Well, that should help a lot. Many thanks for the detailed answer!
just wanted to say: thank you @FrankPolygon its great that you put so much thought and work int your posts explaining this.
I started to follow this thread a few years ago, but I decided to register here because I have just run into a problem that I can't solve alone. I learn a lot from this thread about hard surface modelling and I don't have problem with mechanical objects but I challenged myself with an TetraPak milk carton box and it just don't want to look like as I want it to be :( . I can feel approximately where the problem is but I don't know how to approach it. My problem I think is the varying bevel along the edges and parts were sharp folding occur. Maybe I could model the folding separately? Or should I create the base box first and extrude ? Or use manual topology ? Here is one of my attempts and a reference image.
My 20th attempt:
Some reference like picture:
This is the complicated part of my model that I am facing a lot of issue with. I tried several different methods to fix this but none of them are working out correctly for me. The peculiar thing about this shape is that while it looks like a sphere, the edges are going inside like a C shape instead of being round. Also note that the size of the holes on the left and right is different from the holes in which the dials are placed.
This is one attempt in which I tried to boolean a sphere with a cube and then cut the holes out of it but this is giving artifacts because of the the holes being cut at random places (I have tried fixing the topology but that doesn't really solve it entirely) and also, it is round instead of the pinching shape the reference has (see what I mean in the next images).
I want the flow to match the red curve but most solutions that I can think of are giving me a flow similar to the yellow curve.
@parikshittiwari, I created this quickly, I hope it can give an idea how to approach that shape:
@parikshittiwari Regarding the flow of the red curve, I found some real gun scope references on Amazon and the shape seems similar to what you've created using the Sphere and Boolean workflow. Although, if you look at the middle image it seems to give the illusion of the red curve flow but it could've been exaggerated a little bit in the concept. It should be fine as long as you follow a real life reference in this case.
Now, instead of the Boolean you can also try this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ioxnMq-9io&t=4s
Hope this helps!
Thats a very good way of doing it. Thanks for the advice, really helps to understand the unique approach here.
Thanks a lot for searching for the references and I really didn't think it could just be an illusion. The shape itself was very tricky precisely because I was being meticulous over the flow but you solved that for me.
The YouTube video also teaches an extremely useful trick so thanks for that too, much appreciated.
Another question for my model here.
If you look at the area marked in red, it basically has a cylindrical shape with one cylinder(green light one) inside another cylinder(the silver rail containing the lights) and then another bigger cylindrical shape at the bottom holding it together with the top square part. I can't see to get the scale right for this entire part here.
If I try to follow only the silver cylinder part and adjust scale then I can't seem to find a way to add the black cylindrical plating at the bottom of it since it feels too small.
If I make something really big to fill up the entire space then the edges of the entire middle body crosses this section of the body which doesn't seem to be matching the reference so I am a little confused as to what I should be doing here.
@Neox Really appreciate the kudos.
@laeion Welcome to Polycount. Consider checking out the forum information and introduction thread.
Soft hard surface objects can be tricky to model but taking apart one of these packages or gathering references of them disassembled can provide some insight into how the paper is cut and folded to create the carton. Analyzing how these pieces fit together will make it easier to come up with a plan for modeling the shapes.
While there's a few different ways to approach this, depending on the level of accuracy required, it's generally a good idea to start by blocking out the shapes. Keeping things fairly simple during the block out makes it easier to adjust the larger forms and change the topology flow. Try to resolve any major shape or topology flow issues before adding the support loops.
If simplified fold details are acceptable then one of the easier modeling strategies would be to cut in the basic shape of the flaps and sealed seam then inset or extrude the outline to create some depth. While this approach is fairly quick and detailed enough for most background props, it won't be completely accurate. Which could be an issue if the model needs to be viewed up close.
If more complex fold details are required then it probably makes sense to model the entire seam standing up then fold it flat against the carton. This approach is a bit more involved but produces more accurate fold details. Below is an example of what this modeling process could look like.
Start by establishing the overall form then apply a mirror modifier and add a central loop cut. Select the outside edges and run a chamfer operation to create the fold line around the corners of the packing. Cut in an edge loop to define the basic shape of the flaps. Extrude this section and merge the geometry into a point. Use a bevel operation to create a square edge, that's the width of the sealed seam, along the central edge loop. Extrude the new loops upwards to create the standing seam. Add the support loops for the outer perimeter of the carton and additional loops for deforming the sides. Select the standing seam and fold it over then fold in the corners.
Adjust the position of the loops around the top and bottom of the carton. Looking at the references: the top tends to bow inwards and the bottom tends to bow outwards slightly. Loop select the edges that define the perimeter of the folded seam and corners of the box and add support loops with a bevel / chamfer operation. The folded seam on the bottom of the carton is the same as the top, only the flaps are folded inwards instead of outwards.
Though this mesh is water tight, the area under the folded seams will have some potential for overlap and could be further simplified by merging it into the underlying surface. In most cases this shouldn't be required but it is an option for any sort of edge case where the overlap causes issues.
Recap: Gather additional reference information about the folded parts of the object and use that to develop a plan for modeling the shapes. Block out the major forms and resolve the topology flow issues before adding support loops. Try to keep the basic geometry fairly simple, with relatively consistent segment spacing, then let the subdivision do most of the smoothing work around the corners of the folded flaps.
Lots of good advice on how to approach modeling the truncated sphere but when shape accuracy is important it's often beneficial to rely on mathematically consistent primitive geometry as a starting point. There's also nothing inherently wrong with using a sphere that has a central pole. It just requires a bit of adjustment to find the right number of rings and segments to get the geometry to line up with the section planes. Below is an example of what this process and resulting topology could look like.
There's also some situations where it makes more sense to use a regular sphere instead of a quad sphere or icosphere, since it's a lot easier to adjust the number of segments to line up with intersecting geometry. The remainder of partial rings can also be used as support loops. Without having to add additional geometry that would otherwise disturb the segment spacing and quality of the surface.
Quad sphere geometry tends to work well with symmetrical section planes but can run into issues when blending asymmetrical shape intersections. Both topology layouts are viable and deciding which to use really depends on what the adjacent geometry looks like.
@sacboi has a detailed post that explains a different modeling process for cutting holes in quad spheres and also covers why it's important to constrain shape changes to the transitional area between the support loops around the shape intersection.
For your latest shape question: the silhouettes on the reference sheet and the detailed side views seem to show a cut out between the two cylinders. Try using the two, parallel cylinders ahead of that area as a proportional reference then block out the larger cylinder towards the back and see how it looks with the gap that appears between the top and bottom.
I think the answer (as always) is in the realm of "moar geo". If you are modelling an (extreme) closeup of any object with any kind of detailed appearance (especially with sharp, uneven changes, like these sharp folds) you need enough geo to support the attempted level of detail. If you are doing this for like a high quality extreme close up for a commercial, the model you show is very low poly as well as uneven. If it's a game object that will only be seen from a distance, it's fine or a bit too detailed (it could literally be 6 polygons and a texture/normal map). If you want to catch the kind of details shown in the photograph, you need pretty extreme high amounts of geo to hold those subtle deformations. Probably a combination of modelling the basic folds and sculpting the details would be ideal in that case.
How to model this ?
I am working on this gun part but after subdiving it's resulting in a strech in the model. Can anyone tell me how to fix this even after subdividing.
@naman Resolving this type of smoothing artifact is a fairly common question and there's a number of different ways to approach the order of operations and topology routing. This thread has lots of great examples provided by the community so it's generally worth the time to have a quick look for how other artists have solved similar shape intersections.
A few of pages back @wirrexx shows how to blend similar intersections into spheroid shapes using n-gons and a couple of pages back there's a write-up that covers several different solutions for merging edge loops from shape transitions into the sides of cylinders.
Most approaches to resolving this type of smoothing artifacts can be boiled down into either using the existing geometry as a support loop by offsetting the intersecting shape or terminating the perpendicular edge loops in a triangular quad or n-gon.
Which approach makes the most sense will depend on whether or not the shape is constrained by adjacent geometry, how sharp the edges need to be and whether the transition into the cylinder needs to be exactly at the mid point. The following example highlights the basic concept and both approaches can be resolved to all quads if required.
Having trouble with the chamfers on this truck cabin. I start from a cube, chamfer or bevel all 4 edges of the cube, and then try to inset for the window, inset for the driver side window... but then I realize, it's really hard to control my bevel loops, subdivision, and get it to look like the truck cabin from the reference. It ends up just looking like my attempts below.
Especially this flat transition from the cabin's chamfer to the window. Ultimately, it's a mess of too many edge loops, and too many chamfers / bevels to create this cabin's curved edges and flat transitions!
Any help would be appreciated to try to get this closer or what order of operations I should follow. Chamfering a cube first and then trying to inset for the windshield or adding control loops for flat transitions doesn't seem to work.
@Deqa Automotive modeling is it's own specialist discipline but most of the basic principles of subdivision modeling are still relevant. @sacboi has provided some helpful guidance and links to some great write-ups about car modeling in a recent discussion.
It's often helpful to block out the larger shapes first then confirm that the mesh subdivides cleanly before adding secondary details, like cutouts for the doors and windows. Below is an example of what the modeling process could look like.
Break down the shape of the cab into individual planes then round over the transitions. Keep the geometry relatively consistent yet simple. Edge loops can be cut in and dissolved as required but flat surfaces should be kept co-planar and curved surfaces should have uniform segment spacing whenever possible.
Since these types of trucks tend to have a lot of flat surfaces, the same sort of block out process can be used to create a variety of different cab shapes. The important thing is to focus on creating accurate surfaces that are co-planar and consistent transitions that are fairly smooth. Keeping things relatively simple during the block out will also make it easier to solve shape and topology flow problems.
Someone help me on this. How to model this without strech.
I'd model separate pieces as separate models.
Thanks for take your time to answer! I think you gave more answers than questions I had :) ! I had an idea for your method (manual adjusting mesh) but my first tought was, that nobody do this way, .. but then I was wrong! I hope that I will find a little time, to try these modelling methods! I follow your threads, but honestly never heard about soft hard surface modells, I think I found something new to learn!
Well, I'm not working in the game industry, so modelling is a hobby for me at the moment. I don't make my modells to commercials or games, therefore my goals are different. I more like to create stylistic renders/animations instead of photorealistic. So I targeting more something between high poly and low poly. (mid poly?) I don't know this is a good approach, but since this is a hobby project for me I used to challenging myself to modelling something with minimal polycount but over lowpoly.
If I created some useful modells I will post them here for some critique!
By the way the style what really catch me is this (Arseniy Chebynkins work:
Please, someone help. I just cant wrap my head around on how do i model this?
Last image is what im aiming for
Hi guys, ive reached a dead end and i cannot progress any further.
IIts the bottom part of the handguard that gives me so much trouble. The curve at the bottom and the inset that ends with 2 edges connecting into a single vert. I tried extruding and using booleans but it just does not work. Please, tell me how do i even start making this absolute nightmare of a model
Hi guys,How to make it round?
Use more edge loops, extend the loops down and through the hole instead of looping around the corners, that'll pull out the corners like you're seeing.
I don't understand. Can you demonstrate it? Thank you very much!
Hello everyone. This is my first time trying to model something but I was wondering how I would be able to get a sharper edge on this? I'm trying to create a Pokeball. Thank you
@solitudevibes There's a couple of different ways to approach modeling a lighter hood. A direct approach would be to block out the major forms with a simple quad grid then subdivide to create the necessary support geometry for the holes. @wirrexx explains this modeling process, with a great visual example, in another thread. Though the shape of that hood is slightly different, the same basic principles can still be applied here.
It's also possible to model the shape using floaters or boolean operations. Which approach makes the most sense really depends on the technical requirements for the final model. There's a few recent examples of how to add details to curved surfaces using these modeling strategies. So, it's probably worth taking a look at some of the previous pages in this thread and finding some write-ups that show how to add circular cut outs to curved shapes.
For the hand guard: When modeling objects with complex shape intersections, it can be helpful to start the block out by analyzing the references and color coding the major forms and important shape transitions. Finding and studying reference material, like drawings, images, videos, etc., is an important part of the modeling process. Gather enough reference material to develop a working understanding of the relationship between the shapes that make up the key features and the shape transitions between the major surface planes.
Keep the initial block out relatively simple. Focus on creating the larger forms first then start adding smaller details. Maintain co-planar geometry for all of the individual surface planes that were identified previously. Continue working through all of the forms in the references. Try to resolve most of the major topology flow issues by matching the segments of intersecting shapes. Additional edge loops and final support loops can be added once the block out is complete.
Below is an example of what this process could look like when using booleans to create the primary features and bevel / chamfer operations to generate the curved shape transitions. The top cover and a few shapes on the inside have been omitted for simplicity.
Analyzing the reference images, identifying the shapes that make up key surface features then constructing the surface planes and generating consistent transitions between the shapes is a large part of hard surface modeling. As long as the geometry that defines the shapes remains relatively uniform the shapes themselves should define most of the loop flow. Which is why time spent gathering references and working through multiple iterations of the block out phase is usually paid back later in the modeling process.
While some shapes are relatively obvious, it can be helpful to get a second set of eyes on the references, shape analysis and block outs. Posting shaded and wireframe images of previous modeling attempts makes it easier to provide focused feedback. Which is an important part of working through difficult shapes that aren't turning out as expected. Though often much slower, it's also helpful to look back at previous attempts and break down the process to find what worked and what didn't. This sort of self reflection isn't always fun or easy to do but it's a significant part of growing as an artist.
@hututuzhang @bittermelon Welcome to Polycount. Consider checking out the forum information and introduction thread.
@hututuzhang There's a write-up on the previous page that covers a similar shape. This thread has a lot of great examples of different approaches to modeling. While some of the examples won't match any given question exactly, most of the basic modeling principles are the same and the order of operations can usually be modified to fit a specific 3D DCC. So, it's generally worth the time to take a look back and try to find a discussion about similar shapes or topology problems.
@bittermelon A few recent discussions in this thread have touched on cutting shapes into spheres and hemispheres but one of the simpler answers is to use a pair of perpendicular support loops that run around the perimeter of the shape and cross near the corners. Moving these support loops closer to the edge of the cut out will tend to sharpen it. Below is a basic example of what this could look like. Other, application specific, approaches like creases could also be an option but may not work well for certain types of modeling workflows.
I saw it, thanks.I imitate your wiring,The problem has lessened, but it remains.
I would like the effect to look like this,Or maybe this is an effect that cannot be done?
@hututuzhang The distortion is caused by reducing the loops instead of carrying them across the shape.
While it is generally possible to manually compensate for this type of shape distortion, some broader context is also required. Catmull-Clark subdivision smooths by averaging the existing vertices. This recursive smoothing tends to be visually appealing but can also reduce the accuracy of the shape once it's been smoothed.
If a high level of accuracy is required then the starting geometry of a subdivision model will generally need to be quite dense. Which can be difficult to work with when using poly modeling tools. This is why it's generally easier and more efficient to work with parametric modeling tools, like NURBs or other surfacing tools in CAD applications, for these kinds of tasks.
Most game and VFX models don't require this high level of surface accuracy and the relatively minor accuracy issues inherent to subdivision modeling are generally acceptable. Softer shape transitions aren't necessarily a bad thing either. Sharp corners that are exposed tend to be knocked down or chipped off during general use. Since the shape distortion in this example is constrained to a very small section at the top of the bore and is relatively subtle, it's actually a fair representation of a visually realistic surface.
The example below shows how this type of subtle deformation is generally constrained to the area between the two support loops. An easy way to resolve this unintended shape deformation is to move or scale the corner vertex outwards. Which will compensate for the smoothing stress that's pulling it backwards. Keep as many of the existing surfaces co-planar as possible when making these kinds of manual adjustments. This will help prevent creating any additional smoothing artifacts.
Most models won't be viewed from strictly isometric viewpoints either. Which is why it's important to consider the player's average view distance when making decisions about the width of support loops and whether or not minor smoothing inaccuracies are worth resolving. The flip side to all of this is that once the edge sharpness drops below a certain size, relative to the overall scale of the model, subdivision modeling starts to make less technical sense.
The example below shows how narrower support loops concentrate the additional geometry in a smaller area. Requiring more work to resolve the shape inconsistencies caused by disrupting the segment spacing of the intersecting cylinder and potentially introducing other types of shading artifacts.
If this level of deformation is unacceptable, especially with this tight of an edge highlight, it may make sense to increase the amount of geometry in the base shapes or if surface accuracy is more important than visual readability then it may make sense to look at alternate modeling workflows that don't smooth the shapes by averaging the existing vertices.
@FrankPolygon amazing breakdown! thank you, Frank
Cheers Frank, nice of you to mention other contributors too this thread.
Also imo, that weapon foregrip looks very juicy indeed 👍️
I see,Thank you very much for your help!
How the f* do I combine these ?
Hi ;) ! I am modeling a radial engine cylinder and I have some real issue combining these "heat fins" into the main cylinder corpus in a subd friendly way. As you can see the fins are pretty dense and their position seems incoherent with the cylinder body although I they are placed exactly as they should be based on blueprints.
Here is the .blend in question if anyone wanna play with it, thanks in advance !!!
You've kind of answered it yourself - in order to combine such fine/thin details onto a large, not very dense mesh - your cylinder needs to have a lot more segments to support that sort of intersection, which in return gives it some supporting geometry without pinching.
I'd advise simplifying, and thickening the fins up (for more readability, and so that you don't have to go too dense with your cylinder)
Hey guys, I want to ask how to model this？
Hello, I want to create this without any hard line. Can someone help me with this. It should be one object. I have tried multiple ways but not working.
do you have a better reference. If i understand it correctly, you want the cube part that goes into the cylinder to be softer? just even out some of the edges that are close to the area more.