Is there any way I can improve the edgeflow on this part? As you can see, I have some quads which look rather triangular (1 & 2). And besides that, I think I might get in trouble when I start adding loops for my highpoly. So before I continue this part, I want it to look perfect.
Any suggestions for a better topology? Deleting loops is nog really an option because I need the geometry for the other side of the model which is a bit more complex.
Sorry small image... but how the frig should I go about modelling all this detail? I'm looking for the 'easy and quick' way.. as opposed to the 2 or 3 hours of tedious extruding and edge looping.
Sorry small image... but how the frig should I go about modelling all this detail? I'm looking for the 'easy and quick' way.. as opposed to the 2 or 3 hours of tedious extruding and edge looping.
Any suggestions?!
You could use splines to model the outline and then extrude geometry along them. Since you would be baking that, you wouldn't even have to weld the intersections.
If you're good with painting straight lines, you could use Zbrush; you could paint a mask by hand then use the move tool to extrude the selected area. Might look a little bit organic depending on how comfortable you are with drawing perfect curves (I'm not :P)
In any case, doing something like that will probably take a while regardless of the method.
Then shouldn't you be asking for photoshop advice? Seriously, we'd never do something like that in 3d. Even if we decided to, that picture is so low rez and blurry.. what would you even model? Can't see what the shapes are supposed to be.
For SUPER clean and fast 2d stuff I recommend vector software like adobe illustrator. It's great for drawing out paneling etc.. the added bonus is you can convert the vectors into 3d if you want (flat shapes are much faster to do in a vector app than in a 3d app)
Ha. I could use photoshop advice everyday of the week. :P
I'll take a stab at illustrator.. see what I can come up with. Hopefully I can get past this hurdle soon.
Ace, thanks for the link. However, its not making the normal map that's the issue.. but rather creating the detail to turn into the normal map... if that makes any sense.
That image is really small so I can't make out exactly what the details are.
However, if I were going to model something like that, I'd first model a plane behind it with that grid pattern. Then, on top of that, I'd create splines to trace out the shape. I'd make them renderable in 3ds Max (you can loft a shape along them in Maya) and adjust as needed, and then I'd have a foundation on which to embellish.
But I really don't know why you wouldn't just make a heightmap from a grayscale image and convert that to an overlay in your texture.
also, there isn't always a fast and easy way. If you want to create that specific image you're going to have to put some work into it. There is no Make Art button, you have to put some effort in and move some verts.
Quick question: Does every shape and form need to be completed and modeled before I turn on turbosmooth and add support loops, or do people add turbosmooth ASAP and work with it along side while adding support loops as they go? I find the latter way messes up my topology to a point where its hard to model certain features when there are a ton of support loops in the way.
Quick question: Does every shape and form need to be completed and modeled before I turn on turbosmooth and add support loops, or do people add turbosmooth ASAP and work with it along side while adding support loops as they go? I find the latter way messes up my topology to a point where its hard to model certain features when there are a ton of support loops in the way.
Support loops come last.
What I will do is model out a shape, then add support loops, then add a turbosmooth and adjust any loops as needed.
If I am making an unfamiliar surface (weirdly intersecting curves, etc) I will drop a turbosmooth on top and work underneath it with the 'show end result' button checked, this is pretty useful but can be awkward, especially with very dense meshes.
If I am making an unfamiliar surface (weirdly intersecting curves, etc) I will drop a turbosmooth on top and work underneath it with the 'show end result' button checked, this is pretty useful but can be awkward, especially with very dense meshes.
To me, everything is an unfamiliar surface since I am just learning and so I work in this fashion so that I can see any problems or errors I have made. But then the support loops I end up adding in the process mess up my topo so much that I can work with the rest of the mesh.
So my question is, how can people iterate with sub-d without going nuts from all the support loops? Is it possible to do all support loops in an edit poly modifier so that if you need to modify the base mesh you can toggle the modifier, change it and then go back to the modifier hopefully getting all your support loops back?
To me, everything is an unfamiliar surface since I am just learning and so I work in this fashion so that I can see any problems or errors I have made. But then the support loops I end up adding in the process mess up my topo so much that I can work with the rest of the mesh.
So my question is, how can people iterate with sub-d without going nuts from all the support loops? Is it possible to do all support loops in an edit poly modifier so that if you need to modify the base mesh you can toggle the modifier, change it and then go back to the modifier hopefully getting all your support loops back?
No, you can't do that, because you'll change the vert count and the edit poly on top will start changing the wrong verts.
You can remove loops after you add them if they're not what you want or are causing issues. Generally you don't want to be adding support loops and then continuing to work on parts of the mesh those loops intersect, as that can get messy.
In general you can iterate in sub-d by adding and removing loops - if you have a support loop that is causing issues somewhere, you can remove it and then re-add it later.
What shape are you having so many issues with iterating that you're getting bogged down by this? Post pics.
Well, im new to subd so I still got a lot of practice (i.e. iteration) until I get good at it, but I was hoping there would be a better way to manage edge loops.
Thanks for the workflow link, those are some great tips.
The concept shows the front face of the door's border change width as it moves along on the top part and then further on the other side, but its trim changes width independently creating a different curve. Its hard to see in the concept but hopefully this GIF will help illustrate my point. I don't know what I was originally thinking by having TurboSmooth make the curve, but I fixed it and managed to remove the faceting, thanks for the suggestions guys, sorry if I wasn't being clear.
Actual topology just needed to not be straight, playing around with it yielded satisfactory results:
Uhm... I don't think that's the look the original concept is trying to achieve. The concept artist probably didn't have much time to spend making perfect curves.
In your models, the polygon flow on the curves is just awkward. I'd say go for a perfectly clean curve, that's probably how this door frame would be done, anyway.
hey brick top
you when doing a triangle such as this you almost will always have to do some type of sudo quad thats more of a triangle but its not nessecarily a bad thing as long as you place the vert in the right spots. Hope this helps.
In your models, the polygon flow on the curves is just awkward. I'd say go for a perfectly clean curve, that's probably how this door frame would be done, anyway.
Maybe I am taking the concept to literally, but I kinda like the way it looks now and I am planning to keep the edge clean so I don't think the polygon flow will matter since I wont add any detail on that curve.
Continuing on from my door, I blocked out all the shapes and cut in detail where I felt floaters wouldn't do, now I need to turbo smooth it. Problem is I don't really know how to do support loops for this model. I wtached Grant Warwicks SubD guide and it only ever shows isolated parts with support loops but I got many wierd cuts, bevels and extrusions and i'm not sure if my current topology is very good for adding support loops. Should I just chamfer every hard edge or is there an easier way?
I tried doing it that way And got an awfull lot of pinching and facets, I'll get pics up soon.
If someone can look through my (Max 2012) file and just give me some pointers it would help immensly.
Yeah I also like modeling stuff really into it. How can I add more geo that it is spread evenly (sorry noob question). I am kinda new to this whole modeling thing. I thought adding a turbosmooth or two and on top of that keep on modeling with an edit poly modifier. I read this "more geo" thing a lot of times and always asked myself whats the best way to add more geo. thanks!
I'm still not sure what the 'best' workflow for non-primitives is yet. I make a copy of the area that needs more geo, in this case the front and part of the sides. Smooth that copy, and add/modify the loops you already have to match the curvature using the copy as a template.
Yeah I also like modeling stuff really into it. How can I add more geo that it is spread evenly (sorry noob question). I am kinda new to this whole modeling thing. I thought adding a turbosmooth or two and on top of that keep on modeling with an edit poly modifier. I read this "more geo" thing a lot of times and always asked myself whats the best way to add more geo. thanks!
Because it may be easier to return to lowpoly this way since I want to normal bake this thing. But as I said I am a noobie, I don't know what the "established" / "correct" workflows are. So if you know it better, please tell me
As you can see, it consists of two different parts (1 & 2) which are welded together (the yellow line). A weld which I can easily put into the texture, no need to really attach 1 & 2. And that's good because if they stay two separate objects, it will be a lot easier to add the subd modifier because I will have two rather 'basic' objects. But when I would weld them together (so 1 & 2 become one), the object would become a lot more complex. Especially at the front where a rounded shape (1) transformers into a square shape (2). Adding support edges and stuff would be a lot more difficult.
Nothing impossible though. But I not only want to learn how to become a better modeler, I also want to learn how to become a faster modeler! So I'm looking for the most efficient way to create this part and that would be: two different pieces.
But what about the green circle? As you can see, 1 'transformers' into 2 and you get one rounded shape. Problem! Because, when you don't weld the vertices's there (so 1 & 2 stay two separate objects), you will see of course a seam which divides 1 & 2.
Is there any way I can overcome that problem without welding the yellow line? Because then, the whole object would become a lot more complex, only to make the green part work.
Thanks in advance guys for any suggestions, really appreciate it. And I apologize for my language but my English ain't that good I'm afraid. If I need to add more pictures, just scream and I will take new ones.
offtopic: I added my reference image as well. Could be interesting for others who are planning on modeling an AK 47. That image is what I see when I look above while laying down in my bed.
I dont think those are actually 2 seperate pieces welded together.
I modeled that piece as one solid chunk of metel and it looks just fine.
Out of interest, what are you modeling it for?
I dont think those are actually 2 seperate pieces welded together.
I modeled that piece as one solid chunk of metel and it looks just fine.
Out of interest, what are you modeling it for?
Ok, I will give it a try and upload the result! And it's just for practise but I'm planning on importing it into UDK.
I dont think those are actually 2 seperate pieces welded together.
I modeled that piece as one solid chunk of metel and it looks just fine.
Out of interest, what are you modeling it for?
+1 to this
I also modeled it a solid chunk when I did my ak (ages ago - first subd model ftw)
I'm having a problem with one of the parts I'm trying to model. It's this part:
I'm working one the 'hole' right now (the part where you look through when using the iron sights) but I can't get it right. It's difficult to explain so I will post some images:
This is where the problem is situated.
This is how it looks from the side.
And this is how it looks from the back.
[IMG][/img]
Like you see, I need more resolution there. But how? I tried by cutting/welding/etc. and of course, creating more geometry ain't a problem. But it looks like crap. And besides that, I create very strange looking rings when I do so. It would be possible to harden those up for the hi-res, but I have the feeling a simple solution could fix this. But I just don't see it I'm afraid.
I know it's a simple shape but it still is giving me a hard time! I also uploaded the .obj while which you can find here.
Personally if I was you I would either re-model the section and think more carefully about getting nice smooth loops for adding control edges or don't worry about a couple of n-gons on the flat sections and just fix it up until it looks good.
That's your high-poly, right? If that's the case, why are you worrying about creating a full loop? The back parts of the sights is a flat space, so you can just end the loop in an already existing point, or even on an open poly. Flat bits on the high are really nice because triangles, five sided polygons, etc. don't matter usually (Unless you get visual artifacts after turbosmoothing, at which point you can connect some verts to smooth things out).
I always thought those really good artists could fix everything by only using the ring/connect tools. And that they (almost) never used triangles and ngons. I also thought they did that way because cutting everything manually is a lot more time consuming. But I think I thought wrong, didn't I? Maybe sometimes it's impossible to do the job with only ring/connect?
So, I followed your advice and start manually cutting, not worrying about triangles and stuff. This is the result:
Those dirty stains are caused by the render because in the viewport, it looks ok. Any idea what may cause those 'stains'? And what do you think about the result, does it looks ok?
If I would show the geometry, it wouldn't be a beauty I can tell you. For a perfectionist like me, it hurts to see such 'dirty' loops, vertices, triangles etc. But maybe I should learn it's all about how the final result looks, and not about the way is archived. Right?
Those dirty loops don't contain any real new information for most of their length; if they only provide support at the corners and are merely verts on a straight line made up of equally straight edges, then no problem.
Only thing I can see that's blaringly obvious is the outermost edges are far sharper than the other ones, while in the ref they're all kinda blunted.
Those dirty loops don't contain any real new information for most of their length; if they only provide support at the corners and are merely verts on a straight line made up of equally straight edges, then no problem.
Only thing I can see that's blaringly obvious is the outermost edges are far sharper than the other ones, while in the ref they're all kinda blunted.
Hey guys , i am going to model a MGL but im having a hard time on how to model the huge barrel part where the grenades go , any suggestions where to start ?
Replies
Thanks for tips
Is there any way I can improve the edgeflow on this part? As you can see, I have some quads which look rather triangular (1 & 2). And besides that, I think I might get in trouble when I start adding loops for my highpoly. So before I continue this part, I want it to look perfect.
Any suggestions for a better topology? Deleting loops is nog really an option because I need the geometry for the other side of the model which is a bit more complex.
Thanks in advance guys!
B.T.
Sorry small image... but how the frig should I go about modelling all this detail? I'm looking for the 'easy and quick' way.. as opposed to the 2 or 3 hours of tedious extruding and edge looping.
Any suggestions?!
You could use splines to model the outline and then extrude geometry along them. Since you would be baking that, you wouldn't even have to weld the intersections.
If you're good with painting straight lines, you could use Zbrush; you could paint a mask by hand then use the move tool to extrude the selected area. Might look a little bit organic depending on how comfortable you are with drawing perfect curves (I'm not :P)
In any case, doing something like that will probably take a while regardless of the method.
Perna, I did considered the idea but thought that trying to draw it out would take me just as long as modelling would with lesser results.
Ha. I could use photoshop advice everyday of the week. :P
I'll take a stab at illustrator.. see what I can come up with. Hopefully I can get past this hurdle soon.
Ace, thanks for the link. However, its not making the normal map that's the issue.. but rather creating the detail to turn into the normal map... if that makes any sense.
However, if I were going to model something like that, I'd first model a plane behind it with that grid pattern. Then, on top of that, I'd create splines to trace out the shape. I'd make them renderable in 3ds Max (you can loft a shape along them in Maya) and adjust as needed, and then I'd have a foundation on which to embellish.
But I really don't know why you wouldn't just make a heightmap from a grayscale image and convert that to an overlay in your texture.
also, there isn't always a fast and easy way. If you want to create that specific image you're going to have to put some work into it. There is no Make Art button, you have to put some effort in and move some verts.
Support loops come last.
What I will do is model out a shape, then add support loops, then add a turbosmooth and adjust any loops as needed.
If I am making an unfamiliar surface (weirdly intersecting curves, etc) I will drop a turbosmooth on top and work underneath it with the 'show end result' button checked, this is pretty useful but can be awkward, especially with very dense meshes.
To me, everything is an unfamiliar surface since I am just learning and so I work in this fashion so that I can see any problems or errors I have made. But then the support loops I end up adding in the process mess up my topo so much that I can work with the rest of the mesh.
So my question is, how can people iterate with sub-d without going nuts from all the support loops? Is it possible to do all support loops in an edit poly modifier so that if you need to modify the base mesh you can toggle the modifier, change it and then go back to the modifier hopefully getting all your support loops back?
No, you can't do that, because you'll change the vert count and the edit poly on top will start changing the wrong verts.
You can remove loops after you add them if they're not what you want or are causing issues. Generally you don't want to be adding support loops and then continuing to work on parts of the mesh those loops intersect, as that can get messy.
In general you can iterate in sub-d by adding and removing loops - if you have a support loop that is causing issues somewhere, you can remove it and then re-add it later.
What shape are you having so many issues with iterating that you're getting bogged down by this? Post pics.
e: this post here has a workflow breakdown that may help?
http://www.polycount.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1359750&postcount=1624
Thanks for the workflow link, those are some great tips.
People are so focused on optimizing shapes for subd, they forget basic modeling !
The concept shows the front face of the door's border change width as it moves along on the top part and then further on the other side, but its trim changes width independently creating a different curve. Its hard to see in the concept but hopefully this GIF will help illustrate my point. I don't know what I was originally thinking by having TurboSmooth make the curve, but I fixed it and managed to remove the faceting, thanks for the suggestions guys, sorry if I wasn't being clear.
Actual topology just needed to not be straight, playing around with it yielded satisfactory results:
In your models, the polygon flow on the curves is just awkward. I'd say go for a perfectly clean curve, that's probably how this door frame would be done, anyway.
hey brick top
you when doing a triangle such as this you almost will always have to do some type of sudo quad thats more of a triangle but its not nessecarily a bad thing as long as you place the vert in the right spots. Hope this helps.
here is the door tell me if this is what you wanted to see and I will post a making of
Maybe I am taking the concept to literally, but I kinda like the way it looks now and I am planning to keep the edge clean so I don't think the polygon flow will matter since I wont add any detail on that curve.
I tried doing it that way And got an awfull lot of pinching and facets, I'll get pics up soon.
If someone can look through my (Max 2012) file and just give me some pointers it would help immensly.
http://www.mediafire.com/?3koc45dgqyg4hse
I want to cut a hole where I selected the polygons like this without destroying my nice even curvature
Can someone tell/show me a good way to do this? Thanks a lot!
and there is nothing wrong with some floater but thats cheating
I quote you.
*edit. what perna said. copy the peice over....then use flowconnect. problem solved.
I've found this video.
Take a look, It will be useful
http://youtu.be/ZYK3MP1G910
I am working on an AK47 and I have a question about a particular part: the 'iron sights' (how do you call this part of the gun anyway?).
http://users.telenet.be/kansloos/ak/iron1.jpg
http://users.telenet.be/kansloos/ak/iron2.jpg
Same image as the first one but added some numbers/colors.
http://users.telenet.be/kansloos/ak/iron3.jpg
As you can see, it consists of two different parts (1 & 2) which are welded together (the yellow line). A weld which I can easily put into the texture, no need to really attach 1 & 2. And that's good because if they stay two separate objects, it will be a lot easier to add the subd modifier because I will have two rather 'basic' objects. But when I would weld them together (so 1 & 2 become one), the object would become a lot more complex. Especially at the front where a rounded shape (1) transformers into a square shape (2). Adding support edges and stuff would be a lot more difficult.
Nothing impossible though. But I not only want to learn how to become a better modeler, I also want to learn how to become a faster modeler! So I'm looking for the most efficient way to create this part and that would be: two different pieces.
But what about the green circle? As you can see, 1 'transformers' into 2 and you get one rounded shape. Problem! Because, when you don't weld the vertices's there (so 1 & 2 stay two separate objects), you will see of course a seam which divides 1 & 2.
Is there any way I can overcome that problem without welding the yellow line? Because then, the whole object would become a lot more complex, only to make the green part work.
Thanks in advance guys for any suggestions, really appreciate it. And I apologize for my language but my English ain't that good I'm afraid. If I need to add more pictures, just scream and I will take new ones.
offtopic: I added my reference image as well. Could be interesting for others who are planning on modeling an AK 47. That image is what I see when I look above while laying down in my bed.
I modeled that piece as one solid chunk of metel and it looks just fine.
Out of interest, what are you modeling it for?
Ok, I will give it a try and upload the result! And it's just for practise but I'm planning on importing it into UDK.
+1 to this
I also modeled it a solid chunk when I did my ak (ages ago - first subd model ftw)
I'm having a problem with one of the parts I'm trying to model. It's this part:
I'm working one the 'hole' right now (the part where you look through when using the iron sights) but I can't get it right. It's difficult to explain so I will post some images:
This is where the problem is situated.
This is how it looks from the side.
And this is how it looks from the back.
[IMG][/img]
Like you see, I need more resolution there. But how? I tried by cutting/welding/etc. and of course, creating more geometry ain't a problem. But it looks like crap. And besides that, I create very strange looking rings when I do so. It would be possible to harden those up for the hi-res, but I have the feeling a simple solution could fix this. But I just don't see it I'm afraid.
I know it's a simple shape but it still is giving me a hard time! I also uploaded the .obj while which you can find here.
Thx in advance for any suggestions!
B.T.
That's your high-poly, right? If that's the case, why are you worrying about creating a full loop? The back parts of the sights is a flat space, so you can just end the loop in an already existing point, or even on an open poly. Flat bits on the high are really nice because triangles, five sided polygons, etc. don't matter usually (Unless you get visual artifacts after turbosmoothing, at which point you can connect some verts to smooth things out).
I always thought those really good artists could fix everything by only using the ring/connect tools. And that they (almost) never used triangles and ngons. I also thought they did that way because cutting everything manually is a lot more time consuming. But I think I thought wrong, didn't I? Maybe sometimes it's impossible to do the job with only ring/connect?
So, I followed your advice and start manually cutting, not worrying about triangles and stuff. This is the result:
Those dirty stains are caused by the render because in the viewport, it looks ok. Any idea what may cause those 'stains'? And what do you think about the result, does it looks ok?
If I would show the geometry, it wouldn't be a beauty I can tell you. For a perfectionist like me, it hurts to see such 'dirty' loops, vertices, triangles etc. But maybe I should learn it's all about how the final result looks, and not about the way is archived. Right?
Thx again guys, I really appreciate your advice!
Only thing I can see that's blaringly obvious is the outermost edges are far sharper than the other ones, while in the ref they're all kinda blunted.
Ok, thanks for the tip! I will fix that.
^