I use to use edit poly modifier for a while back. I made a kinda "detail blockout" it's almost look like the Low poly, after that I add Edit Poly mod, and add some control edges then TBsmooth, finally delete the edit poly, TBsmooth and get the Low poly for free . But I find out that it's harder to do the HP that way rather than just make HP model and not worry to much about the LP, sometime it's faster to just redo the Low,
and one thing about the Edit Poly Modifier, sometime it turn into a huge mess, my model look like a decimated mesh and I don't know why it happened, Ctrl + Z not seem to work
Perna had to have some serious reasons to "feel dirty" , could you tell us after you finish the bath ?
Because it breaks the purpose of the stack. You can't edit something under a manually edited edit_poly without breaking something. So it's like having collapsed the stack under the poly. But it's kind of hard to keep everything parametric.
Because it breaks the purpose of the stack. You can't edit something under a manually edited edit_poly without breaking something. So it's like having collapsed the stack under the poly. But it's kind of hard to keep everything parametric.
Absolutely true, however edit poly modifier has its benefits too. IIRC there are a few operations in the edit poly modifier that will work properly with changes to modifiers lower in the stack.
Other than that, if there is no way around manual geometry edits, these edit poly modifiers do serve as a kind of checkpoint or saved mesh that you can go back too easily, potentially without even having to re set up a lot of higher up modifiers. Although some may argue its better to make a work on a copy of the mesh or something like that.
Generally from my experience, the edit poly stack is both a blessing and a curse in that it allows you to go back like a group undo if you dislike the changes you made to your model, but as you continue stacking the edit poly, its like building a house out of sand. My model gets destroyed (w/o being able to undo) and sometimes causes 3ds to just simply crash non stop from moving a vertex.
My rule of thumb ( probably not the best one ) is for "not-ridiculous geo heavy models" to only have a maximum of 2 edit polys although i tend to break that rule. I than proceed to make a copy and keep the old version with its edit poly hierarchy and collapse the stack in the new copy.
To be honest I actually agree with you, I think I personally use the edit poly because I tend to make crappy amateur proportional mistakes or half-ass my design without paying full attention to how the whole mesh is supposed to be. 9/10 times I just never need the epoly when I don't wing anything.
But I guess one way I use the epoly modifier usefully is for times when I just relatively wanna get a feel for the shapes and how I could come up with something that is not from a concept.
I'll be honest and say that I still consider myself a complete beginner but in short, the epoly is good (for me) if you're just "brainstorming" shapes and designs.
I guess I don't really have a true valid reason and now I feel silly ranting
Instead of me for the 100th time recounting the disadvantages of keeping the EPoly Modifier (let alone 2 or 3 of them, dear God) on the stack, let's turn the tables:
Supaclueless, Computron, anyone, can you, without being vague or surreptitious, describe any valid general-purpose reasons to ever do so?
In my experience, people who do so:
1- Have no clue what they're doing
2- Think it's "cool" to have a busy stack
3- Or are using it as a "restore point" for the mesh (see #1)
I might be missing something here, and I'd love for someone to demonstrate that I am.
Again, I agree that it breaks things below, but what exactly is wrong with using it as a kind of restore point?
Somethings can't be done completely parametrically and need manual edits, and edit poly is ok for quickly experimenting with your mesh since its easier to delete one modifier than to hit CTRL-Z a bunch of times when you figure things out and need to go back.
As far as I am aware, there is no/neglibable perf hit in keeping it uncollapsed, you just lose some features of editable poly like vertex color and whatnot. Mostly stuff I rarely need, and if I do, I will collapse.
Perna is right about having too many Epoly's in a stack. I would work on a hi poly prop and got it looking good then close the file to take a break only to have it look like a broken mess after I re open the file. This usually happenes with multiple Epoly stacks. It happened to me twice in the past, but I learned my lesson.
One reason that just came to mind for me to "justifiably" use epoly is when I am just only making edge loops for my mesh, but even than I think its still better to just keep it at the base level and make a copy for the edge loop process.
I've had to slice loops into existing street meshes as a hacky workaround for our in-house editor/engine (the level designers needed verts at exact distances to snap vehicle-paths to); "storing" these temp edits in an EPoly modifier worked fairly well here. But that's a fairly obscure case, granted. Obviously copying them or maybe Xref'ing might have worked better, but this seemed quicker for a 100+ meshes at the time.
EPoly modifier was one of my nightmare. I always thought it was an help, but soon I realized it was only a pain in the a**! As perna said it's always better to make a copy of your model on another layer and incremental save your work.
Using some keyboard shortcut with EPoly applied, simply cause a big mess and slow you work.
This is what I get for trying to do how per do :shifty:
All I can say is: That's why I never use a stack. There's no wondering what's happening with the mesh, there's no "magic". There is also nothing to miss if I have to move back to Maya, Or choose to switch to Modo.
Ya'll keep hittin it with the stack, I'll keep hittin it raw 8)
And I challenge everyone on this forum to a dual to reclaim my honor. Skins VS. Stacks.
s6 - Modo is actually kind of a hybrid now that it has lattice and wrap and bezier deformers. Those stay live while you work so it's kind of like a partial stack. It's hitting a weird middle ground!
I understand I'm limiting myself by not utilizing all the tools max has to offer, but I prefer not to work with a stack on models. Aside from mesh smooth and symmetry from time to time (I usually collapse the sym). I use modifiers constantly through out the process of modeling but I've never found it very useful to keep modifiers around.
I prefer to commit to the changes I make to the model. Be it on the sub object level or a modifier. If it cripples me later, It probably wasn't the right approach anyway.
This probably isn't the wisest conversation to have with someone at your level within a program like max, Per. None the less, It's how I prefer to work. It's more of a state of mind than anything. I don't make decisions under the assumption they are wrong or could be wrong. I do what I think is right. If they turn out to be wrong I learn from it and do it differently next time.
Like you said, an ineffective use of the stack is indicative of a novice who isn't confident in their ability to model. I'm confident enough in my modeling ability that I don't need the stack to fall back on. In case I need to work in another program down the road that doesn't have the stack, that is import to me.
In no way, shape, or form am I trying to downplay the power of the stack in max. I admit it's extremely powerful in the hands of people like yourself who take a certain approach, and less effective in the hands of people like me who prefer a different approach.
Warren- That's pretty cool. Going to give modo a try here pretty soon. I'd like to move into it for home use.
The EPoly Modifier breaks the stack while simultaneously trying (and failing) to conform to it. Reordering, instancing or referencing the EPoly Modifier falls under similar limitation
Well of course, that's not how it's intended to be used - you don't go back making crazy changes beneath it or move it around, but you can change proportions, or some values of previous modifiers, there are many cases where it works and it's very useful. It's just as buggy as plenty of other features or modifiers in Max.
I'll never approve an asset that has an EPoly mod in the stack; not a chance
Who would send a file in with an uncollapsed stack? If you're done and ready to send you collapse or delete history, it's basic. That's more like a rookie mistake than using Edit Polys in the stack.
Look, I've been coaching artists enough to know what the real reason is. It's the same reason why I have to send back 500-layer photoshop files to artists: Lack of confidence.
And rookie mistakes again. You keep those 500 layers in your source file, but if you take it to the next step you merge or collapse them in the logical manner. For some it may be an "What if" but in other cases you need a history to have complete control over changes, either from the client or from yourself. No one has to see how you work in the back, and you shouldn't send your messy source files to clients - that's the mistake.
I had to model a watch (product design previz) from a half-finished sketch, with constant iterations and changes coming each day. Edit Polys in a "busy stack" saved me a lot of time when going back and forth making changes or restore points for big turns in design (speaking of, that's more elegant than having 5 copies of your mesh in 5 different layers in 5 different places with 5 different names in your scene).
My mesh didn't get corrupted, Max didn't crash and my PC didn't start smoking, instead I delivered the model fast and without pain.
I had to model a watch (product design previz) from a half-finished sketch, with constant iterations and changes coming each day. Edit Polys in a "busy stack" saved me a lot of time when going back and forth making changes or restore points for big turns in design (speaking of, that's more elegant than having 5 copies of your mesh in 5 different layers in 5 different places with 5 different names in your scene).
What do you mean by elegant? Max can't have a great scene management system if having copies of stuff is problematic somehow. I keep incremental versions of meshes in modo all the time.
highly effective use of Modo also requires understanding of some strange and complex tools
Could you expand on this please Perna? I stick pretty much to modeling and uv'ing in modo and haven't touched on anything too strange or complex yet, so I'm curious what I might be missing out on.
Huffer:If you're going to send the max file, why on earth would you collapse your stack? Just send an obj!
If you've agree to send source files, I'd consider it rude and unprofessional to gimp them like that. There's a difference between having 500 layers and collapsing parametric modifiers to a mesh.
Huffer:If you're going to send the max file, why on earth would you collapse your stack? Just send an obj!
If you've agree to send source files, I'd consider it rude and unprofessional to gimp them like that. There's a difference between having 500 layers and collapsing parametric modifiers to a mesh.
Naturally, and yeah, that's what I was saying, collapse your stuff, send the essential. Your personal restore points or every Chamfer or Shell are not essential.
What do you mean by elegant? Max can't have a great scene management system if having copies of stuff is problematic somehow. I keep incremental versions of meshes in modo all the time.
You get a simple layer system with an on/off switch for your iterations instead of diggin around organising layers and files, and that's elegant to me.
"Who would send a file in with an uncollapsed stack? If you're done and ready to send you collapse or delete history, it's basic. That's more like a rookie mistake than using Edit Polys in the stack."
Sometimes clients like to give feedback by editing themselves the model instead of paintovers or whatever, its uncommon on my end but can happen , making it easier for them to do so i wouldnt consider it rookie , maybe in a final delivery you can collapse everything , but i dont see any harm on having the original modifiers.
"And rookie mistakes again. You keep those 500 layers in your source file, but if you take it to the next step you merge or collapse them in the logical manner. For some it may be an "What if" but in other cases you need a history to have complete control over changes, either from the client or from yourself. No one has to see how you work in the back, and you shouldn't send your messy source files to clients - that's the mistake."
If you have a good work structure you wont need to make 2 files, one "source" that has tons of layers and another that you "cleanup" for the client...just send one clean nice file without BS layers.
"I had to model a watch (product design previz) from a half-finished sketch, with constant iterations and changes coming each day. Edit Polys in a "busy stack" saved me a lot of time when going back and forth making changes or restore points for big turns in design (speaking of, that's more elegant than having 5 copies of your mesh in 5 different layers in 5 different places with 5 different names in your scene). "
Its good that Epoly helped you , but it seems to me that it was more of a problem with the client himself or other factor that would come to play for the need of constant rework.
"My mesh didn't get corrupted, Max didn't crash and my PC didn't start smoking, instead I delivered the model fast and without pain."
well, i wouldnt call constant rework and back and forth without pain heehe...
^^^ You "never" use the stack, except you use it "constantly.
Man...
What I'm trying to say is: The stack is not pivotal to the way I work. I mean the actual assembly of modifiers subsequently building off of each other. Modifiers themselves are a huge part of my workflow, and I view them as time saving operations to be committed to the model, nothing more.
Material artists think "I won't collapse these dozens of layers into their logical combination, because WHAT IF...". Similarly, a lot of 3D artists treat the EPoly Modifier the same way.
I'm not sure what our disconnect is here, it's likely the way I worded or tried to convey what I was thinking. Regardless. I agree. Unfamiliar with the stack=Shitty Stack=Me. I can't argue, because I'm a prime example
You're essentially trying to turn "I'm not good at using the stack, therefore I don't like to use it" into "I'm implementing an advantageous strategical decision".
No, I'm saying I like to keep it simple. I don't feel the need to complicate my modeling process with a stack of finicky modifiers when I've never had a problem achieving the desired results without using the stack.
The only thing I can compare it to is clay modeling/sculpting. You can take material away. You can add it back in. You can use different tools to change your model to achieve a desired effect, but every action is deliberate, premeditated, and consequential once you commit it.
I prefer a more direct relationship with my model. Modifiers feel "transient" to me, for lack of a better term.
But, one more tool in the bag, right? It doesn't hurt to know, I'm not against learning it. Like you said, I can only benefit from more knowledge. It is however, just a different approach. Its like Max with a stack VS Maya without. A friend of mine at 343 has shown me some amazing modeling done in Maya that gave me a new respect for the program.
I'm kind of in a middle area where I prefer the interface and navigation and some features of max, but like to work from a "Maya" approach.
Inferior approach? Maybe. Limiting? sure. Destructive? Yep. But it works for me. It makes me more keen to the decisions i'm making and requires me to think ahead further than I traditionally might.
I would suggest you just keep trucking and learn to master the stack. You're a talented 3D artist, and you can only benefit from having more knowledge.
I agree completely. Especially about being the best 3D artist you've seen this decade(only 18 too! :poly124: )
I will always try to learn as much as possible to make myself a more rounded artist, and person in general. I will continue to play with the stack and try to find a useful place for it in my workflow. The same with Modo, I'll do my best to learn it to its full potential just as I learned zbrush before Max.
In conclusion, as if this was going any specific direction: No, I'm not joking. I prefer a direct relationship with my model, and that doesn't involve an intricate stack. I prefer cause and effect, and consequences when I take action, however I agree it's a limiting perspective to have and I will continue learning the stack. I have a feeling my view may not change though.
Lastly you also use manipulative language (what's with today, did you all read a book on NLP or some junk?), it's just not as sophisticated as what s6 (props) served up.
LOL. You're lucky you get coherent sentences. I feel like a sharp intelligent young person inside my mind and I turn into an autistic monkey when ink hits paper. Maybe I should look into that...
Am I the only one who collapses the stack regularly to keep things neat and "final", especially if I am finished working with whatever model I had been working on? What does it matter if you used an edit poly modifier 2 or 3 times to get the result you want if you wind up just collapsing the stack anyway? Sure there are cases where you leave things in the stack up until a certain point, but if you ever call something "finished" I feel it's better to collapse. You might argue that you may have to go back and make some changes you hadn't planned on. Why then wouldn't you keep a save file before collapsing the stack and one for afterward? If you honestly argue with having two save files then you are arguing for the sake of arguing because that's just plain silly. What could possibly be wrong with having a save file to be able to go back and make changes if needed, and one for a "finished" product where you have cleaned things up etc.
Am I the only one who collapses the stack regularly to keep things neat and "final", especially if I am finished working with whatever model I had been working on? What does it matter if you used an edit poly modifier 2 or 3 times to get the result you want if you wind up just collapsing the stack anyway?
Because it defeats the purpose of even having a stack. That's what this entire conversation is about.
A destructive workflow that sucks but gets it done, like mine, VS. an advanced and expertly assembled stack that provides flexibility.
Iterations and edits can be significantly easier with a proper stack set up, the same way a .PSD is easier to edit in layers than the final image you collapse and save out when you're done working in the PSD.
But what's the point of using a edit poly modifier when you are going to collapse it regularly?
Since it really doesn't give any advantages over collapsing that part of the stack and working on the editable poly.
But what's the point of using a edit poly modifier when you are going to collapse it regularly?
Since it really doesn't give any advantages over collapsing that part of the stack and working on the editable poly.
There are still times where I use the stack. I just collapse it once I'm at a point with whatever model I am working on where I am either altogether finished, or where simply adding more modifiers to the stack just adds to clutter and mess when previous stacks I no longer need. There are plenty of times when the stack is useful and I utilize it, but as I just said if the stacks up until a certain point no longer serve a purpose but to make a mess or for me to accidentally fuck something up, I collapse. I figured it was a smart thing to do. Obviously you all disagree, which is totally fine because as a 3d artist the whole idea is for you to work in a way that is both comfortable and works for you. Maybe the way you do it or I do it is more beneficial at times, and I think that should be taken into consideration when conducting yourself while working. However, a lot of the reasons everyone is coming up with here are pretty archaic and rely on an elitist perspective when it comes to the execution of actually making 3d art. Who cares if there are 2 or 3 edit poly modifiers in the stack? Even if it's the signature of an amateur artist, if the result is exactly the same, what does it matter? The only reason I can think if is pretty much just being an elitist, it feeds your ego.
Tell me, in all seriousness: if the three results using both 2 or 3 edit polys in the stack, using just a base editable poly, or collapsing the stack altogether look exactly the same, where is there a reason for you ever to desire to look at the objects modifier stack to see if it's collapsed, makes use of just one edit poly or if it has a bunch. Why would that ever even occur to you? The only reason I can think of is because you believe you are an authority on the matter and feel like you have to interject your frivolous rules for being a "real artist" and feeling like you know more than others. You disagree with others on the subject because you don't think it makes sense, gotcha. However, people in that same right may also disagree with you. The only time you would argue against this is for whatever reason you think you are better at what you do than others. This may be the truth, but it still doesn't make the others any less right or any more wrong. This is a really silly argument, and I hope you all feel as silly as me for taking part in it.
s6: So, I think I've figured this out (Sherlock hat on).
From your descriptions it sounds like you use the stack exactly like the rest of us, so I think the nonsense about being somehow different or using the stack less is just based on your misconceptions about how "other people" use the stack.
lol. Sounds good to me. The way you described the stack is pretty much how I use it. I think i'm over thinking how you wizards use it.
huffer :
If you have a good work structure you wont need to make 2 files, one "source" that has tons of layers and another that you "cleanup" for the client...just send one clean nice file without BS layers.
Joao giving advice on clean PSDs, I think I can die happy now.
Instead of me for the 100th time recounting the disadvantages of keeping the EPoly Modifier (let alone 2 or 3 of them, dear God) on the stack, let's turn the tables:
Supaclueless, Computron, anyone, can you, without being vague or surreptitious, describe any valid general-purpose reasons to ever do so?
In my experience, people who do so:
1- Have no clue what they're doing
2- Think it's "cool" to have a busy stack
3- Or are using it as a "restore point" for the mesh (see #1)
I might be missing something here, and I'd love for someone to demonstrate that I am.
Please, tell me again how I am the person being offensive. No where in my post did I ever mention that anyone has no clue what they are doing, yet you posted "1- Have no clue what they're doing
2- Think it's "cool" to have a busy stack
3- Or are using it as a "restore point" for the mesh (see #1)".
To me, that's pretty offensive. Other than calling you out on it, why would you consider my posts offensive or off topic?
wait, Edit Poly in the stack? MULTIPLE Edit Poly in the stack?
I'll go take a bath now, I feel dirty.
Besides, how was the aboe post that I quoted even constructive or trying to teach anybody anything? Again, it looks like it was meant to be insulting, and just assuming somehow it wasn't, your post did nothing to add to the thread.
Please, for the sake of being civil and perhaps not letting our giant egos get in the way, at least look at what you are doing and realize you are just as guilty of what you just accused me of, if not more so.
wait, Edit Poly in the stack? MULTIPLE Edit Poly in the stack?
I'll go take a bath now, I feel dirty.
Besides, how was the above post that I quoted even constructive or trying to teach anybody anything? Again, it looks like it was meant to be insulting, and just assuming somehow it wasn't, your post did nothing to add to the thread.
Please, for the sake of being civil and perhaps not letting our giant egos get in the way, at least look at what you are doing and realize you are just as guilty of what you just accused me of, if not more so.
Sense my stack was laughable he was making light of it. I didn't get uppity or offended. I know if Per says something there is probably some merit behind it. Even if its a joke. I just like arguing with him.
There's a big difference between pointing out an error in someones work/art is a silly way, and directing personal criticisms at people.
The only reason I can think of is because you believe you are an authority on the matter and feel like you have to interject your frivolous rules for being a "real artist" and feeling like you know more than others.
People learn by arguing and discussing work and practices, there's normally a optimal way to do things, but that depends on a lot of factors.
Huffer: Just about everything you say about workflow is misguided - two copies of each PSD, using EPoly as a restore point, collapsing the stack for hipoly object sent to a client (lord jesus, do you collapse subd as well while you're at it?), claiming that non-rookies don't make mistakes (I can attest that the brightest talents in the industry do make mistakes, but what they're good at is avoiding the kind of situations that will lead to mistakes in the first place, unlike your approach), you also have a terribly convoluted process for making non-epoly restore points. Lastly you also use manipulative language (what's with today, did you all read a book on NLP or some junk?), it's just not as sophisticated as what s6 (props) served up.
... all this combined with what I perceive as an arrogant (please forgive me if I'm wrong) attitude makes me feel that you're not interested in learning and perhaps more interested in arguing, so I'm sorry for deciding that having a drink in the sun is of higher priority than writing a lengthy response further elaborating (I've already given a rough, but comprehensive, overview) on why using the EPoly mod as a restore point is a terrible practice.
I just can't understand - it seems you dismiss other methods as wrong, and pick up on silly things like Hurr durr, of course I collapse Subd, how else could I deliver 200 MB files?? You offend me sir! You're arguing, I'm arguing! :poly122:
But anyway, I don't think you can simply follow some rules about using the stack and modifiers, there are dozens of methods to model an object, and hundreds of situations you can confront yourself with, you don't have to blindly follow them or limit yourself.
I'd rather have a file with maximum editability - even if you avoid every mistake, you don't know what changes come up, so anything wrong with that?
Practical example. I modeled a flat bracelet and need to animate it, rounding itself on a wrist and closing. Client wants a version with some holes, and one without, plus child and adult sizes.
I have a base mesh, which is a collapsed Editable Poly, ready for Subdiv. I add one Edit Poly to modify the proportions, another for making the holes, I add a Bend to turn it round itself, and an Edit Poly beneath the Bend to rotate the whole sub-object, so that the two ends come closer or further from each other. Meshsmooth on top. Oh no! Three Edit Polys!
I can turn off the Edit poly for holes and get one animation, turn off the Edit Poly for proportions and get my child-size animation. So I use the modifier to get a new iteration for holes, and one for modified proportions, while still able to change the basic shape of the start model. Client wants a Chamfer tighter? No problem, back to base mesh, move a loop, get the modification retroactively done up the stack every version.
You can get away with some things (which is awesome) - if you know when to use it. You may have to collapse at some point, of course. You may have to redo some parts if you want to keep the stack. You still have the added advantage of convenience and an instant history, against simply saving a copy of your mesh. It looks very straight forward to me, and unless you mess with geometry a level down your mesh doesn't get wasted. Also, I only got once a mesh corrupted like this, but it was pretty screwed up from the start (imported from CAD).
How would you go about doing it in a non-convoluted way, or at least point out what's so terribly wrong, if your mesh happens to not get messed up and your EP modifiers work?
Just finished this SubD test using Perna's tricks and advice. Took only a couple of hours to do. I'm thinking though this model could have used less geo but considering the ref had a lot of curves I had to add more segments in order to get decent control loops. As for the holes I did not boolean them since I used circle splines to trace over the mesh. Not an entirely accurate ref to model but I'm pleased with it.
Did some more subD practice, would love to hear what people think of these questions. Max methods would be more appreciated.
1-Is it better for trims (please correct me if they're not called like that) to be separate meshes? If so, extrude+detach?
2-Any accurate way of guaranteeing a perfectly round surface? Would love to know if there'a a way to select edges and apply something like a Spherify to make it 100& round, instead of losing time eyeballing some edges.
3-How would you create something like that selected object? Personally, I started from a plane, Connect'd it with a lot of edges and then moved the top/bottom row of vertices sideways to make it go diagonal. The problem with this is that you'll end up having to delete some edges at the end of the plane, and eyeballing those smaller ones at the sides Also, any ideas how could I make the plane turn 90 degrees, and keep the extrusions going around? Just cut it with the Cut tool and bend it?
4-Lastly, placing bolts and details. I tried with the spacing tool and changing the local pivot of my bolt, but the normals don't align with circular splines. How can I get around this? Just finished a robot with 200+ bolts...it was a drag
Sorry for the huge pics, I just wanted to (try to) be clear. Would greatly appreciate any kind of advice (duh)
Hey guys, I need help again. This time around, I am revisiting my 1.1-4x24 Scope.
I need help modelling this part:
Please HELP. I really want to get complete this model and get over it so that I can work on other projects and school work.
CHEERS!
Your approach is wrong; the red part is a sphere; you should start from this primitive to get it right.
I think GoSsS is the author of the image from a post in this thread back in 2010. Looks like the image has been removed now, I got it from a topology search on Pinterest.
Make a box, inset it twice and turbosmooth. You can prolly figure it out from there.
I tend to bake a lot so thats what I had in mind here, use surpher's method if you want more control.
Keep in mind that turbosmooth doesn't give you a perfect circle from a square, so your cylinder section will be a bit deformed, but it's according to the needs
Replies
and one thing about the Edit Poly Modifier, sometime it turn into a huge mess, my model look like a decimated mesh and I don't know why it happened, Ctrl + Z not seem to work
Perna had to have some serious reasons to "feel dirty" , could you tell us after you finish the bath ?
Absolutely true, however edit poly modifier has its benefits too. IIRC there are a few operations in the edit poly modifier that will work properly with changes to modifiers lower in the stack.
Other than that, if there is no way around manual geometry edits, these edit poly modifiers do serve as a kind of checkpoint or saved mesh that you can go back too easily, potentially without even having to re set up a lot of higher up modifiers. Although some may argue its better to make a work on a copy of the mesh or something like that.
My rule of thumb ( probably not the best one
But I guess one way I use the epoly modifier usefully is for times when I just relatively wanna get a feel for the shapes and how I could come up with something that is not from a concept.
I'll be honest and say that I still consider myself a complete beginner but in short, the epoly is good (for me) if you're just "brainstorming" shapes and designs.
I guess I don't really have a true valid reason and now I feel silly ranting
Again, I agree that it breaks things below, but what exactly is wrong with using it as a kind of restore point?
Somethings can't be done completely parametrically and need manual edits, and edit poly is ok for quickly experimenting with your mesh since its easier to delete one modifier than to hit CTRL-Z a bunch of times when you figure things out and need to go back.
As far as I am aware, there is no/neglibable perf hit in keeping it uncollapsed, you just lose some features of editable poly like vertex color and whatnot. Mostly stuff I rarely need, and if I do, I will collapse.
It's good to know though, so thanks Perna.
for now, I copy all my "restore point" and place them in a separate layer
Thank Per for the explanation !
"Lack of confidence." is so true !
Using some keyboard shortcut with EPoly applied, simply cause a big mess and slow you work.
Thanks perna for the big explanation!
All I can say is: That's why I never use a stack. There's no wondering what's happening with the mesh, there's no "magic". There is also nothing to miss if I have to move back to Maya, Or choose to switch to Modo.
Ya'll keep hittin it with the stack, I'll keep hittin it raw 8)
And I challenge everyone on this forum to a dual to reclaim my honor. Skins VS. Stacks.
Nope.
I understand I'm limiting myself by not utilizing all the tools max has to offer, but I prefer not to work with a stack on models. Aside from mesh smooth and symmetry from time to time (I usually collapse the sym). I use modifiers constantly through out the process of modeling but I've never found it very useful to keep modifiers around.
I prefer to commit to the changes I make to the model. Be it on the sub object level or a modifier. If it cripples me later, It probably wasn't the right approach anyway.
This probably isn't the wisest conversation to have with someone at your level within a program like max, Per. None the less, It's how I prefer to work. It's more of a state of mind than anything. I don't make decisions under the assumption they are wrong or could be wrong. I do what I think is right. If they turn out to be wrong I learn from it and do it differently next time.
Like you said, an ineffective use of the stack is indicative of a novice who isn't confident in their ability to model. I'm confident enough in my modeling ability that I don't need the stack to fall back on. In case I need to work in another program down the road that doesn't have the stack, that is import to me.
In no way, shape, or form am I trying to downplay the power of the stack in max. I admit it's extremely powerful in the hands of people like yourself who take a certain approach, and less effective in the hands of people like me who prefer a different approach.
Warren- That's pretty cool. Going to give modo a try here pretty soon. I'd like to move into it for home use.
I had to model a watch (product design previz) from a half-finished sketch, with constant iterations and changes coming each day. Edit Polys in a "busy stack" saved me a lot of time when going back and forth making changes or restore points for big turns in design (speaking of, that's more elegant than having 5 copies of your mesh in 5 different layers in 5 different places with 5 different names in your scene).
My mesh didn't get corrupted, Max didn't crash and my PC didn't start smoking, instead I delivered the model fast and without pain.
Could you expand on this please Perna? I stick pretty much to modeling and uv'ing in modo and haven't touched on anything too strange or complex yet, so I'm curious what I might be missing out on.
If you've agree to send source files, I'd consider it rude and unprofessional to gimp them like that. There's a difference between having 500 layers and collapsing parametric modifiers to a mesh.
You get a simple layer system with an on/off switch for your iterations instead of diggin around organising layers and files, and that's elegant to me.
"Who would send a file in with an uncollapsed stack? If you're done and ready to send you collapse or delete history, it's basic. That's more like a rookie mistake than using Edit Polys in the stack."
Sometimes clients like to give feedback by editing themselves the model instead of paintovers or whatever, its uncommon on my end but can happen , making it easier for them to do so i wouldnt consider it rookie , maybe in a final delivery you can collapse everything , but i dont see any harm on having the original modifiers.
"And rookie mistakes again. You keep those 500 layers in your source file, but if you take it to the next step you merge or collapse them in the logical manner. For some it may be an "What if" but in other cases you need a history to have complete control over changes, either from the client or from yourself. No one has to see how you work in the back, and you shouldn't send your messy source files to clients - that's the mistake."
If you have a good work structure you wont need to make 2 files, one "source" that has tons of layers and another that you "cleanup" for the client...just send one clean nice file without BS layers.
"I had to model a watch (product design previz) from a half-finished sketch, with constant iterations and changes coming each day. Edit Polys in a "busy stack" saved me a lot of time when going back and forth making changes or restore points for big turns in design (speaking of, that's more elegant than having 5 copies of your mesh in 5 different layers in 5 different places with 5 different names in your scene). "
Its good that Epoly helped you , but it seems to me that it was more of a problem with the client himself or other factor that would come to play for the need of constant rework.
"My mesh didn't get corrupted, Max didn't crash and my PC didn't start smoking, instead I delivered the model fast and without pain."
well, i wouldnt call constant rework and back and forth without pain heehe...
My mom said I should be a lawyer
Going to come back to this when I'm not at work.
What I'm trying to say is: The stack is not pivotal to the way I work. I mean the actual assembly of modifiers subsequently building off of each other. Modifiers themselves are a huge part of my workflow, and I view them as time saving operations to be committed to the model, nothing more.
I'm not sure what our disconnect is here, it's likely the way I worded or tried to convey what I was thinking. Regardless. I agree. Unfamiliar with the stack=Shitty Stack=Me. I can't argue, because I'm a prime example
No, I'm saying I like to keep it simple. I don't feel the need to complicate my modeling process with a stack of finicky modifiers when I've never had a problem achieving the desired results without using the stack.
The only thing I can compare it to is clay modeling/sculpting. You can take material away. You can add it back in. You can use different tools to change your model to achieve a desired effect, but every action is deliberate, premeditated, and consequential once you commit it.
I prefer a more direct relationship with my model. Modifiers feel "transient" to me, for lack of a better term.
But, one more tool in the bag, right? It doesn't hurt to know, I'm not against learning it. Like you said, I can only benefit from more knowledge. It is however, just a different approach. Its like Max with a stack VS Maya without. A friend of mine at 343 has shown me some amazing modeling done in Maya that gave me a new respect for the program.
I'm kind of in a middle area where I prefer the interface and navigation and some features of max, but like to work from a "Maya" approach.
Inferior approach? Maybe. Limiting? sure. Destructive? Yep. But it works for me. It makes me more keen to the decisions i'm making and requires me to think ahead further than I traditionally might.
I agree completely. Especially about being the best 3D artist you've seen this decade(only 18 too! :poly124: )
I will always try to learn as much as possible to make myself a more rounded artist, and person in general. I will continue to play with the stack and try to find a useful place for it in my workflow. The same with Modo, I'll do my best to learn it to its full potential just as I learned zbrush before Max.
In conclusion, as if this was going any specific direction: No, I'm not joking. I prefer a direct relationship with my model, and that doesn't involve an intricate stack. I prefer cause and effect, and consequences when I take action, however I agree it's a limiting perspective to have and I will continue learning the stack. I have a feeling my view may not change though.
The less crap between me and my model the better.
Edit:
LOL. You're lucky you get coherent sentences. I feel like a sharp intelligent young person inside my mind and I turn into an autistic monkey when ink hits paper. Maybe I should look into that...
Because it defeats the purpose of even having a stack. That's what this entire conversation is about.
A destructive workflow that sucks but gets it done, like mine, VS. an advanced and expertly assembled stack that provides flexibility.
Iterations and edits can be significantly easier with a proper stack set up, the same way a .PSD is easier to edit in layers than the final image you collapse and save out when you're done working in the PSD.
Since it really doesn't give any advantages over collapsing that part of the stack and working on the editable poly.
There are still times where I use the stack. I just collapse it once I'm at a point with whatever model I am working on where I am either altogether finished, or where simply adding more modifiers to the stack just adds to clutter and mess when previous stacks I no longer need. There are plenty of times when the stack is useful and I utilize it, but as I just said if the stacks up until a certain point no longer serve a purpose but to make a mess or for me to accidentally fuck something up, I collapse. I figured it was a smart thing to do. Obviously you all disagree, which is totally fine because as a 3d artist the whole idea is for you to work in a way that is both comfortable and works for you. Maybe the way you do it or I do it is more beneficial at times, and I think that should be taken into consideration when conducting yourself while working. However, a lot of the reasons everyone is coming up with here are pretty archaic and rely on an elitist perspective when it comes to the execution of actually making 3d art. Who cares if there are 2 or 3 edit poly modifiers in the stack? Even if it's the signature of an amateur artist, if the result is exactly the same, what does it matter? The only reason I can think if is pretty much just being an elitist, it feeds your ego.
Tell me, in all seriousness: if the three results using both 2 or 3 edit polys in the stack, using just a base editable poly, or collapsing the stack altogether look exactly the same, where is there a reason for you ever to desire to look at the objects modifier stack to see if it's collapsed, makes use of just one edit poly or if it has a bunch. Why would that ever even occur to you? The only reason I can think of is because you believe you are an authority on the matter and feel like you have to interject your frivolous rules for being a "real artist" and feeling like you know more than others. You disagree with others on the subject because you don't think it makes sense, gotcha. However, people in that same right may also disagree with you. The only time you would argue against this is for whatever reason you think you are better at what you do than others. This may be the truth, but it still doesn't make the others any less right or any more wrong. This is a really silly argument, and I hope you all feel as silly as me for taking part in it.
lol. Sounds good to me. The way you described the stack is pretty much how I use it. I think i'm over thinking how you wizards use it.
(elitist humor)
Joao giving advice on clean PSDs, I think I can die happy now.
Per was playing the long game this whole time.
Please, tell me again how I am the person being offensive. No where in my post did I ever mention that anyone has no clue what they are doing, yet you posted "1- Have no clue what they're doing
2- Think it's "cool" to have a busy stack
3- Or are using it as a "restore point" for the mesh (see #1)".
To me, that's pretty offensive. Other than calling you out on it, why would you consider my posts offensive or off topic?
Besides, how was the aboe post that I quoted even constructive or trying to teach anybody anything? Again, it looks like it was meant to be insulting, and just assuming somehow it wasn't, your post did nothing to add to the thread.
Please, for the sake of being civil and perhaps not letting our giant egos get in the way, at least look at what you are doing and realize you are just as guilty of what you just accused me of, if not more so.
Sense my stack was laughable he was making light of it. I didn't get uppity or offended. I know if Per says something there is probably some merit behind it. Even if its a joke. I just like arguing with him.
People learn by arguing and discussing work and practices, there's normally a optimal way to do things, but that depends on a lot of factors.
I just can't understand - it seems you dismiss other methods as wrong, and pick up on silly things like Hurr durr, of course I collapse Subd, how else could I deliver 200 MB files?? You offend me sir! You're arguing, I'm arguing! :poly122:
But anyway, I don't think you can simply follow some rules about using the stack and modifiers, there are dozens of methods to model an object, and hundreds of situations you can confront yourself with, you don't have to blindly follow them or limit yourself.
I'd rather have a file with maximum editability - even if you avoid every mistake, you don't know what changes come up, so anything wrong with that?
Practical example. I modeled a flat bracelet and need to animate it, rounding itself on a wrist and closing. Client wants a version with some holes, and one without, plus child and adult sizes.
I have a base mesh, which is a collapsed Editable Poly, ready for Subdiv. I add one Edit Poly to modify the proportions, another for making the holes, I add a Bend to turn it round itself, and an Edit Poly beneath the Bend to rotate the whole sub-object, so that the two ends come closer or further from each other. Meshsmooth on top. Oh no! Three Edit Polys!
I can turn off the Edit poly for holes and get one animation, turn off the Edit Poly for proportions and get my child-size animation. So I use the modifier to get a new iteration for holes, and one for modified proportions, while still able to change the basic shape of the start model. Client wants a Chamfer tighter? No problem, back to base mesh, move a loop, get the modification retroactively done up the stack every version.
You can get away with some things (which is awesome) - if you know when to use it. You may have to collapse at some point, of course. You may have to redo some parts if you want to keep the stack. You still have the added advantage of convenience and an instant history, against simply saving a copy of your mesh. It looks very straight forward to me, and unless you mess with geometry a level down your mesh doesn't get wasted. Also, I only got once a mesh corrupted like this, but it was pretty screwed up from the start (imported from CAD).
How would you go about doing it in a non-convoluted way, or at least point out what's so terribly wrong, if your mesh happens to not get messed up and your EP modifiers work?
1-Is it better for trims (please correct me if they're not called like that) to be separate meshes? If so, extrude+detach?
2-Any accurate way of guaranteeing a perfectly round surface? Would love to know if there'a a way to select edges and apply something like a Spherify to make it 100& round, instead of losing time eyeballing some edges.
3-How would you create something like that selected object? Personally, I started from a plane, Connect'd it with a lot of edges and then moved the top/bottom row of vertices sideways to make it go diagonal. The problem with this is that you'll end up having to delete some edges at the end of the plane, and eyeballing those smaller ones at the sides
4-Lastly, placing bolts and details. I tried with the spacing tool and changing the local pivot of my bolt, but the normals don't align with circular splines. How can I get around this? Just finished a robot with 200+ bolts...it was a drag
Sorry for the huge pics, I just wanted to (try to) be clear. Would greatly appreciate any kind of advice (duh)
I need help modelling this part:
High-res "RAW" images:
Please HELP. I really want to get complete this model and get over it so that I can work on other projects and school work.
CHEERS!
Your approach is wrong; the red part is a sphere; you should start from this primitive to get it right.
Hi, thanks for the reply!
I was looking about trying out that approach, but can't seem to find out how.
Max unfortunately does not have it as a standard primitive so you have to make it by starting with a 6 faced cube then add these modifiers:
meshsmooth
spheriphy
meshsmooth
spheriphy
make sure to top it off with no less than two Edit Poly modifiers to be sure though.
Ausonian is bang on the money, I made this really fast and dirty from a subd'd cube to get it mirrored in all six directions.
Make a box, inset it twice and turbosmooth. You can prolly figure it out from there.
I tend to bake a lot so thats what I had in mind here, use surpher's method if you want more control.
Very quickly, and with some minimal adjustments can have more controls. Thanks for the sharing!
Keep in mind that turbosmooth doesn't give you a perfect circle from a square, so your cylinder section will be a bit deformed, but it's according to the needs