See, this is where I think you're very wrong. Learning from someone who already has the skill that you're trying to acquire IS a shortcut. Whenever perna or EQ or some other talented subd modeler drops a mini-tutorial in this thread, that's knowledge I gain that I didn't have before. All of that adds up, over time.
Yes, you should absolutely work stuff out on your own and learn as much as you can via experience. But advocating slogging it out in isolation is silly, IMO. Learning from your peers is an intelligent thing to do.
That's why I wrote that 'mostly by yourself'. I'm not advocating slogging it out in isolation. I just think that being able to solve issues by yourself and learn by yourself is valuable skill.
I actually don't think we are disagreeing on anything important here. Rather miscommunicating ;p
I don't know if I understand the band comparison :<
Do you mean like not pulling that vertex manually and the two surrending till you get a flat shape (and using aliasing to check) ?
I mean, that looks simple, but you're probably trapping us, ready to crush our ego
While i like this little challenge, i have to admit, I am not really sure why one would tackle this situation with such a lowpoly model. 4 sided cylinders will never be round enough to look like a drill hole.
The whole problem solves itself whith using a 16 sided cylinder as a base and 8 sided cylinders for the cutout. Of course those are also not perfectly circular but much more close to an actual circle.
but besides doing it in a in my oppinion cleaner way, i also attached my solution to get that side flat and still perfectly shading
I wasn't able to figure out how to import OBJ's or Max files based on text/characters. If someone would be so kind as to clue me in on that, I'd be most appreciative ^^
So i just remade the shape. Plenty of other errors, But we'll pretend those don't exist for the sake of focusing on the main question.
Edit: was going to keep it linked, But fuck it. Get up at 4 and do this, early bird gets the worm right?
Edit2: Nah. I feel to much like a dick. Don't want to spoil for others. :poly141:
I'll also add: I agree with Neox: This shape (and all the problems i had with it) would be solved by more sides. I don't think i've ever had a LP cage this low :poly142: I can appreciate the topology teaser though, and it was an interesting question that I'm glad you asked.
Had a go at this, not sure if my method counts as "manual tweaking" but the result is there. Check .obj, you will need to put a Turbosmooth on it, I used 4 iterations for mine.
Edit: I also made my mesh from scratch just to get some practise.
I wasn't able to figure out how to import OBJ's or Max files based on text/characters. If someone would be so kind as to clue me in on that, I'd be most appreciative ^^
Just save it as (or rename it to) .obj
Also about the using as little geo as necessary vs as much to minimise difficulty/problems:
I can definitely see the benefits to using as little as possible (The simple example from Perna was great), however, I try to start with the amount of segments I'd want on my low poly - so when it's time to make the low, it'll just be a duplicate of my high after removed loops/cleaned up. If you used too little I imagine you'd have to remake the entire shape in a lot of cases?
what is "it" ? I'm sorry if that's a stupid question. But do you mean the text from the web page? Just save it out the browser as an obj? or save out a blank obj file and manually copy the text? Sorry for ignorance as usual.
SNAP: It worked. Thanks man. Good to know. didn't think it could be that simple. Was over thinking it a ton.
Just save the text (from the webpage) as whatever.obj. Like in your browser it'll be text, I just go Save Page As > change to all files rather than text, rename it from whatever.txt to whatever.obj. Model files like obj as far as I know are just characters (ascii or binary) but obviously with specific formatting for use. Some file formats are probably more complex than that though.
what is "it" ? I'm sorry if that's a stupid question. But do you mean the text from the web page? Just save it out the browser as an obj? or save out a blank obj file and manually copy the text? Sorry for ignorance as usual.
SNAP: It worked. Thanks man. Good to know. didn't think it could be that simple. Was over thinking it a ton.
I'm unsure why either is better or worse than the other. If i learned anything from PC, and modeling in general, It's that there is more than 1 way to skin a dragon. I'd like to see EQ and Perna go at it at work arguing over how to make some shape
"Oooh but they're not perfect", I hear someone whine, while their portfolio is full of assets that suffer from huge, glaring errors.
dude really?
All the cages below are 4-sided. What's your beef with them?
No beef at all, there are plenty of cases where this will work, in the case you delivered the context was not really clear, using double the polies madie it actually easier to get the proper shapes - so I don't see why it would be wrong talking about that. Thinking of this thing could be a piece of a first person weapon, and you have those wobbly drillholes right in your face, i'd say use a couple more polies, thats all.
Only use as many polygons as you need.
My position was: i have to admit, I am not really sure why one would tackle this situation with such a lowpoly model. 4 sided cylinders will never be round enough to look like a drill hole.
I thought this thread was about giving people options on how to resolve certain problems, there might be better or faster solutions, seeing it in the context of your scifi image, sure it would cut it. But is it not like that any of the shown solutions would take drastically more time
Nobody cares how perfect your hipoly is. It's only used to generate normal maps.
This is shifting with SUBD techniques going straight into the game, but even then i agree the endresult is what counts, if it looks good, it looks good. You didn't want to show perfectly round drillhole, thats fine - but you already saw what people make out of your sentences and creating dogmas out of it
dude why do you edit your stuff it was allright, this is a discussion, you answers are as valuable as anyone elses
There is no wrong or right here, there are different approaches and thats great.
i think i know per wasn't pointing that at anyone specifically, still it is unneccessarily rude and should be pointed out in a different discussion - in my oppinion.
I edited it because there is no use in saying the same thing someone has already said, under the impression it's in some different or intelligent way. It didn't add anything new to the conversation. I don't realize those kinds of things while I'm writing them, But I do after I give it 5 minutes and come back. I hate reading through a thread where 2 thins happen: 1. One word responses like "+1, Seconded, YEAH!, Agreed, Just no" or any of that. 2. People being redundant. As far as I'm concerned, If you don't have something valuable to contribute, you shouldn't post at all. I know that wont catch on with the masses, But I can try and moderate how stupid I act on open forum
@ The second part. Agreed, But at the same time, It's true. Per aint the delicate tap dancing type. Just like I can't change the way other people post and why, no one can change Perna's abrasive style. No point in taking issue with what he says. Or rather, The way he says it.
Usually people who consider themselves perfectionists are just inefficient self-indulgent procrastinators. The most valuable artists just make something "good enough", so they can move on to the next asset, instead of sitting there thinking they're great for having spent an additional hour just to make a hipoly cylinder look slightly more round - something which will of course prove pointless by the time the hipoly only exists as a normal map baked down to a lowpoly model ingame, textured so you can't appreciate the shading even if you tried, whizzing past you at high speed and drowned in post-processing effects.
That is a very good point, and probably what I have to work the most on myself. Coming from level art, it's basically the other way around where most details throughout the level can be studied closely by the player. Even the tiniest details can add a lot to a scene, so taking your time in some cases can often be beneficial. This concept can't really be applied to 3D like you said, but it's hard to let go of imperfections once you see them. At least for me.
That is awesome advice Perna. I try to always think of model size compared to the player, and the amount of pixels that are going to picked up by the normal map. If you are modeling a cylinder with hole punched through it that is the size of the player then yea make a nice round cylinder. But if these holes in the object are going to be 10x10 pixels on a normal map, using a square hole on the cage is fast and easy. When zoomed up close you can probably see the difference, but the normal map isn't going to pick up that difference.
so
last week or so i had to model some "harder" shape, i´ve recreated a part of it with quick booleans
i have to admit that i spent quite some geometry on it, but the requirements were to be acurate (had to work off a technical drawing)
have fun
Perna: My native language Isn't English, so therefor i have a hardtime trying to understand everything. Even so im thankfull that you try.
Could you please do a little more indepth explanation of what exact you meant by putting up the picture you did with a square and then you divided each side with a Vertex and kept going on.
What's the purpose of that and how can it help me better my SubD?
OK, I need to stop posting. Still, this shape looked too fun, and I'm taking the opportunity to demonstrate Step 1 from here.
Below is the key shape from the design. Well, the key concept, as the intersection points are off. It's interesting. Obviously you can just boolean it, but then it's no longer a challenge. I've wondered before what the ideal mesh would be in a case like that. The lowest amount of geo, the cleanest control points, the most allowing.... but what I ended up with was an absolutely silly novelty mesh. I don't recommend that anyone go this low poly, but it ended up looking surprisingly good.
OK, I need to stop posting. Still, this shape looked too fun, and I'm taking the opportunity to demonstrate Step 1 from here.
Below is the key shape from the design. Well, the key concept, as the intersection points are off. It's interesting. Obviously you can just boolean it, but then it's no longer a challenge. I've wondered before what the ideal mesh would be in a case like that. The lowest amount of geo, the cleanest control points, the most allowing.... but what I ended up with was an absolutely silly novelty mesh. I don't recommend that anyone go this low poly, but it ended up looking surprisingly good.
nice stuff
bit i have to agree with EQ on this matter
If I may contribute a shape I was contending with recently in my thread (would still like some feedback please ):
Here was my result (can provide .obj if required):
How would you guys approach this (just the top piece would be sufficient I think - the aqua coloured piece in the first image)? What would you float/model in?
The nozzle (blue peice in the ref) has edges quite a bit tigher than in the reference. YOu can see the edges on that top peice are very thick and beefy. You could afford to run a chamfer around the whole shape with 2 or 3 steps on it. Then support. Otherwise, looks nice. The Little liniar ridges might be a touch shallow, But not really a biggie.
In my thread I continued on to a bake which turned out alright by my eyes, although my low poly was maybe excessively chamfered hence why it supported the high's topology.
I hope to recreate this in Blender soon, as it is what I am going to be using for the next year or so. So I will try a fatter edged approach then.
BTW does anyone know if Blender supports an "averaged projection mesh" (cage) for baking out normals and if it is possible to do an exploded bake? As that was my approach in Max.
I don't know what the hell it is, but I fell in love with this shape
Workflow: plane, bend, booleans, booleans and more booleans;
PS ignore the rotated arrow, It was too late when I realized :poly127:
EDIT: with smoother chamfers:
I don't know what the hell it is, but I fell in love with this shape
Workflow: plane, bend, booleans, booleans and more booleans;
PS ignore the rotated arrow, It was too late when I realized :poly127:
Hi guys, I can't for the life of me get this shape right... I mean, I can block out the basic form but when it comes to making it SubD ready - Well yeah, there's the problem. Flippen annoying, although it looks so simple! I don't have any pics of what I've managed to form out, I keep deleting the files in annoyance and starting over.
So firstly, the laser housing on the back of the RDS and the sharp, fine edges for the Picatinny rail attachment.
Help meh!
P.s. I've been reading the last few pages and some nice large scripted images going through the stages of how some of those shapes could be made would be so useful - Especially in discussing different peoples methods...
@Cookepeanut: Had the same question come up in another thread a little while ago. See if this helps. Only difference with yours will be to break it into a few pieces once you have the block out right(on the middle edge, Where there is a dividing line on your reference).
Like Per said, blockout is really key. Once that's done, it's cake. I also redid a shape similar to this on the weapon I'm working on right now, Which I could share once i'm off work.
If it looks OK smoothed, Then go with it. If you want to get the concept perfect, Then it is possible to make that face planar. (no twist)
This may not be exact to the concept, could use some proportion adjustments, But the point stands. You can make it with no twist. Your biggest friend will be scaling the face localy.
All the surfaces on this piece are completely flat. Sorry for shitty image quality. To saved out as jpg like a fool.
Edit: And btw, On the last pic it may appear twisted, But the face is planar. you can tell from the other shaded shots that it is flat.
Personally, i would have went with a subtle variant of the sight that doesn't have that weirdness going on over on that side. Like this image for example, would be a lot easier to get planar, and is nearly the same sight otherwise.
The challenge entries are coming in faster than I expected. We should let it run over the next few days, though, so more people get the chance to join in.
A reminder: Use the 3-segment chamfer in the OBJ, not 2, 4, or whatever. Otherwise I can't make the comparisons. Feel free to resubmit at any time
and respawnrt: polycount won't let me reply to your PM
Oh good point about keeping your 3 seg chamfer, will resubmit.
@Cookepeanut: Had the same question come up in another thread a little while ago. See if this helps. Only difference with yours will be to break it into a few pieces once you have the block out right(on the middle edge, Where there is a dividing line on your reference).
Like Per said, blockout is really key. Once that's done, it's cake. I also redid a shape similar to this on the weapon I'm working on right now, Which I could share once i'm off work.
If you could mate, cheers that would be very helpful. I need to get out of the mindspace that everything has to be quads :poly142:
Replies
That's why I wrote that 'mostly by yourself'. I'm not advocating slogging it out in isolation. I just think that being able to solve issues by yourself and learn by yourself is valuable skill.
I actually don't think we are disagreeing on anything important here. Rather miscommunicating ;p
I don't know if I understand the band comparison :<
I mean, that looks simple, but you're probably trapping us, ready to crush our ego
The whole problem solves itself whith using a 16 sided cylinder as a base and 8 sided cylinders for the cutout. Of course those are also not perfectly circular but much more close to an actual circle.
but besides doing it in a in my oppinion cleaner way, i also attached my solution to get that side flat and still perfectly shading
http://www.steffenunger.com/advices/solution.obj
added a third solution, hehe i guess thats more what you wanted to see
So i just remade the shape. Plenty of other errors, But we'll pretend those don't exist for the sake of focusing on the main question.
Edit: was going to keep it linked, But fuck it. Get up at 4 and do this, early bird gets the worm right?
Edit2: Nah. I feel to much like a dick. Don't want to spoil for others. :poly141:
http://i.cubeupload.com/EAWDxh.png
OBJ
I'll also add: I agree with Neox: This shape (and all the problems i had with it) would be solved by more sides. I don't think i've ever had a LP cage this low :poly142: I can appreciate the topology teaser though, and it was an interesting question that I'm glad you asked.
Edit: I also made my mesh from scratch just to get some practise.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/45171669/Polycount/Kroma_shape_test.obj
3rd one is so simple, but actually was the last one I tried :P
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3191007/crap/solution_pac.obj
Edit:
I do also agree with Neox, that using a 16 sided cylinder as a base gives cleaner results and should be preferred in this case.
Also about the using as little geo as necessary vs as much to minimise difficulty/problems:
I can definitely see the benefits to using as little as possible (The simple example from Perna was great), however, I try to start with the amount of segments I'd want on my low poly - so when it's time to make the low, it'll just be a duplicate of my high after removed loops/cleaned up. If you used too little I imagine you'd have to remake the entire shape in a lot of cases?
SNAP: It worked.
right click "save link as" doesn't work for you?
cool lets create a second dogma based on a quote by the exact same person
I enjoyed doing this mini-challenge, makes you think for yourself. More please
No beef at all, there are plenty of cases where this will work, in the case you delivered the context was not really clear, using double the polies madie it actually easier to get the proper shapes - so I don't see why it would be wrong talking about that. Thinking of this thing could be a piece of a first person weapon, and you have those wobbly drillholes right in your face, i'd say use a couple more polies, thats all.
My position was: i have to admit, I am not really sure why one would tackle this situation with such a lowpoly model. 4 sided cylinders will never be round enough to look like a drill hole.
I thought this thread was about giving people options on how to resolve certain problems, there might be better or faster solutions, seeing it in the context of your scifi image, sure it would cut it. But is it not like that any of the shown solutions would take drastically more time
This is shifting with SUBD techniques going straight into the game, but even then i agree the endresult is what counts, if it looks good, it looks good. You didn't want to show perfectly round drillhole, thats fine - but you already saw what people make out of your sentences and creating dogmas out of it
There is no wrong or right here, there are different approaches and thats great.
i think i know per wasn't pointing that at anyone specifically, still it is unneccessarily rude and should be pointed out in a different discussion - in my oppinion.
@ The second part. Agreed, But at the same time, It's true. Per aint the delicate tap dancing type. Just like I can't change the way other people post and why, no one can change Perna's abrasive style. No point in taking issue with what he says. Or rather, The way he says it.
last week or so i had to model some "harder" shape, i´ve recreated a part of it with quick booleans
i have to admit that i spent quite some geometry on it, but the requirements were to be acurate (had to work off a technical drawing)
have fun
THAT is the band name, I'm signing you boys up for a 3 record deal, my people will talk to your people.
Could you please do a little more indepth explanation of what exact you meant by putting up the picture you did with a square and then you divided each side with a Vertex and kept going on.
What's the purpose of that and how can it help me better my SubD?
Thanks in Advance!
This is witchcraft, and you are a witch.
[ame="
wooohaaa that surprised me HAHAHA! !THANKS
nice stuff
bit i have to agree with EQ on this matter
I gave it a go anyway during breakfast this morning.
here's my results.
Here was my result (can provide .obj if required):
How would you guys approach this (just the top piece would be sufficient I think - the aqua coloured piece in the first image)? What would you float/model in?
In my thread I continued on to a bake which turned out alright by my eyes, although my low poly was maybe excessively chamfered hence why it supported the high's topology.
I hope to recreate this in Blender soon, as it is what I am going to be using for the next year or so. So I will try a fatter edged approach then.
BTW does anyone know if Blender supports an "averaged projection mesh" (cage) for baking out normals and if it is possible to do an exploded bake? As that was my approach in Max.
Thanks again!
I don't know what the hell it is, but I fell in love with this shape
Workflow: plane, bend, booleans, booleans and more booleans;
PS ignore the rotated arrow, It was too late when I realized :poly127:
EDIT: with smoother chamfers:
Nice!
So firstly, the laser housing on the back of the RDS and the sharp, fine edges for the Picatinny rail attachment.
Help meh!
P.s. I've been reading the last few pages and some nice large scripted images going through the stages of how some of those shapes could be made would be so useful - Especially in discussing different peoples methods...
Like Per said, blockout is really key. Once that's done, it's cake. I also redid a shape similar to this on the weapon I'm working on right now, Which I could share once i'm off work.
Exactly that one. Im trying to comprehend and understand it. Still confusing me! Din Svenska
Oh good point about keeping your 3 seg chamfer, will resubmit.
Also tried fixing my funky msg settings sorry.
Pm'ed
If you could mate, cheers that would be very helpful. I need to get out of the mindspace that everything has to be quads :poly142:
here's my try