well i decided i would test it out before i went on to model the whole thing and im still getting the same problem even after i bumped up all the sides and used the chamfer tool. ive been trying to fix this for a while and i just cant seem to get it right.
_________
I'm not sure I understand what the OP wants.
I look at the mesh, and the lighting reads exactly right. The way the joint is framed (geometrically), is how the render looks (lighting). The problem I'm having is understanding how this mesh is supposed to render the way the OP wants.
The quads that extend the length of the cylinder, out the left of the image, are extremely long, compared to the guide loops. I feel like, if this cylinder is a surface, I'm missing one whole axis of lines.
It seems to me that you reinforced the joint with a ring, but forgot to finish going around the joint.
Oh cryrid, I'm sorry. Edited, fixed, hopefully. Sometimes I get lost in my head. Drowning trying to learn 3D. hopefully this makes sense:
Okay, so for example:
THIS IS WHAT I THINK THE MESH IS TRYING TO TELL ME:
Orange: The support loop around the joint is uneven. The lighting in the render matches this decision perfectly.
Blue: Is the loop you want? Now, I think I see why you didn't create the blue curve across the top. No supporting geometry. Is that right?
IF you want the joint to match the underlying mesh geometry, as it appears, then doesn't the dotted blue line define the number of subdivisions you need in your starting cylinder, to attach this piece without nudging lines around?
Purple: In the render, the side of the joint is very sharp. Could the difference be split? Loosen the width a bit, and making a grid of this density, in both directions? That would be 3x the number of sides to the cylinder, and corresponding, perpendicular edge loops to make evenly distributed polys. Is that too high? Is there a problem with this approach?
Other thoughts:
I've noticed my solution is NOT how the good meshes look. People nudge their lines gently over to pick up complex surface changes, then nudge them back to latitude/longitude once the tension has been adequately resolved.
Anyway, I'll be trying this one! Promise!
________
What are the mistakes with this perspective? My roomate (3D artist) disagrees with me. He says the five-sided poly at the base is the biggest problem. I am not trying to be stubborn by disbelieving, I'm just trying to work through what I see in the lighting.
Yes, an acceptable answer is always "dude, stop talking and learn more on your own time and then ask questions."
Shred away!
EDIT: GIBSON'S COMMENT BELOW is in response to brain spew which I have subsequently deleted. It was a well justified whafuck.
Slumberland what you wrote can be condensed into 3 words : use more geo.
So...... I'm not crazy? This makes sense?
This example comes from earlier in the thread; I spent some time going through several, and marking questions on them. Bt if that shit I wrote sounded reasonable to you, I'll skip it and go back to work.
I ask these questions because I don't know. People can make up crazy explanations for anything, and grind them out against all reason. I'm a people; I do it, too. I really didn't know if that made sense outside my head.
Clockwise from back left:
1. Box with divisions
2. Scale in alternating divisions
3. Connect rings running length of mesh (see inset)
4. Connect rings around inner parts (see inset)
5. Sub-D (TurboSmooth in Max)
6. Bend Modifier
I am having a little trouble fixing this area on an MP7A1's flash hider for a high poly. When sub'd it doesn't visibly pinch so does it matter? Should I just detach them into elements and add more loops? Also, I modeled the inside of the flash hider, was that stupid?
When sub'd it doesn't visibly pinch so does it matter? Should I just detach them into elements and add more loops?
I dont understand, it looks fine but you're still worried? =P
Also, I modeled the inside of the flash hider, was that stupid?
It depends, if you're also going to model the inside on the low its fine, but this is generally excessive as its something you'd likely never see in a game. If you're not going to model the inside on the low then yes, it is stupid and may cause issues with the bakes.
Hi everyone, up until now I've just been lurking around, watching everybody else's amazing work, but now I thought I might as well ask for your help with something, since you all are a lot better than me at modeling etc.
So the deal is this, I'm trying to model this telephone socket thing, and I'm having some obvious problems making the circular indention in the middle.
And this is how far I've "made" it:
Now I know the topology is shitty at best, but I'm a real beginner when it comes to subdivision modeling and I'm having a hard time figuring out how and where to place the support edges at times.
I apologize for my stupid questions, but I really hope someone could help me along.
When baking high poly clusters or parts should the low poly mesh bake be broken up like the high or made to be one whole mesh? I keep hearing that making the low poly mesh whole is good for normals and organization.
When baking high poly clusters or parts should the low poly mesh bake be broken up like the high or made to be one whole mesh? I keep hearing that making the low poly mesh whole is good for normals and organization.
There isn't a NEVER do this or ALWAYS do that sort of rule here but
A solid mesh pros:
Uses less uv space
Generally will look better(less aliasing from a ton of separate chunks)
Waste less geometry on faces that will never be seen, this is also important. If your mesh has 30 separate chunks to save geometry, but 20% of the faces are unseen, you're not actually gaining any performance benefits.
Require a less complex bake setup, the more little chunks, the more to explode etc.
However some cons are:
Can use more geometry
Can require the use of additional corrective geometry to fix hard angles in complex areas/intersections
What I generally do is:
Use separate chunks for bits that will animate
Use separate chunks for bits that would otherwise cause complex intersections and need to be exploded
Use a generally seamless mesh otherwise
confused how i would properly do this chamfered bracket like shape with not tris and cleaner topology.
here is the mesh with wires left is subdivided twice with catmull clark and the one on the right is on subdivided and i got the 8 triangles each has selected.
i really want to find a way to make it and maintain the shape as best as possible since i want to inset the middle a bit with the same shape.
edit: a other similar shape that im having trouble with which has a ngon that i cant get rid of in a clean manner
Also, triangles/ngons are only an issue if they are causing some sort of bad visual artifact, if you can't tell they are there in the final result, its fine. The Ngon police aren't going to fine you. =P
Also, triangles/ngons are only an issue if they are causing some sort of bad visual artifact, if you can't tell they are there in the final result, its fine. The Ngon police aren't going to fine you. =P
there was a bit of bunching up with the ngon but the tris were causing no artifacts, but thanks to Racer445 i got a cleaner way to do it now since i also wanted to inset the middle a bit which was a bitch to do before.
Also, triangles/ngons are only an issue if they are causing some sort of bad visual artifact, if you can't tell they are there in the final result, its fine. The Ngon police aren't going to fine you. =P
LOL Ngon police. Always keeping an eye out behind my shoulder for them.
Also, triangles/ngons are only an issue if they are causing some sort of bad visual artifact, if you can't tell they are there in the final result, its fine. The Ngon police aren't going to fine you. =P
There isn't a NEVER do this or ALWAYS do that sort of rule here but
A solid mesh pros:
Uses less uv space
Generally will look better(less aliasing from a ton of separate chunks)
Waste less geometry on faces that will never be seen, this is also important. If your mesh has 30 separate chunks to save geometry, but 20% of the faces are unseen, you're not actually gaining any performance benefits.
Require a less complex bake setup, the more little chunks, the more to explode etc.
However some cons are:
Can use more geometry
Can require the use of additional corrective geometry to fix hard angles in complex areas/intersections
What I generally do is:
Use separate chunks for bits that will animate
Use separate chunks for bits that would otherwise cause complex intersections and need to be exploded
Use a generally seamless mesh otherwise
Trying to figure out how to model the legs for this table. Spirals in general tend to throw me off. Extrusion along a curve keeps giving me uneven topology and stretches the edge rings pretty harsh.
Hey guys long time no response (on my part), been really busy on my new gig. Anyways I thought I would throw you guys some love
SnowInChina: you are so right that guys stuff is like MODELING GOSPEL.
SUPA: there are tons of examples in the back pages of this thread covering different ways to do it and trust me I do mean different.
No all curve cuts are created equal.
Gannon: very intriguing idea for a model.
For the spirals yes doing a spiral spiral spline and adding a loft will be your best bet. And you may just have to use that geometry as a base and retopologize from.
Model the leaves on top of the spirals flat and using a ffd and bend modifiers place on top of the spiral geo. Alot of the small pieces will need to floating geometry, but once you start that it will be rather easy.
might need to do splines along the edges of the spirals and then give them a poly thickness to get them the way you want as well
would be bad ass if you gave the faces the right type of facial topo and then had the faces move and then fade to wireframe to show that you went to that detail.
for the small spiral pieces I would also start with a spline and use as a go by with box modeling or make a renderable spline out of it and work from there just try to keep you geo lo for as long as you can.
On this stuff I do a base mesh in an hour to start, so I can model the little pieces and get idea how things will fit later on so all my scaling is correct and what not.
LET US ME KNOW IF YOU DECIDE TO DO THIS PIECE BECAUSE I REALLY WANT TO KNOW.
Thanks for the reply Danielmn, the head and leaves aren't really a bother those are easy, it's just getting clean results without having to do a bunch of vert wrangling and retopologizing a sprial is what I'd like to avoid.
I'd like to hear recommendations on how you handle corners and hard edges when you are going out on a curved surface, like below. I usually just try to finesse it until the highlight looks as least bad as possible but I'm sure there's a solid solution.
I'd like to hear recommendations on how you handle corners and hard edges when you are going out on a curved surface, like below. I usually just try to finesse it until the highlight looks as least bad as possible but I'm sure there's a solid solution.
Max:
For baking I want to float these pink cylindrical extrusions(shown in the picture below) to the shape of one of the cylinders. I tried using the bend modifier 360d, but that doesnt seem to work on floaters such as this. I was told the solution may be in this thread, but after browsing through all the pages I did not see it so I will go ahead and post. Thanks in advance!
EDIT: not sure if you can do this easily with bend without messing with the gizmo and what not. Just array it around easier.
Max:
For baking I want to float these pink cylindrical extrusions(shown in the picture below) to the shape of one of the cylinders. I tried using the bend modifier 360d, but that doesnt seem to work on floaters such as this. I was told the solution may be in this thread, but after browsing through all the pages I did not see it so I will go ahead and post. Thanks in advance!
[IMG][/img]EDIT: not sure if you can do this easily with bend without messing with the gizmo and what not. Just array it around easier.
Why don't you do it like this?
I'm at work now, but I can post how I made it (though it's pretty simple) whenever I get back home.
I would not use curve objects or those kind of approaches. Typically when you want very smooth poly curves the trick is to use extremely few polies and subdivide a lot. This means there's a minimum of manual work to do. When you're happy with the shape you can collapse a couple of subd-levels so you have a base upon which to add detail.
Thanks, I think I understand but do you have an example just to clarify?
That looks awesome. Sure I would love to see your process whenever you are able to. Thanks in advance
Hey man, sorry for not being able to reply earlier, yesterday I got busy and couldn't do it, but I will do it during my lunch break. I have two methods and they might not be the best, but they usually work for me.
I'll post it in about two hours (or less) from now.
This method is the one I used for the silencer on my last WIP. Now, for this method I first decided how many depressions I wanted in the shape. In this case, its 6 rows of 3 circles. So for each row I will use one edge, and then have one edge on each side so the cylinder has a cleaner shape (but this also depends on how many space you have, how big you want the circles, how many rows you have, etc ).
1. Make a cylinder and convert it to Editable Poly.
2. Add as many edges as you might need. I have 3 circles per row so I have 6 edges (1 edge in between each circle row).
3. I also added some control edges so the cylinder doesnt curve on those edges. You would also need to add the extra details that a silencer has, but this is not the tutorial for that.
4. Once youve done this, select the vertices where you want the circles to be (in my case, 1 every two rows and every two columns). Finally chamfer them the size you want for your circles.
5 & 6. This part depends completely on the shape you want. Select the newly created polygons and bevel them inwards. Do this a few times to also create control edges (again, depending on the shape you want) and you are done.
Finally make it all one smoothing group (or leave the bottoms as another group, depending on what shape youre looking for), throw some TurboSmooth into it (you can also make one TurboSmooth based on the smoothing groups and then another TurboSmooth based on material to get a different result. Its like making extra control edges, basically). Here are the results of the 5th and 6th examples.
And this is the other result I posted in the last page:
The problem here is that you have un-even geometry, to do this, you need an evenly spaced grid.
This isn't perfect and still results in some slightttt smoothing issues, but shouldn't be noticable when baked down. Important thing is A. enough geometry, B. Even grid, C. How insets flow with grid.
Uhm.. this is the first time I see that post, but the one I saw where I learned how to make circle holes in meshes was pretty similar and I saw it here in polycount.
Ahhh, yeah yeah, that was the one, SeanEG!. I will post a link to your site on my mini-tutorial later (I'm at work now, believe it or not :P.. doing some ZBrush rocks I learned from another post here...)
Replies
I'm not sure I understand what the OP wants.
I look at the mesh, and the lighting reads exactly right. The way the joint is framed (geometrically), is how the render looks (lighting). The problem I'm having is understanding how this mesh is supposed to render the way the OP wants.
The quads that extend the length of the cylinder, out the left of the image, are extremely long, compared to the guide loops. I feel like, if this cylinder is a surface, I'm missing one whole axis of lines.
It seems to me that you reinforced the joint with a ring, but forgot to finish going around the joint.
Am I thinking clearly?
Okay, so for example:
THIS IS WHAT I THINK THE MESH IS TRYING TO TELL ME:
Orange: The support loop around the joint is uneven. The lighting in the render matches this decision perfectly.
Blue: Is the loop you want? Now, I think I see why you didn't create the blue curve across the top. No supporting geometry. Is that right?
IF you want the joint to match the underlying mesh geometry, as it appears, then doesn't the dotted blue line define the number of subdivisions you need in your starting cylinder, to attach this piece without nudging lines around?
Purple: In the render, the side of the joint is very sharp. Could the difference be split? Loosen the width a bit, and making a grid of this density, in both directions? That would be 3x the number of sides to the cylinder, and corresponding, perpendicular edge loops to make evenly distributed polys. Is that too high? Is there a problem with this approach?
Other thoughts:
I've noticed my solution is NOT how the good meshes look. People nudge their lines gently over to pick up complex surface changes, then nudge them back to latitude/longitude once the tension has been adequately resolved.
Anyway, I'll be trying this one! Promise!
________
What are the mistakes with this perspective? My roomate (3D artist) disagrees with me. He says the five-sided poly at the base is the biggest problem. I am not trying to be stubborn by disbelieving, I'm just trying to work through what I see in the lighting.
Yes, an acceptable answer is always "dude, stop talking and learn more on your own time and then ask questions."
Shred away!
EDIT: GIBSON'S COMMENT BELOW is in response to brain spew which I have subsequently deleted. It was a well justified whafuck.
It can be condensed further: more geo .
Sorry, i just couldn´t resist:poly142:
So...... I'm not crazy? This makes sense?
This example comes from earlier in the thread; I spent some time going through several, and marking questions on them. Bt if that shit I wrote sounded reasonable to you, I'll skip it and go back to work.
I ask these questions because I don't know. People can make up crazy explanations for anything, and grind them out against all reason. I'm a people; I do it, too. I really didn't know if that made sense outside my head.
Thanks.
Most other cases are messy geometry.
1. Box with divisions
2. Scale in alternating divisions
3. Connect rings running length of mesh (see inset)
4. Connect rings around inner parts (see inset)
5. Sub-D (TurboSmooth in Max)
6. Bend Modifier
I am having a little trouble fixing this area on an MP7A1's flash hider for a high poly. When sub'd it doesn't visibly pinch so does it matter? Should I just detach them into elements and add more loops? Also, I modeled the inside of the flash hider, was that stupid?
You can also bevel those corners out for those little metal caps.
I dont understand, it looks fine but you're still worried? =P
It depends, if you're also going to model the inside on the low its fine, but this is generally excessive as its something you'd likely never see in a game. If you're not going to model the inside on the low then yes, it is stupid and may cause issues with the bakes.
So the deal is this, I'm trying to model this telephone socket thing, and I'm having some obvious problems making the circular indention in the middle.
And this is how far I've "made" it:
Now I know the topology is shitty at best, but I'm a real beginner when it comes to subdivision modeling and I'm having a hard time figuring out how and where to place the support edges at times.
I apologize for my stupid questions, but I really hope someone could help me along.
Cheers
Mikael
There isn't a NEVER do this or ALWAYS do that sort of rule here but
A solid mesh pros:
Uses less uv space
Generally will look better(less aliasing from a ton of separate chunks)
Waste less geometry on faces that will never be seen, this is also important. If your mesh has 30 separate chunks to save geometry, but 20% of the faces are unseen, you're not actually gaining any performance benefits.
Require a less complex bake setup, the more little chunks, the more to explode etc.
However some cons are:
Can use more geometry
Can require the use of additional corrective geometry to fix hard angles in complex areas/intersections
What I generally do is:
Use separate chunks for bits that will animate
Use separate chunks for bits that would otherwise cause complex intersections and need to be exploded
Use a generally seamless mesh otherwise
here is the mesh with wires left is subdivided twice with catmull clark and the one on the right is on subdivided and i got the 8 triangles each has selected.
i really want to find a way to make it and maintain the shape as best as possible since i want to inset the middle a bit with the same shape.
edit: a other similar shape that im having trouble with which has a ngon that i cant get rid of in a clean manner
Also, triangles/ngons are only an issue if they are causing some sort of bad visual artifact, if you can't tell they are there in the final result, its fine. The Ngon police aren't going to fine you. =P
there was a bit of bunching up with the ngon but the tris were causing no artifacts, but thanks to Racer445 i got a cleaner way to do it now since i also wanted to inset the middle a bit which was a bitch to do before.
LOL Ngon police. Always keeping an eye out behind my shoulder for them.
^
Excellent response and thanks!
What are some methods you guys use/recommend?
http://vimeo.com/10941211
here´s a video covering the most basic things about hardsurface stuff
Thanks a lot!
SnowInChina: you are so right that guys stuff is like MODELING GOSPEL.
SUPA: there are tons of examples in the back pages of this thread covering different ways to do it and trust me I do mean different.
No all curve cuts are created equal.
Gannon: very intriguing idea for a model.
For the spirals yes doing a spiral spiral spline and adding a loft will be your best bet. And you may just have to use that geometry as a base and retopologize from.
Model the leaves on top of the spirals flat and using a ffd and bend modifiers place on top of the spiral geo. Alot of the small pieces will need to floating geometry, but once you start that it will be rather easy.
might need to do splines along the edges of the spirals and then give them a poly thickness to get them the way you want as well
would be bad ass if you gave the faces the right type of facial topo and then had the faces move and then fade to wireframe to show that you went to that detail.
for the small spiral pieces I would also start with a spline and use as a go by with box modeling or make a renderable spline out of it and work from there just try to keep you geo lo for as long as you can.
On this stuff I do a base mesh in an hour to start, so I can model the little pieces and get idea how things will fit later on so all my scaling is correct and what not.
LET US ME KNOW IF YOU DECIDE TO DO THIS PIECE BECAUSE I REALLY WANT TO KNOW.
anyways gus
May the polys be with you
more geo
For baking I want to float these pink cylindrical extrusions(shown in the picture below) to the shape of one of the cylinders. I tried using the bend modifier 360d, but that doesnt seem to work on floaters such as this. I was told the solution may be in this thread, but after browsing through all the pages I did not see it so I will go ahead and post. Thanks in advance!
EDIT: not sure if you can do this easily with bend without messing with the gizmo and what not. Just array it around easier.
Why don't you do it like this?
I'm at work now, but I can post how I made it (though it's pretty simple) whenever I get back home.
Thanks, I think I understand but do you have an example just to clarify?
Hey man, sorry for not being able to reply earlier, yesterday I got busy and couldn't do it, but I will do it during my lunch break. I have two methods and they might not be the best, but they usually work for me.
I'll post it in about two hours (or less) from now.
This method is the one I used for the silencer on my last WIP. Now, for this method I first decided how many depressions I wanted in the shape. In this case, its 6 rows of 3 circles. So for each row I will use one edge, and then have one edge on each side so the cylinder has a cleaner shape (but this also depends on how many space you have, how big you want the circles, how many rows you have, etc ).
1. Make a cylinder and convert it to Editable Poly.
2. Add as many edges as you might need. I have 3 circles per row so I have 6 edges (1 edge in between each circle row).
3. I also added some control edges so the cylinder doesnt curve on those edges. You would also need to add the extra details that a silencer has, but this is not the tutorial for that.
4. Once youve done this, select the vertices where you want the circles to be (in my case, 1 every two rows and every two columns). Finally chamfer them the size you want for your circles.
5 & 6. This part depends completely on the shape you want. Select the newly created polygons and bevel them inwards. Do this a few times to also create control edges (again, depending on the shape you want) and you are done.
Finally make it all one smoothing group (or leave the bottoms as another group, depending on what shape youre looking for), throw some TurboSmooth into it (you can also make one TurboSmooth based on the smoothing groups and then another TurboSmooth based on material to get a different result. Its like making extra control edges, basically). Here are the results of the 5th and 6th examples.
And this is the other result I posted in the last page:
There's another method on my site: http://mik2121.com/tutorials/surface-holes-and-depressions-tutorial
Either way, these tutorials have content that's pretty common to the polycount community. But still, it might be of some help..
Maybe it was you?
http://seanvangorder.com/?p=89
But the point where the 'tight to support point' might be too... tight? Not that I could do it any better.
Okay thanks, didn't think of that lol
Dude's lightning fast on his keyboard shortcuts, though.
I think this is what living inside Pedro's mind might be like.
http://www.vimeo.com/7901273
http://www.vimeo.com/8155497
http://www.vimeo.com/9984227