
    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!
  • wirrexx
    Offline / Send Message
    wirrexx interpolator
    Domlz said:
    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.



  • Domlz
    wirrexx said:
    Domlz said:
    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!
  • wirrexx
    Offline / Send Message
    wirrexx interpolator
    Domlz said:
    wirrexx said:
    Domlz said:
    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?
  • Domlz
    wirrexx said:
    Domlz said:
    wirrexx said:
    Domlz said:
    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
  • wirrexx
    Offline / Send Message
    wirrexx interpolator
    Domlz said:
    wirrexx said:
    Domlz said:
    wirrexx said:
    Domlz said:
    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


  • Domlz
    wirrexx said:
    Domlz said:
    wirrexx said:
    Domlz said:
    wirrexx said:
    Domlz said:
    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
    @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.

    Thanks very much!
  • Blaizer
    Offline / Send Message
    Blaizer greentooth
    @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.

  • apb
    Hi everyone,
    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!


  • throttlekitty
    Offline / Send Message
    throttlekitty Polycount Sponsor
    @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?
  • wirrexx
    Offline / Send Message
    wirrexx interpolator
    apb said:
    Hi everyone,
    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!




  • Blaizer
    Offline / Send Message
    Blaizer greentooth
    @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.


  • its_robinson
    @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.

    How would you increase the sharpness of the corners on the sphere?
  • FrankPolygon
    Offline / Send Message
    FrankPolygon polycounter
    Use a narrower edge width on the highlighted support loops or use creases to reduce the effect of subdivision smoothing. The width of the edge loops can be adjusted independently or in combination.

    If pinching occurs then it's likely the sphere will need additional segments to hold the shape. How sharp the edges needs to be will depend on the scale of the object. Overly sharp edges can make individual surface elements hard to read and can cause baking issues so there's a balance between replicating the exact shape and creating a mesh that bakes well.

    Here's some examples of creasing, narrowing the edge width on the support loop around the perimeter of the cut out, narrowing the edge width on the inside corners and a combination of all three.

    The center vertices are evenly spaced but appear to pinch outwards because of the subdivision preview. The mesh shading is acceptable so this could be left as is or the center quads could be triangulated to add an edge that will pull the center vertices back into line in the wire frame preview.


  • apb
    @wirrexx @Blaizer Thank you both so much, your instructions and especially the visual showcase have been super helpful! Thanks again guys, really appreciate it!
  • Ridergraal

    I am having significant trouble modeling this door, especially the corner, is there a different method I should employ when adding my edge loops
  • FrankPolygon
    Offline / Send Message
    FrankPolygon polycounter
    @Ridergraal Try selecting the edge loops around the shape's perimeter and use a bevel operation to add the support loops. Bevel operations will produce support loops with a consistent edge width and it's less work than manually adding geometry. Check that the object's scale is 1:1:1. Unequal object scale values can impact the consistency of tool operations.

    Here's some Blender documentation that explains object scale:



    Here's an example of a few different topology layouts. Keep in mind that, when the perimeter edges are properly supported, the topology on the flat surfaces has little impact on the overall shape. There's a lot of different topology strategies and each one is generated by the differences in the starting mesh topology and the order in which subsequent support loops are added. It's something you'll have to experiment with to find the right topology strategy for what you're trying to do.



    This thread has a lot of information about the fundamentals of subdivision modeling and there's a few relevant discussions a couple of posts up and a couple of pages back so it's worth taking the time to skim through these posts.

    To recap:
    Experiment with different topology layouts and order of operations.
    Use tools and modifiers like bevel to quickly add support loops with consistent edge width.
    Research and verify existing information on modeling and topology strategies.
  • .Wiki
    Offline / Send Message
    .Wiki polycounter lvl 7

    I am having significant trouble modeling this door, especially the corner, is there a different method I should employ when adding my edge loops

    You are making it too complicated. The door is not just one piece. Try to seperate it into its parts. The frame consists of 4 elements. The hole in the middle is another element. Break it down into its parts. This makes life much easier. A carpenter wouldnt try to create a door out of a single piece of wood.
  • wirrexx
    Offline / Send Message
    wirrexx interpolator

    I am having significant trouble modeling this door, especially the corner, is there a different method I should employ when adding my edge loops


  • Mir76
    If you want to add a subdvision surface don't use CTRL + B to do a bevel, add bevel like this (in the menu or with this add-on) :

    At 17:12 (for the video), profile 1 is very important.

    It makes straight lines and after add a Subdvision surface


    Andrew Price's tutorials are zero in modeling.






  • FrankPolygon
    Offline / Send Message
    FrankPolygon polycounter
    @Mir76 That video is a great showcase of what the speed flow add-on can do. Modifiers are definitely powerful tools that can be used to quickly add supporting geometry that remains editable throughout the project.

    However, having to manually adjust the topology to reroute the edge flow can erase the speed advantage and having to apply the modifiers to merge parts of the final geometry negates the editability. Adding major support loops before adding the modifier allows the modifier to remain editable but the extra support loops will complicate the mesh and lock in the overall edge width in those areas and all of this still requires a significant amount of manual work.

    Is there a way to apply the workflow in the video to the base mesh shown below and generate the results shown in the subdivision previews, without needing to apply the bevel modifier and manually add support loops or merge geometry around the intersection?



    That's also a pretty strong and sweeping closing statement about Price. If that's an indictment of destructive modeling techniques or tools then the legitimacy of a number of other professionals would also appear to be on the line.

    Part of subdivision modeling is learning to use existing geometry as support and deciding where and how to make trade-offs between efficiency and shape accuracy. Manual work and rework can be a serious efficiency issue in production  but it's also important to look at the wider context of how a specific tool or technique fits into a process.

    Some processes and concepts are difficult to show without applying the modifier stack and other processes (such as Boolean re-meshing and detail sculpting) just happen to become irreversible after a certain point. Not sure that would be a valid reason to make such broad statements or write off one technique in favor of another without adding sufficient context.

    Access to automated tools and reversible process aren't a shortcut past learning the fundamentals and learning the fundamentals sometimes means getting dirty hands. When artists are learning it can be helpful to see a direct cause and effect between a tool and the subdivision preview. The transition to automated tools and processes can come after learning the fundamentals of how topology behaves when subdivision is applied.
  • sacboi
    Offline / Send Message
    sacboi ngon master
    Access to automated tools and reversible process aren't a shortcut past learning the fundamentals and learning the fundamentals sometimes means getting dirty hands. When artists are learning it can be helpful to see a direct cause and effect between a tool and the subdivision preview. The transition automated tools and processes can come after learning the fundamentals of how topology behaves when subdivision is applied.
    This.

    Rather than rely on third party solutions, I've only recently begun personally too delve deeper into native implementation of Blender's modifier stack for a non destructive approach NITROX3D which seems too me at least to progressively attain an aligned finesse not dissimilar to a more robust 3ds Max alternative much less seamless integration within a wholly subd workflow.
    Andrew Price's tutorials are zero in modeling.
    Also unsure what was inferred here, can you elaborate?
  • Chef_0f_J0EY_SH3rWay
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fm0v0KMKZw&list=PLxt9ZAGPLIpf-XKkLWlgBDh24QQEk3YNY&index=35
    can someone please help me at 3:10, Arrimus is using symmetry to do that but I couldn't find any similar solution inside Blender. I try to follow this tutorial with Blender but now I am stuck.
  • birb
    Offline / Send Message
    birb triangle
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fm0v0KMKZw&list=PLxt9ZAGPLIpf-XKkLWlgBDh24QQEk3YNY&index=35
    can someone please help me at 3:10, Arrimus is using symmetry to do that but I couldn't find any similar solution inside Blender. I try to follow this tutorial with Blender but now I am stuck.
    I jumped straight to 3:10 (soundlessly) and didn't watch any further, so let me know if I'm showing a solution to the wrong part or something.  B)



    1. Set the cursor to the center of the sphere and add an empty.
    2. Add a Mirror Modifier to the sphere, enable Bisect X and set the empty as the Mirror Object.
    3. Rotate empty.

    You can can stack multiple mirror modifiers targeting new empties to get extra bisections, and apply and symmetrize in Edit Mode to mirror the changes to the other axes.
  • navneethdodla94
    Hi! This is my second time posting here. I've run into a major roadblock with this space station hatch. The two spherical pieces are a nightmare to model. I tried breaking it down into pieces by just isolating the the spherical sections first. But i have no idea how to get them to subdivide properly.
  • Prime8
    Offline / Send Message
    Prime8 greentooth
    Hi! This is my second time posting here. I've run into a major roadblock with this space station hatch. The two spherical pieces are a nightmare to model. I tried breaking it down into pieces by just isolating the the spherical sections first. But i have no idea how to get them to subdivide properly.
    @navneethdodla94
    I would start with booleans to create the base shape and clean it up. You have big flat surfaces here, don't be afraid to use ngons.
    Here is a crude example, should be cleaner in some areas.
    1. bool, clean up and add some edges to help the bevel modifier doing it's job.

    2. bevel

    3. subdiv

  • navneethdodla94
    @Prime8 Thats a really neat looking result. I've been doing quads only sub division practices and it's been really painful and it does not make sense in so many cases because of how slow it has been. Kept going under the assumption that film and game studios don't hire people who use booleans and messy ngons for production. Would you consider that to be true?
  • FrankPolygon
    Offline / Send Message
    FrankPolygon polycounter
    @navneethdodla94 When comparing modeling workflows for film and games there's some overlap but there's also some significant differences in the technical requirements for each. Within each industry there's also a range of acceptable quality levels. Much of this variance is based on how the models are used and what the budgets are. What's acceptable for one company or project may not be acceptable somewhere else.

    If the goal is to become part of a particular industry, specialization, company or team then it's important to research who is leading in that field and emulate what they are doing. Comparing and contrasting the processes and work of artists in each field can highlight where and how the technical requirements of each discipline are different. As an example, compare the wire frames of film and game models:

    Andrew Hodgson is an artist that works in film and shares a lot of his modeling process and philosophy:

    Matthias Develtere's subdivision modeling work for Wolfenstein II is an example of how n-gons and triangles can be used to speed up the production process with a minimal impact on the overall shape accuracy and surface quality:

    For high poly game models in general: as long as there aren't any specific technical requirements for all quads and as long as the mesh is easy to work with and subdivides cleanly then a base mesh or cage mesh with n-gons is passable. Creating the high poly model is just a part of the asset creation process. It's not the entire process itself and it's unlikely the player will ever see the high poly model. Other parts of the process (the low poly model, normal bakes, textures, lighting, animation and presentation) will end up directly in front of the player and are (as a whole) arguably more important.

    There's a few discussions on n-gons in this thread and one thing that's mentioned in a lot of these discussions is that a lot of the misconceptions about subdivision modeling are based on the abstraction and oversimplification of specific and contextual technical issues, limitations and requirements. Often the nuanced context of these situations is stripped away and this can lead to the perpetuation of nonsensical and counterproductive rules. This is why it's important for artists who are learning this skill to take the time to research and verify what's being said.

    Another issue is that time, tools and topology are relatively easy to quantify and it can be attractive to look at these factors as a primary benchmark for judging quality. In theory this is fine for process improvement but it can also become a trap where an artist will judge the result of someone else's work based entirely on how well the rules were followed while excusing deficiencies in their own results solely because they followed the rules they made up.

    For the shape question: Jan has pretty much covered it all but it's also worth mentioning that it's important to match the segments counts of the adjacent shapes. This will help reduce the chance of smoothing artifacts appearing on more complex shapes.



  • navneethdodla94
    Thank you @FrankPolygon
    Your answers are always very insightful!

    I've been bouncing all over the place looking for the fastest and the most intuitive workflow for modelling from concept to texture. Came all the way from CAD modelling from Fusion 360 to Subdivision and i'm still not able to properly dig in. It was becoming very counterproductive to keep bouncing between so many tools so i decided to stick with the basics of Sub in programs like maya and blender because i understood that adoption for cad based workflows is very rare among studios and also because understanding subD will be helpful for anyone in this industry. 

    I started watching andrew's twitch and took classes from Mario Brajdich who have extremely similar workflows. On the CAD side i'm always blown away by people like Alex Senechal and Edon Guraziu's intricate sci fi forms. All of them developed their own understanding and aesthetic of hard surface modelling based on their preferred toolkit. But in the end their design principles speak louder than the tools they use.
    So i guess i should focus on just the design aspect of models first instead of the toolkit.

    One last question. With Blender's adoption rate going up do you think it would be wise to rely on it's famous third party add ons like Boxcutter, Speedflow etc or are they just temporary solutions in an ever evolving field? They all feel extremely intuitive but also carry a lot of limitations. But at the same time they're so helpful during the concept phase. Just wondering if i should give into the temptation and buy them
  • FrankPolygon
    Offline / Send Message
    FrankPolygon polycounter
    The best advice I can give is to look at what you like to do, figure out where you want to go with it and reverse engineer everything from where you want to be to where you're currently at. As an example: Start by deciding film or games. Then look at which studios, what roles, what tools, etc. Build up a workflow around that, start running projects through it and modify that workflow based on the results that come out of it.

    Sampling different tools and workflows is a good way to figure out what you like but different tools are geared for different roles. Most tools come with some sort of trade-off. With a defined role and an established process or workflow it becomes easier to judge which tool best fits what you're trying to do and how you like to work. Knowing more than one piece of software is good but knowing when and how to maximize its use is better. Plugins and add-ons are great. Just be prepared for when they aren't available on a job or when they fall out of development or become obsolete

    Establishing a workflow and producing some kind of art should be the primary focus. The tools and technical stuff should be there to support the creation of the art. If a process or workflow isn't established then it can't produce results and without results it will be difficult to evaluate and grow. It's almost impossible to over stress the importance of outlining, starting, completing and evaluating projects. Starting with an idea and bringing it through the complete production pipeline will shake out a lot stuff and will make it much easier to figure out what tools you need and what techniques work the best for you.
  • Chef_0f_J0EY_SH3rWay
    birb said:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fm0v0KMKZw&list=PLxt9ZAGPLIpf-XKkLWlgBDh24QQEk3YNY&index=35
    can someone please help me at 3:10, Arrimus is using symmetry to do that but I couldn't find any similar solution inside Blender. I try to follow this tutorial with Blender but now I am stuck.
    I jumped straight to 3:10 (soundlessly) and didn't watch any further, so let me know if I'm showing a solution to the wrong part or something.  B)



    1. Set the cursor to the center of the sphere and add an empty.
    2. Add a Mirror Modifier to the sphere, enable Bisect X and set the empty as the Mirror Object.
    3. Rotate empty.

    You can can stack multiple mirror modifiers targeting new empties to get extra bisections, and apply and symmetrize in Edit Mode to mirror the changes to the other axes.
    OH MY GOD, thank you so muchhhh. This method is new to me. Kudo to you I now know a new technique :D
  • navneethdodla94
    Hi Again! I continued practicing with some photobash reference images and came across a landing gear. This one part is turning out to be really difficult. I tried two methods. The first was making a side view first and then manually moving edges to create the curvature and the second time i tried to do it with boolean. But i'm not able to get the curvature of the horseshoe bit and the cylindrical cut right. 
Sign In or Register to comment.