Hey guys I have a small problem here. Basically what I am trying to do is to model some sort of leather wrap around my knife handle.
Here is the picture:
Currently I am trying to do it manually but it is really hard to get that natural fold look and it simply takes alot of time. Is there some sort of tool in Maya that allows me to basically bent that thing over the model. Like modeling this straight long object any simply twist it over my model
I sifted through this thread (Took a really long time), but I didn't see anything on taking a square/rectangle out of the side of a cylinder... Every way I try, I get creases that just ruin it... a good example is the door that's opening where the ship docks.
Coldeez i doubt you even skimmed the thread as the answer to your question starts at page 1 first post and theres an actual implementation of what you asked in page 2...
Thanks for the help Chase... So what I need to do is create a cylinder from the get-go with a higher number of segments so and use those as my control lines to get a straighter edge when I extrude out my rectangle?
And I'm so terribly sorry Joao Sapiro, forgive me for asking something that may have been answered some where. Sheesh... I didn't think these forums were so hostle.
its not about beeing hostile , its just that when you write "I sifted through this thread (Took a really long time), but I didn't see anything on taking a square/rectangle out of the side of a cylinder..." and it is clear you didnt , just shows you want to be spoon fed wich kinda defeats the purpose of this thread.
Ya, I'm so terribly sorry for asking a question... Silly me, I thought that this is what this thread was for But if it is so annoying to you, don't bother wasting your time responding.
I saw where a guy was asking a question, showed a few methods he tried and was asking about better workflow, but the result he came up with was rather still curved in the edges.
cool, heres somit of what ive learnt and some Qs for peeps who know more
ive been learning mayas "propper" subD modeling tools not the proxy mesh stuff (or smoothmesh) which is a poor relation to maxes modifier based subD in both terms of functionality and in speed (just a simple mesh smoothed to a decent degree will slow down after just a couple of edge insertions)
basic operation of this has two modes which is waht im having problems with at the moment.
proxy mode in which you alter the mesh add loops add extrusions etc
standard mode which you use to crease the mesh, a complete crease is like using maxes smoothing groups and a partial crease is half way in between, pulling the shape into a more prescise corner (like adding edgeloops in max but without doing so
one real good thing about using this method is that you end up with a much more consistent mesh in terms of the poly grid it produces, which is much better for using in sculpting programs for 2 reasons
1- less discrepency between a flat surface and a sharpened edge means less polys are needed to get detail on those flat surfaces
2- less stretching and warping when a stamps details crosses between a flat surface and an edge
heres an example of shape made in this mode, making edge loops sharper by going up the display levels and partially creasing.
now if i made a similar shape using just a proxy mesh, added edge loops to tighten corners you get something more like this (on left, creased subD on right)
now this is all well and good, but Im having some workflow issues with it,
most major one at the moment is that i cant select edge loops in this mode and switching modes requires you to go to object mode thus getting rid of your selection. and selecting edges while having both meshes on screen can be painfull to see whats going on etc. this is especially true when selecting edges a few levels up.
any ideas and tips on working in this mode would be great, as im quite enjoying it but find it frustarting at the same time.
ps if any/all of this is bollox feel free to put me right, im pretty new to SubD in maya
Is it possible to make these corners closer to corners rather than filets? Or is this just something you have to accept when modeling using sub-Ds? So ya Joao, I have seen these things, just not quite what I was looking for.
Is it possible to make these corners closer to corners rather than filets? Or is this just something you have to accept when modeling using sub-Ds? So ya Joao, I have seen these things, just not quite what I was looking for.
I found this in a minute or so. I looked in Perna's google drive collection, then reverse-image searched for the thread link.
The general issue Joao is talking about is a fundamental part of the way Polycount has operated for a long time, and we like it this way.
You'll get more direct feedback here than other places, because people don't take time being extra sensitive. We just say what's on our minds. It's better this way, you end up getting higher quality feedback in the end, as long as you can put aside your ego, be willing to listen, and implement what you've learned.
Thanks for the info and I really appreciate you pointing me in the right direction. I'm fairly new to this type of modeling, because my experience has always been mechanical and precision (i.e. Solidworks and Pro-E).
Took just a few minutes and there is only a tiny amount of distortion, but its so insignificant.
Colddeez, I think you would've gotten a much better reception if you posted your attempts, even if you felt they were bad. This shows you are trying and getting stuck, vs just wanting someone else to show you how to do it.
Shaz probably means double control edges. However his example introduces some obsolete edge loops because it's not about density really but just controlling the edges.
The orange loop doesn't really do much because the loops left and right of it are close together already so there isn't much stretching to begin with (and even when can be easily tweaked by placing the support loops a tad tighter). The blue loop doesn't do anything to my knowledge because you already have double controled the edges top and bottom of it.
Not sure if double control edges are even necessary in this example. It's probably gonna bake fine without. I usualy use it for very long polygons only when the stretching of the edges is very noticable with sub division levels 1 and 2.
It can't be a good habbit to fill "empty parts" by default. You're just causing yourself more work and overcomplicate your model.
i personally use this method as well. Not sure if there is any other(better) way. But I am not a fan of too much geo. I rather take 'the time' to do it on a 16 sided or 18 sided mesh
Thanks for sharing that link! I watched the entire 1.5 hrs last night and I was really impressed that he focused on technique than, we're going to build a (fill in the blank) today.
I also read a suggestion of posting my attempts... So I get closer to what I was aiming for when I started using a cylinder with many segments (80), however, I feel in the long run, I'm doing myself a disservice. since it makes it much more complicated to work with.
From what I understand, the segments used to make the cylinder in the first place are reused into being the control loops for the hole I'm placing into the side. I also added a few extra, potentially unnecessary control loops to try and harden the edge up.
And if it is any consolation, Joao, sorry... Not looking to make enemies.
That really looks great! Haha, I think I ended up using 80 for mine and like I had said, I feel it starts to make the model impractical to work with. Do you have a wireframe image of that? I'm curious to see how you handled the corners.
I have been modeling this smoke grenade and I think I am just about ready to call it done. Any suggestions before I take it further. This is going to be turned into a game asset.
So I was having a little trouble adding some detail to this cylinder. I need a pretty hard square extrusion from the cylinder's side. It sounded really easy, even for a noob like me, but sharpening was giving me a lot of pinching that I had trouble solving.
Here's a pic of literally exactly after the extrusion. Didn't add any support edges yet, just so you guys know I'm trying to do here.
The rough mesh.
I added some support edges here, but there was some pinching from unsupported edges.
I couldn't support the pinched edges, as I was getting a lot of artifacts on the cylinder. I've tried solving these using some newer methods, but was ultimately unable to get the result I was looking for. Anyone have any advice? Again, simple shape question from a noob.
Evenly distributed geometry is a good habit, imo, for a couple reasons. If you're working with displacement, or you're bringing the object into sculpting softwaer, having stretched polygons will cause you to have to subdivide one or two more times to get the density to cover the details. If it's more evenly distributed you won't have to subdivide as much.
Perna, your example looks interesting. I've been doing it similar to shaz for a while. But I can't see on your cylinder/cube how the side of the cube going into the cylinder is dealt with. Also, I can't see what's going on at the top very well. Resolution is causing the edges to be difficult to read.
Covering your face in mud is a good habit. If you're in the jungle hunting down the dirty Viet Cong.
In other situations it's a silly thing to do indeed.
I see the edges are hard to read on the sharp one quoted below. They literally just do what it looks like they're doing though. There's nothing fancy going on there, just follow the lines and resolve it all to simple quads.
lol, fair enough..
At first I was imagining that the cube had a really tight edge running next to it, above and below, around the cylinder. I see I'm wrong now. All the tightening edges run onto the cube.
Hi guys,
i have a nooby question, but i've been scouring this thread and havn't really found a solid answer. So here goes.
When your modelling how do you decide when the geometry should be modelled from the existng shape and when to break it up into a seperate piece of geometry. Is this determined only by the animation needs or is it ok for a prop to be made of multiple pieces. Take this grenade from natural selection that i've been using as a reference..
How would you break up the modelling of this asset?
Here's what ive been doing so far..basically everything is made from the same geaometry (its all welded), except the round shells on the inside and the four supporting pieces on the bottom,
Unsmoothed
I hope what i'm asking for makes sense? i'm having trouble wording it correctly. Also this is a pretty simple asset, if you have any complex examples of how you break up geometry, i would appreciate it.
PS: any crits on what i have so far are more than welcome.
You can break it into as many pieces as you like. All that matters is how your bakes come out. I would have made the cylinders on top and bottom of the middle piece seperate to make my life easier with the rest. To think about how things would get manufactured is a good indication, where different materials meeting, inside cavities etc.
A good approach as well is to think of the parts that make up the grenade similar to real life. Imagine if you were to disassemble the grenade, what parts would generally be separated during assembly (IE: the inner-cylinders, pin, top-cap, even a few of the grip components look like they can be taken apart)
I guess I suck at explaining this and someone else who has a better grasp on mechanical design can give their insight but this is generally how I handle modelling via elements or on a single mesh. Also Steppenwolf's approach is also just as good as well when mechanical object have numerous inner bevels for example (IE: Mass Effect weaponry concept art to get an idea)
Hi guys ! It is my 2nd post. This forum is very usefull, thanks for all information!
I have one question that is care me all time - it is how to model all small details on object. As example I post here reference of projector. By the red color small details are marked.
1. First, when I try to model it in 3dsMAX I did simple Box and convert it to Poly.
2. Then I add several loops and did main form.
3. To add more middle details (slots) I use Extrude, Bevel.
4. All details are in low poly mesh to add Turbosmooth.
5. But when I need to add more small details I confort with some problems (see screenshots as examples).
Please, if you can help me with principles how to model such objects I shall be happy May be you know some similar tutorials :icon_question:
verb:
You could use floating geometry to model those details. This video is in Blender but it should still be clear how the technique works:
My thoughts too. Although floating geometry might have a few issues caused by the roundness of the object. Ndo, or baking and adding those details later right into the map seem like better idea to me.
If you modeling for commercials that need to have a very close-up shot then small details need to be real geometry, otherwise they'll be on the normal map, even film guys use normal map. And because they're on normal map, so real geometry, floating or convert from 2D doesn't matter, you'll get the same result ( actually if the details are on flat or slightly curve surface, convert from 2D gonna give you the best appearance )
You still can model all those details, but you'll end it up with a very dense mesh and hard to work with. The problem here is not about small details or large objects, it's about your modeling skills, just nail down the basic and practice then you'll know how to do it. There's no specific "method" to go around.
Thanks, about Floating Geometry in 3ds MAX, I just saw lesson by DT "Modeling_details_using_floating_geometry" and there is fine example to model "convex" geometry. It is ok. But how to model the "concave" geometry on a model as in video in Blender by SanderDL ?
Nam.Nguyen Unfortunately, Nmaps are not suitable for me Need only geometry. I'll try to increase my modeling skill
JustMeSR thanks I aslo think about Zbrush ^^, but it is connected with too many polygonz or then normal map.
=========================
Is it normal to do this edges if I want to extrude in that red polygon ?
Why do you try to model this object out of one box? Take a closer look at your reference. You will notice that this beamer is made out of different parts. It is easier to model those parts as seperate objects.
Second point, take a look at your "lense hole" its really wonky. I guess it would be easier to start over again and make it out of multiple objects.
.Wiki
Thank you for try to help me, but, pls, see at the screenshot below - how many parts beamer consists (green color) and how to fit them on the joints accurately with final turbosmooth ? it is only left view of it. I thought that this is be easier to model it from box.
perna thank you, could you please give me a links ?
.Wiki
Thank you for try to help me, but, pls, see at the screenshot below - how many parts beamer consists (green color) and how to fit them on the joints accurately with final turbosmooth ? it is only left view of it. I thought that this is be easier to model it from box.
Modeling out of a box is a good start. But you placed your support loops too early.
If you modeling for commercials that need to have a very close-up shot then small details need to be real geometry, otherwise they'll be on the normal map, even film guys use normal map. And because they're on normal map, so real geometry, floating or convert from 2D doesn't matter, you'll get the same result ( actually if the details are on flat or slightly curve surface, convert from 2D gonna give you the best appearance )
You still can model all those details, but you'll end it up with a very dense mesh and hard to work with. The problem here is not about small details or large objects, it's about your modeling skills, just nail down the basic and practice then you'll know how to do it. There's no specific "method" to go around.
If floaters aren't the way to go for this model, the density can be kept localized by keeping the panels for controls and ports as separate meshes. One flat plane for the panel resting under the lip of the main object. Plus half of those shapes are copy/paste.
Hello)
How can I modeling it?
I would do this by using the modifier Twist, but there is one "problem" ...
Excuse me for my English, I know it is bad and I use Google-transliteration ..)
Thx.
the material you are using on the gun doesnt allow to proper specular reflections that might show surface errors. Do you have any question in particular about a shape or just showing the model ? if its the later i would post it in pimping and previews.
Yeah this isn't the spot to just pimp something, if you have a question about modeling, or if you have some tips, tutorials, or are going to share the wires/mesh files this would be the appropriate place.
Otherwise make a thread in pimping or post in the WAYWO thread.
i would create a topic in pimping and previews, this is more of a place to ask pertinent modeling questions rather than analysing finished HP´s , do you have any area that is giving you trouble ?
Also Shinigami :
" And i know this issue has been posted before but i didnt like the outcome."
Did you read properly what has been posted about that ? that question was asked and answered a million times already in this topic, please have the trouble of doing proper research first.
Replies
Here is the picture:
Currently I am trying to do it manually but it is really hard to get that natural fold look and it simply takes alot of time. Is there some sort of tool in Maya that allows me to basically bent that thing over the model. Like modeling this straight long object any simply twist it over my model
http://wiki.polycount.com/SubdivisionSurfaceModeling
Any Ideas?
I also would like to point out that you asked that in, arguably, the best hard surface information thread on the entire internet.
And I'm so terribly sorry Joao Sapiro, forgive me for asking something that may have been answered some where. Sheesh... I didn't think these forums were so hostle.
...:poly131:
I saw where a guy was asking a question, showed a few methods he tried and was asking about better workflow, but the result he came up with was rather still curved in the edges.
Is it possible to make these corners closer to corners rather than filets? Or is this just something you have to accept when modeling using sub-Ds? So ya Joao, I have seen these things, just not quite what I was looking for.
http://www.polycount.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1653879#post1653879
Just invert the extrusion into an intrusion, and you have your desired result.
I found this in a minute or so. I looked in Perna's google drive collection, then reverse-image searched for the thread link.
The general issue Joao is talking about is a fundamental part of the way Polycount has operated for a long time, and we like it this way.
You'll get more direct feedback here than other places, because people don't take time being extra sensitive. We just say what's on our minds. It's better this way, you end up getting higher quality feedback in the end, as long as you can put aside your ego, be willing to listen, and implement what you've learned.
This is old, and a little bit different from art, but might help you understand why Polycount is the way it is.
http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro
Thanks for the info and I really appreciate you pointing me in the right direction. I'm fairly new to this type of modeling, because my experience has always been mechanical and precision (i.e. Solidworks and Pro-E).
Colddeez, I think you would've gotten a much better reception if you posted your attempts, even if you felt they were bad. This shows you are trying and getting stuck, vs just wanting someone else to show you how to do it.
The orange loop doesn't really do much because the loops left and right of it are close together already so there isn't much stretching to begin with (and even when can be easily tweaked by placing the support loops a tad tighter). The blue loop doesn't do anything to my knowledge because you already have double controled the edges top and bottom of it.
Not sure if double control edges are even necessary in this example. It's probably gonna bake fine without. I usualy use it for very long polygons only when the stretching of the edges is very noticable with sub division levels 1 and 2.
It can't be a good habbit to fill "empty parts" by default. You're just causing yourself more work and overcomplicate your model.
Thanks for sharing that link! I watched the entire 1.5 hrs last night and I was really impressed that he focused on technique than, we're going to build a (fill in the blank) today.
I also read a suggestion of posting my attempts... So I get closer to what I was aiming for when I started using a cylinder with many segments (80), however, I feel in the long run, I'm doing myself a disservice. since it makes it much more complicated to work with.
From what I understand, the segments used to make the cylinder in the first place are reused into being the control loops for the hole I'm placing into the side. I also added a few extra, potentially unnecessary control loops to try and harden the edge up.
And if it is any consolation, Joao, sorry... Not looking to make enemies.
That really looks great! Haha, I think I ended up using 80 for mine and like I had said, I feel it starts to make the model impractical to work with. Do you have a wireframe image of that? I'm curious to see how you handled the corners.
Thanks everyone!
- D. Carmine
>
Here's a pic of literally exactly after the extrusion. Didn't add any support edges yet, just so you guys know I'm trying to do here.
The rough mesh.
I added some support edges here, but there was some pinching from unsupported edges.
I couldn't support the pinched edges, as I was getting a lot of artifacts on the cylinder. I've tried solving these using some newer methods, but was ultimately unable to get the result I was looking for. Anyone have any advice? Again, simple shape question from a noob.
Perna, your example looks interesting. I've been doing it similar to shaz for a while. But I can't see on your cylinder/cube how the side of the cube going into the cylinder is dealt with. Also, I can't see what's going on at the top very well. Resolution is causing the edges to be difficult to read.
lol, fair enough..
At first I was imagining that the cube had a really tight edge running next to it, above and below, around the cylinder. I see I'm wrong now. All the tightening edges run onto the cube.
i have a nooby question, but i've been scouring this thread and havn't really found a solid answer. So here goes.
When your modelling how do you decide when the geometry should be modelled from the existng shape and when to break it up into a seperate piece of geometry. Is this determined only by the animation needs or is it ok for a prop to be made of multiple pieces. Take this grenade from natural selection that i've been using as a reference..
How would you break up the modelling of this asset?
Here's what ive been doing so far..basically everything is made from the same geaometry (its all welded), except the round shells on the inside and the four supporting pieces on the bottom,
Unsmoothed
I hope what i'm asking for makes sense? i'm having trouble wording it correctly. Also this is a pretty simple asset, if you have any complex examples of how you break up geometry, i would appreciate it.
PS: any crits on what i have so far are more than welcome.
I guess I suck at explaining this and someone else who has a better grasp on mechanical design can give their insight but this is generally how I handle modelling via elements or on a single mesh. Also Steppenwolf's approach is also just as good as well when mechanical object have numerous inner bevels for example (IE: Mass Effect weaponry concept art to get an idea)
I have one question that is care me all time - it is how to model all small details on object. As example I post here reference of projector. By the red color small details are marked.
1. First, when I try to model it in 3dsMAX I did simple Box and convert it to Poly.
2. Then I add several loops and did main form.
3. To add more middle details (slots) I use Extrude, Bevel.
4. All details are in low poly mesh to add Turbosmooth.
5. But when I need to add more small details I confort with some problems (see screenshots as examples).
Please, if you can help me with principles how to model such objects I shall be happy
You could use floating geometry to model those details. This video is in Blender but it should still be clear how the technique works:
[ame="
My thoughts too. Although floating geometry might have a few issues caused by the roundness of the object. Ndo, or baking and adding those details later right into the map seem like better idea to me.
Thank you for your recommendations. :thumbup:
But is there a method do not deal with maps ? Only geometry.
Please.
If you modeling for commercials that need to have a very close-up shot then small details need to be real geometry, otherwise they'll be on the normal map, even film guys use normal map. And because they're on normal map, so real geometry, floating or convert from 2D doesn't matter, you'll get the same result ( actually if the details are on flat or slightly curve surface, convert from 2D gonna give you the best appearance )
You still can model all those details, but you'll end it up with a very dense mesh and hard to work with. The problem here is not about small details or large objects, it's about your modeling skills, just nail down the basic and practice then you'll know how to do it. There's no specific "method" to go around.
You can sculpt it. :poly142:
Nam.Nguyen Unfortunately, Nmaps are not suitable for me
JustMeSR thanks I aslo think about Zbrush ^^, but it is connected with too many polygonz or then normal map.
=========================
Is it normal to do this edges if I want to extrude in that red polygon ?
===========
+ wow, may be this helps
Second point, take a look at your "lense hole" its really wonky. I guess it would be easier to start over again and make it out of multiple objects.
Thank you for try to help me, but, pls, see at the screenshot below - how many parts beamer consists (green color) and how to fit them on the joints accurately with final turbosmooth ? it is only left view of it. I thought that this is be easier to model it from box.
perna thank you, could you please give me a links ?
If floaters aren't the way to go for this model, the density can be kept localized by keeping the panels for controls and ports as separate meshes. One flat plane for the panel resting under the lip of the main object. Plus half of those shapes are copy/paste.
How can I modeling it?
I would do this by using the modifier Twist, but there is one "problem" ...
Excuse me for my English, I know it is bad and I use Google-transliteration ..)
Thx.
I wanted to post my last creation. Tell me what you think.
Otherwise make a thread in pimping or post in the WAYWO thread.
I was teached to soften all the edges.
The model is in the uv space.
http://gyazo.com/c65ec600e3b21e12df611b8636b046d8
http://gyazo.com/de497ddcd1080d26fe95c7d73615a8f4
Tell me if you want to see other views.
Also Shinigami :
" And i know this issue has been posted before but i didnt like the outcome."
Did you read properly what has been posted about that ? that question was asked and answered a million times already in this topic, please have the trouble of doing proper research first.
High poly:
http://gyazo.com/46130696fc7d6d0212667098a7279aa2
http://gyazo.com/0d832127a3e62de7c9f4614f9f3e6b9d
Normalmap:
http://gyazo.com/077f64a688eb53c74376c3ffeb70fbc9
I really wouldn't question perna and his methods. He knows what he is talking about