Don't remember how the screwdriver is (don't really use them all that much) and the screw I used as reference has the inside a bit dirty and it's quite small, so I definitely didn't notice that it isn't flat.
I guess the center is deeper? I'll check on google (no, seriously, the screws I have around are not that good of a reference :P) and modify the model.
Thanks, and don't worry I know you're not being bitchy!.
Edit: vvvv thanks for the pics!. I'm at work now but I will modify the model during the lunch break. I plan on having these kinds of screws and other details as models that I can import whenever I want to add extra details to my own models. Though I'll need to give it a pass through ZBrush to add some scratches and imperfections.
edit 2: scratch that (no pun intended), the bolt is too small to give it some zbrush scratches. I guess I can just add something on top of it in photoshop and it will look fine enough. Anyway, I'm on my break now, I will try to give this some depth, though I'm not sure of the exact shape of the inside.
How am I going to sharpen the edges here without messing the curve up?
In this case more geo is a better solution as the shape doesn't smooth very nicely but you can select edge loops and use creasing also on any subdivided mesh.
*Object on left has no creasing and object on right has 0.5.
Heyy guys, this weekend im going to try and actually fully model and texture something that i can see easily what it is, i fail at Uv'ing so that will be the hard part, how ever, does anyone know how to model a screw part like in this picture in max 2012?
You could try something like this. Once saw a video (Pedro?) where an edge of a cylinder was ofset, while evenly distributing the displacement over the other verts of the cylinder, however that was in modo. I am not sure if that can be done in max (if someone knows let us know) (Just searched, the vid was in this thread, but no longer accessible).
anyways, my max workaround to that ... hope this helps you out.
yeah. i did that. the problem is most videos i removed them from the site cause they were old as shit lol. usually happens also when i put stuff on dropbox and then clean that stuff up. dead links everywhere!
that's why when i put stuff for foruns or other places i put them now on my webserver cause i know i will never delete that stuff.
why are you bothering to add all this extra geo, put in all the extra effort of control edges and such, when you could just use smoothing groups to get the same result?!
*qualification
this is a "semi" troll post, because someone actually presented this argument to me on another forum, and i'm having a hard time faulting the logic other than "you're a douche". so if anyone could inform me better, so that i can just link him to this. that would be fantastic.
What? You don't get the same result using smoothing groups.
You can do a turbo smooth by smoothing groups and then a normal turbo smooth, but if you do that you are adding extra edges in areas you might now want.
If you mean something else, show an actual example.
1. No turbosmooth, all 1 smoothing group
2. No control edges, turbosmooth (2x) by smoothing groups, turbosmooth (2x) normal settings.
3. Control edges, all 1 smoothing group
4. Control edges, turbosmooth (2x) normal settings.
What? I don't understand what he means. Is he getting that result on the left with just smoothing groups and no normal map attached to it? Because that'd be the first time I see such thing (in Max it doesn't happen).
You can use tricks and hacks and stuff to end up at the same result, on a simple box that is. However, when you start getting into more complex shapes, and more importantly CURVES, it becomes essential to use proper sub-d. Getting a beveled edges on planar surfaces isn't the only reason to use sub-d.
In addition to that, hacks like this:
A. are very application specific, so they will not trasfer to a different app, which may be essential for some people, like freelancers who need to get reliable results no matter what the job, or bake in xnormal/inhouse tool/etc
B. generally a pain to set up, and you get no realtime preview of the effect, which = major fail
C. You may have problems baking this shader based effect at all, in some apps.
Control loops on a proper sub-d mesh are super powerful and offer instant feedback, and really, aren't that hard to use. The people who tend to complain about this are the guys who want to "turn my lowpoly into a highpoly" and are just too slow, or dont really understand the process, and want a quick fix rather than learning how to model sub-d efficiently.
Using standard modeling methods also allows you the freedom to do your sub-d modeling in a tool more suited to it, like Modo or Silo, which are pretty much designed from the ground up to be sub-d based modelers, and then load your mesh seamlessly into Max/Maya.
im not implying using this "dirty" round edges on all models.
Sometimes you want sharp edges on something like a blade and the best way to do that is using sub-d smoothgroups. and then there is no need to lay in extra edges.
makin a combination of both techniques can lead to really nice results
O hi, let me spare you the effort.
*rounded corners*
With that nifty option you can create that effect.
That technique has been in the wiki for a while now. There seems to be problems getting it to bake correctly depending on the application, and having used it on several objects myself I would say its usefulness depends entirely on the mesh you're modeling. Cubes are great, even joining together two cylinders and other simpler forms, and you can even combine it with other bumpmaps to bake as well. But when you have a shape that requires a non-consistent beveling across the surface, it becomes more of a hassle to set up. And since you're using the mesh itself (and only the straight edges, like the window suggests), the geometry has to be in place in order to get the surface shading you want (high-poly meshes can contribute more than just beveled edges to a normal map). As a result ironically the solution still becomes 'add more geo' to the mesh, except this time you're adding the geo to the final mesh.
You can go through the thread and try it on a number of problematic shapes (I have in the past); some it'll work out very nicely and save time, others it just can't create the desired result (try with an assault rifle, especially one with rails and all sorts of different edges, and it will be a different story). It's one of those things where you really have to use it to learn to differentiate between when you can get away using it as a shortcut, and when you're just better off learning how to model the actual shape.
There are of course other things it can not do that requires more geo on the high-res model (like cutting holes in curved surfaces).
Edit: Here's an example of some of the extra work that can be required to model with this shader's behavior in mind, even for a pretty simple shape.
Arthur: My response wasn't geared towards you, but the "Why even bother?" question posed by gir.
Cyrid: Yeah I think you're hitting the main point here, when you start working on complex objects, or anyting with variance in bevel width, it just because a huge pain in the ass. I mean you could end up with 40 different objects with different material setting just to get the end result, again none of which you can see real time, at this point you're not actually saving any time or effort.
Not sure about the connect vs bevel/chamfer, but for the first question regarding the UVs I think it should be easy enough to unwrap (although I don't see much of a purpose in unwrapping a high-poly mesh). The only hard part is that the closer the edges are, the more you'd have to really get in really tight to select them. Also if there is a bevel then there may no longer be any obvious hard-edges to use for a seam, so you may have to decide where you'll have them.
Well, don't get him wrong. Truth be told theres still some things you can do to the topology/control loops to make his life easier and prevent less warping on the UVs once it gets subdivided (again, I'm not sure why the highpoly here is even getting UV'd, and the warping could be an issue depending on what you're looking to do here).
Edit: Sorry for the delay, I had to get out an vote. Here's an example of what I mean though. I gave each a similar UV layout, but you can see how the texture may start to warp on the original once it begins to subdivide.
I changed the flow a bit for that example (a by-product of me starting from scratch), but even if you take the original and just add more faces like that, it should go quite a ways towards not warping things (like so)
Here is an issue I am having with these cut in slits. Is it just a matter of making the cuts terminate differently? I tried a couple things and the wonkiness just kinda moved slightly. Help, thanks...
Some more divisions around that cylinder would help it. That way the span of that terminating geometry is made substantially shorter and it's effect is lessened.
Also, I wouldn't recommend introducing ngons on curved surfaces. Keep those loops going the entire way around the cylinder, otherwise you'll get odd pinching where they just end on that edge, regardless of what you do to fix it.
More geo! but where? Tough corners and I've tried some things but it's rather hard to loop around the entire section (from southwest to northeast) because this is an object that goes from round to more square ish where the hole is. Some help would be appreciated!
OK...so i have a question. And just to let you guys know i have been experimenting with this all weekend. Learned a lot. But i went through all the pages in this thread and found nothing about ornate armor modeling techniques. for example the areas in this image:
i've learned lots about trying splines and duplicating geo to manipulate then give it a shell and replace back on the model. however, i'm wondering how the pro's could weigh in on this subject. another example is perna's creature on the 3 point site....the one with the sword staff thingy. there are a lot of intricate armor elements in that model. the information i'm looking for is for me and my current project, but also for others that may be looking for a tip or two. also, i realize this stuff could be done w/masks in zbrush...but for some reason...it always comes out more solid with subD.
OK...so i have a question. And just to let you guys know i have been experimenting with this all weekend. Learned a lot. But i went through all the pages in this thread and found nothing about ornate armor modeling techniques. for example the areas in this image:
i've learned lots about trying splines and duplicating geo to manipulate then give it a shell and replace back on the model. however, i'm wondering how the pro's could weigh in on this subject. another example is perna's creature on the 3 point site....the one with the sword staff thingy. there are a lot of intricate armor elements in that model. the information i'm looking for is for me and my current project, but also for others that may be looking for a tip or two. also, i realize this stuff could be done w/masks in zbrush...but for some reason...it always comes out more solid with subD.
thanks.
for baking purposes using splines and duplacting geo of a surface of an object is perfectly fine, there's no point in causing yourself grief in trying to make it all fit in as one
Your missing two loops on each depression that would support the sides. Try slicing or connecting across edges to create loops first then extrude the required portions.
OK...so i have a question. And just to let you guys know i have been experimenting with this all weekend. Learned a lot. But i went through all the pages in this thread and found nothing about ornate armor modeling techniques. for example the areas in this image:
[...]
Are you talking about using Maya or another modeling software? The only modeling software I have is Maya 2011 and I want to make weapons for TF2. I have a model of a rocket launcher for the soldier that I would like to submit to Valve, but is it even possible to do with Maya?
Hey there! Im having trouble with sub-dividing a slide for a gun. I don't post for help unless I am physically ripping my hair out! Now, I have no hair left so here I am.
This is not accurate to any reference, it basically just a test slide I did to post my problem. Its a curved slide, but the details at the back are proving impossible for me to create support edges, while still maintaining the curve.
Wire. I know there is a tri on that edge, but when I took the shot that was my current attempt out of many.
Close up. This is a different attempt at adding the support edge. Without destroying the slides curve.
Please, I really must be missing something here. I know the geometry is a little messy, but this was a really quick test. Help would be greatly appreciated!
Yes as always, more geo. Maybe not as much as grim has there, but certainly more. Your problem pic looks like its just a lowpoly model with some control edges added, dont try to "optimize" your high.
Yes as always, more geo. Maybe not as much as grim has there, but certainly more. Your problem pic looks like its just a lowpoly model with some control edges added, dont try to "optimize" your high.
I wonder how those it work. People post pics and ask for advice in topic named "MORE GEO". Then 95% of advices = "more geo"... Just browse few pages of this thread and blam you've got your anwser.
The first link doesnt work for me "Firefox has detected that the server is redirecting the request for this address in a way that will never complete."
Second link works though
*edit* how odd. It downloaded the pdf but gave me that error. nothing to see here
Thanks metalliandy, I just checked now and it's the same for me Can't attach the file here either so it's pretty frustrating!
Might ask my host but for now the .rar document also has the pdf in seperate page format instead of joined.
OK thanks for the replies! I guess I'm still trying to maintain a relatively low poly for the control cage, to make it easier later to just remove support edges to get the low poly model without having to remodel. Probs just me being lazy, lol. Cheers!
OK thanks for the replies! I guess I'm still trying to maintain a relatively low poly for the control cage, to make it easier later to just remove support edges to get the low poly model without having to remodel. Probs just me being lazy, lol. Cheers!
Yeah, this will actually cost you more time in the long run, as you've gotta fiddle with placing your control loops just right and manually tweak them to get the right shape and all that, the lazy thing is to actually just use more geo. =P
OK I have tried it with more geo, much easier to work with! Would it be a good idea to add a turbosmooth but smooth results by smoothing group, this adding more geometry which creates 'natural' support edges. Then colapse this and add in tighter support edges?? Then add another turbosmooth? Or is that a bad workflow?
And also, I like to create my low poly from my high so positioning/sizing is correct. But how would I do this if I have a really dense model? Like geos example? Which I cant really see how it would be optimized for a low. Any tips on that front?
Replies
It took me two tries to get it to look alright-ish.
I guess the center is deeper? I'll check on google (no, seriously, the screws I have around are not that good of a reference :P) and modify the model.
Thanks, and don't worry I know you're not being bitchy!.
Edit: vvvv thanks for the pics!. I'm at work now but I will modify the model during the lunch break. I plan on having these kinds of screws and other details as models that I can import whenever I want to add extra details to my own models. Though I'll need to give it a pass through ZBrush to add some scratches and imperfections.
edit 2: scratch that (no pun intended), the bolt is too small to give it some zbrush scratches. I guess I can just add something on top of it in photoshop and it will look fine enough. Anyway, I'm on my break now, I will try to give this some depth, though I'm not sure of the exact shape of the inside.
Anyway, back to work.
This is the image I used as source:
(the one in the middle).
It didn't seem to have as much depth as the Phillips one.
In this case more geo is a better solution as the shape doesn't smooth very nicely but you can select edge loops and use creasing also on any subdivided mesh.
*Object on left has no creasing and object on right has 0.5.
anyways, my max workaround to that ... hope this helps you out.
that's why when i put stuff for foruns or other places i put them now on my webserver cause i know i will never delete that stuff.
why are you bothering to add all this extra geo, put in all the extra effort of control edges and such, when you could just use smoothing groups to get the same result?!
*qualification
this is a "semi" troll post, because someone actually presented this argument to me on another forum, and i'm having a hard time faulting the logic other than "you're a douche". so if anyone could inform me better, so that i can just link him to this. that would be fantastic.
You can do a turbo smooth by smoothing groups and then a normal turbo smooth, but if you do that you are adding extra edges in areas you might now want.
If you mean something else, show an actual example.
1. No turbosmooth, all 1 smoothing group
2. No control edges, turbosmooth (2x) by smoothing groups, turbosmooth (2x) normal settings.
3. Control edges, all 1 smoothing group
4. Control edges, turbosmooth (2x) normal settings.
With that nifty option you can create that effect.
In addition to that, hacks like this:
A. are very application specific, so they will not trasfer to a different app, which may be essential for some people, like freelancers who need to get reliable results no matter what the job, or bake in xnormal/inhouse tool/etc
B. generally a pain to set up, and you get no realtime preview of the effect, which = major fail
C. You may have problems baking this shader based effect at all, in some apps.
Control loops on a proper sub-d mesh are super powerful and offer instant feedback, and really, aren't that hard to use. The people who tend to complain about this are the guys who want to "turn my lowpoly into a highpoly" and are just too slow, or dont really understand the process, and want a quick fix rather than learning how to model sub-d efficiently.
Using standard modeling methods also allows you the freedom to do your sub-d modeling in a tool more suited to it, like Modo or Silo, which are pretty much designed from the ground up to be sub-d based modelers, and then load your mesh seamlessly into Max/Maya.
im not implying using this "dirty" round edges on all models.
Sometimes you want sharp edges on something like a blade and the best way to do that is using sub-d smoothgroups. and then there is no need to lay in extra edges.
makin a combination of both techniques can lead to really nice results
That technique has been in the wiki for a while now. There seems to be problems getting it to bake correctly depending on the application, and having used it on several objects myself I would say its usefulness depends entirely on the mesh you're modeling. Cubes are great, even joining together two cylinders and other simpler forms, and you can even combine it with other bumpmaps to bake as well. But when you have a shape that requires a non-consistent beveling across the surface, it becomes more of a hassle to set up. And since you're using the mesh itself (and only the straight edges, like the window suggests), the geometry has to be in place in order to get the surface shading you want (high-poly meshes can contribute more than just beveled edges to a normal map). As a result ironically the solution still becomes 'add more geo' to the mesh, except this time you're adding the geo to the final mesh.
You can go through the thread and try it on a number of problematic shapes (I have in the past); some it'll work out very nicely and save time, others it just can't create the desired result (try with an assault rifle, especially one with rails and all sorts of different edges, and it will be a different story). It's one of those things where you really have to use it to learn to differentiate between when you can get away using it as a shortcut, and when you're just better off learning how to model the actual shape.
There are of course other things it can not do that requires more geo on the high-res model (like cutting holes in curved surfaces).
Edit: Here's an example of some of the extra work that can be required to model with this shader's behavior in mind, even for a pretty simple shape.
Cyrid: Yeah I think you're hitting the main point here, when you start working on complex objects, or anyting with variance in bevel width, it just because a huge pain in the ass. I mean you could end up with 40 different objects with different material setting just to get the end result, again none of which you can see real time, at this point you're not actually saving any time or effort.
Not sure about the connect vs bevel/chamfer, but for the first question regarding the UVs I think it should be easy enough to unwrap (although I don't see much of a purpose in unwrapping a high-poly mesh). The only hard part is that the closer the edges are, the more you'd have to really get in really tight to select them. Also if there is a bevel then there may no longer be any obvious hard-edges to use for a seam, so you may have to decide where you'll have them.
Edit: Sorry for the delay, I had to get out an vote. Here's an example of what I mean though. I gave each a similar UV layout, but you can see how the texture may start to warp on the original once it begins to subdivide.
Some more divisions around that cylinder would help it. That way the span of that terminating geometry is made substantially shorter and it's effect is lessened.
Also, I wouldn't recommend introducing ngons on curved surfaces. Keep those loops going the entire way around the cylinder, otherwise you'll get odd pinching where they just end on that edge, regardless of what you do to fix it.
The base cylindrical shape would be my first suggestion.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
i've learned lots about trying splines and duplicating geo to manipulate then give it a shell and replace back on the model. however, i'm wondering how the pro's could weigh in on this subject. another example is perna's creature on the 3 point site....the one with the sword staff thingy. there are a lot of intricate armor elements in that model. the information i'm looking for is for me and my current project, but also for others that may be looking for a tip or two. also, i realize this stuff could be done w/masks in zbrush...but for some reason...it always comes out more solid with subD.
thanks.
you can just select the top bottom and left and right verts and scale them on the x and z axis.
for baking purposes using splines and duplacting geo of a surface of an object is perfectly fine, there's no point in causing yourself grief in trying to make it all fit in as one
Your missing two loops on each depression that would support the sides. Try slicing or connecting across edges to create loops first then extrude the required portions.
For those affraind of sculpting the ornaments.
The Pandicarus Tutorials by Mike 'Squirrely Jones' Voeller
More specific, this part: http://www.squirrelyjones.com/public/model.pdf
I think there was a thread about this unwraping -> flatening -> attaching ornaments/chainmail -> morphing back inot shape subject somewhere too. Also, in Textools there is a script that does the flattening afaik.
CHEERS.
This is not accurate to any reference, it basically just a test slide I did to post my problem. Its a curved slide, but the details at the back are proving impossible for me to create support edges, while still maintaining the curve.
Wire. I know there is a tri on that edge, but when I took the shot that was my current attempt out of many.
Close up. This is a different attempt at adding the support edge. Without destroying the slides curve.
Please, I really must be missing something here. I know the geometry is a little messy, but this was a really quick test. Help would be greatly appreciated!
:P I thought it would help get the point across.
hell some of my stuff has so much geo that unless your right close up you cant tell the different between having no subdivision and have a few put on.
Downloads
One Page PDF: http://www.gcmax.co.uk/download/cylholes_24.03.11.pdf
PDF + 3dsMax File: http://www.gcmax.co.uk/download/cylholes.rar
The first link doesnt work for me "Firefox has detected that the server is redirecting the request for this address in a way that will never complete."
Second link works though
*edit* how odd. It downloaded the pdf but gave me that error. nothing to see here
Might ask my host but for now the .rar document also has the pdf in seperate page format instead of joined.
oh, it worked? strangeness going on
Yeah, this will actually cost you more time in the long run, as you've gotta fiddle with placing your control loops just right and manually tweak them to get the right shape and all that, the lazy thing is to actually just use more geo. =P
And also, I like to create my low poly from my high so positioning/sizing is correct. But how would I do this if I have a really dense model? Like geos example? Which I cant really see how it would be optimized for a low. Any tips on that front?
Cheers!