Nice job MeshPotato! My only critique would be to tighten up those edges around the little screws and maybe add an inner support edge. I went ahead and did a little markup on your wire shot to better illustrate what I'm talking about here.
Nice job MeshPotato! My only critique would be to tighten up those edges around the little screws and maybe add an inner support edge. I went ahead and did a little markup on your wire shot to better illustrate what I'm talking about here.
Thanks for the tip dude! Will be sure to keep an eye on support edges.
Or, if you want to be lazy but want to keep compatibility, just use quad chamfer and chamfer by smoothing groups.
It's not really about being lazy, though
There are lots of reason why I switched to this technique:
1. Every less edge loop you have to deal with is a edge loop that doesn't interfere with your topology. Sometimes adding an edge loop breaks the harmony of the mesh: finding a way to avoid the need to add one is very useful for me.
2. This kind of meshes are great to unwrap.
3. It's easier to derive the lowpoly from that kind of meshes.
4. At the end of the day, the less triangles your mesh has, the faster it means you have modeled it: being fast, when working in the industry, is a must.
There are lots of reason why I switched to this technique:
1. Every less edge loop you have to deal with is a edge loop that doesn't interfere with your topology. Sometimes adding an edge loop breaks the harmony of the mesh: finding a way to avoid the need to add one is very useful for me.
2. This kind of meshes are great to unwrap.
3. It's easier to derive the lowpoly from that kind of meshes.
4. At the end of the day, the less triangles your mesh has, the faster it means you have modeled it: being fast, when working in the industry, is a must.
So, lazyness is really not in the scheme
I agree, man. But in 2014 I find this to not be an issue at all: I manage 10/15 millions of triangles in viewport with no problem.
You're welcome!
Yes, exactly. That method is a great time saver, don't be nazis about topology: if you 've to bake it, especially, even floating geometry is ok, so why bother yourself?
Would you mind sharing also the unsmoothed wireframe? I'm interested in that
Thanks for having a look at my wires and for your feedback, JurassicPerk.
Here are the unsmoothed wires. Every comment on them is very much appreciated
Some of the vertices could use some realignment I think. But most times I start unsmoothed and very soon I continue to model directly with a smoothed mesh in the viewport. This way I have better feedback what the final result will look like.
This was a lot harder than I initially imagined it to be. It ended up kinda messy I think, take a look at the wires if you'd like! Would love some feedback
We have to understand guys, production and traing challenges and such are two different animals.
This method is great for a lot of things especially concepting out ideas and getting the flow of the of object of what you are working on.
It just depends on the what the end result needs to be.
The only downfall I see with your method is you have no or lack of control of how soft or hard you want an edge. And depending on how close you are to an object it doesnt matter.
Does every bolt need to be full smoothed with a tons of polys.
What if the art director wants to add more sides to that bolt, you have to restart but you may or may not have been a lot of time on it.
Here is an artist I love. http://bulgarov.com/
90% of his stuff only has a chamfer and smoothing groups applied. Now its mostly conceptual stuff that would need to be cleaned up or completely thought out down the line if you going for super close ups, But it works in almost any medium shot.
Thats my two cents. Just know many methods out there help us all and add to our bag of tricks.
giobianco, I really like the bolts instead of screws. It seems more practical and well faster to make.
@Jura, What happened to the other render you made? I thought you had a moon behind the glass. That sun is too warm and the wood is too warm. I think the cool moon made a better balance.
The only downfall I see with your method is you have no or lack of control of how soft or hard you want an edge.
You can achieve similar trick by using creases (instead of making subdiv. groups, add a crease to the borders where your subdiv. groups would have been). That way you can adjust crease sharpness (you can also control overall sharpness a bit adjusting the amounts of subdividions).
(video (by fusobotic) if I failed at explaining what i meant).
@Jura, What happened to the other render you made? I thought you had a moon behind the glass. That sun is too warm and the wood is too warm. I think the cool moon made a better balance.
Hi sinneD, I didn't like the moon anymore, guess I'm a warm guy :P
Thanks for the video link, JustMeSR. That works perfect and is a good way to have something similar to smoothing groups in Blender. I tried to do that in Blender after JurassicPerk posted his tutorial for 3d Studio Max - now I know how to do that
Managed to squeeze a couple of hours to work on this piece, been busy all week. I wanted to put more effort into the screws and other rivets but I got kinda lazy and have more homework to do.
Overall satisfied with this piece. Need to work on intuitively managing mesh density. I will rarely get stuck in making the HP work, but its taking too long for me imo to add clean edge loops since the mesh I made is quite dense.
Analyze it, it not as hard as last week a small degree easier (the only difficulties is the proportions which is hard without a good side shot). Ill remember to take snapshot for a end workflow
Well, s6 surely went with some more 'rounded' shapes as some were asking...
Anyway. it seems like you could use some symmetry to make this and then at the end just add the bottom and fix some of the non-symmetrical aspects. Looks like a lot of fun!
Reverse image search shows its a cast iron sediment strainer. Strainer Data Sheet
I figured it was a simple S bend at the beginning but check it out. The outlet on the left flattens out making a bulb shape at the intersection. The inlet on the right is like a 90 degree elbow that tapers into the junction.
Well look at that! I think the bolts on the bottom are pretty much the same as the ones we did on week 1? So that's about 5% of the work done right there! :P
Anyway, that's one hell of a shape. I'm still deciding on whether or not making the inside...
Here is week 4's model below. Next time going to do a bit more research on the functionality of the asset I'd be modeling next to get a better idea of how to model a section. For this window didn't realize till near the end that the two cylinder shapes in the reference are not fused to the bottom section.
how should i do the transition from screw to screwhead
the thing that sticks out and goes in a spiral around the whole cylinder
where it goes into the cylinder it looks okay, even though i have n gons and tris
only small artifact visible under extreme angles (right)
but on the other side of the cylinder i need to get rid of my tris because they give me more obvious smoothing artifacts (left)
Here's my week 4 (the hatch window thingy). I got a bit carried away with making a low poly, and I need to learn better edge flow for sub-d definitely. Ah well, live and learn, gotta carry it onto the next project.
Nice work Warren, glad to see someone else gave it a shot. Our results are a little different haha
Here's my shot at it. I pretty much brute forced it, there's probably a better way to do it. There's some weird tri's where the two pipes intersect that i can't figure out how to solve that cause some shading errors but it looks pretty minor.
Reverse image search shows its a cast iron sediment strainer. Strainer Data Sheet
I figured it was a simple S bend at the beginning but check it out. The outlet on the left flattens out making a bulb shape at the intersection. The inlet on the right is like a 90 degree elbow that tapers into the junction.
Thanks a lot for the additional ref, Paznos! Much appreciated
At that link I discovered the company that makes those valves is 40 km from where I live :P
Uhm... I still think the shape is mostly symmetrical in this side:
On the image the line on the sides doesn't seem to fit with the hole, but that's because of the photo perspective I'd say, so.. it seems to be mostly symmetrical? Which means the left pipe widens a lot, and the upper pipe does a sharp angle to connect to it and then go down.
Uhm... I still think the shape is mostly symmetrical in this side:
On the image the line on the sides doesn't seem to fit with the hole, but that's because of the photo perspective I'd say, so.. it seems to be mostly symmetrical? Which means the left pipe widens a lot, and the upper pipe does a sharp angle to connect to it and then go down.
Thanks for the estimates, im more basing it off the reference from the pdf the left is just more narrow and tighter then the right. Trying to accurately accomplish is the tricky part, Warren did a good job but a little off
Thanks for the estimates, im more basing it off the reference from the pdf the left is just more narrow and tighter then the right. Trying to accurately accomplish is the tricky part, Warren did a good job but a little off
Oh yeah, left and right pipes aren't symmetrical obviously, I'm just saying sides A and B are symmetrical :P
and looking good guys. Remember to follow the reference as closely as possible, A lot of the ones i'm seeing so far deviate from the original proportions of the concept.
It would be better practice for you to have the shapes accurate, But errors in geometry rather than an inaccurate model and relatively clean geometry. A lot of people around here can share their .02 on how to correct topology and geometry, But that's only if you guys ask questions and seek help
Just to try a new method, I may make this weeks highpoly between zbrush max then retopologize and bake in max then bake it. I want to see how feasible the workflow is for complicated shapes.
And i'd say Alex is correct, It's an A-symmetric concept. One of many reasons I chose it this week
Replies
Wires
Wires
Thanks for the tip dude! Will be sure to keep an eye on support edges.
Hope you enjoy
This week's thingee isn't easy, especially the lower part. Mainly because the whole thing isn't really symmetrically.
Here is a beauty render.
And the smoothed wires.
First post, first attempt.
Long time no model, so it's was a good exercise.
Gonna make a low poly mesh and texture later. Or at least make a better render.
WIP
Final 1
Final 2
It's not really about being lazy, though
There are lots of reason why I switched to this technique:
1. Every less edge loop you have to deal with is a edge loop that doesn't interfere with your topology. Sometimes adding an edge loop breaks the harmony of the mesh: finding a way to avoid the need to add one is very useful for me.
2. This kind of meshes are great to unwrap.
3. It's easier to derive the lowpoly from that kind of meshes.
4. At the end of the day, the less triangles your mesh has, the faster it means you have modeled it: being fast, when working in the industry, is a must.
So, lazyness is really not in the scheme
I agree, man. But in 2014 I find this to not be an issue at all: I manage 10/15 millions of triangles in viewport with no problem.
You're welcome!
Wires
Question I have is how are you guys doing your wire renders in blender?
Very clean modeling, minoribus! And nice render.
Would you mind sharing also the unsmoothed wireframe? I'm interested in that
Yes, exactly. That method is a great time saver, don't be nazis about topology: if you 've to bake it, especially, even floating geometry is ok, so why bother yourself?
-peace-
Thanks for having a look at my wires and for your feedback, JurassicPerk.
Here are the unsmoothed wires. Every comment on them is very much appreciated
Some of the vertices could use some realignment I think. But most times I start unsmoothed and very soon I continue to model directly with a smoothed mesh in the viewport. This way I have better feedback what the final result will look like.
Hope you like it! I'll get the wires up ASAP!
portholeBeauty2 by ravedonkeyad, on Flickr
portholeBeauty4 by ravedonkeyad, on Flickr
Wires
Wires
JamesHodgart: Looks great! Clean and nice, some of your edges might be too tight for a bake but I'm looking forward to seeing your wireframe!
For next week's challenge I'm gonna try out a Maya equivalent of Giuliano's process in Max - creasing. Could be interesting!
ghaztehschmexeh- I can see why you might think it is lazy.
We have to understand guys, production and traing challenges and such are two different animals.
This method is great for a lot of things especially concepting out ideas and getting the flow of the of object of what you are working on.
It just depends on the what the end result needs to be.
The only downfall I see with your method is you have no or lack of control of how soft or hard you want an edge. And depending on how close you are to an object it doesnt matter.
Does every bolt need to be full smoothed with a tons of polys.
What if the art director wants to add more sides to that bolt, you have to restart but you may or may not have been a lot of time on it.
Here is an artist I love.
http://bulgarov.com/
90% of his stuff only has a chamfer and smoothing groups applied. Now its mostly conceptual stuff that would need to be cleaned up or completely thought out down the line if you going for super close ups, But it works in almost any medium shot.
Thats my two cents. Just know many methods out there help us all and add to our bag of tricks.
Ahhhh! I'll definitely think about that next time
I've edited the post with some updates
I hope you like it
@Jura, What happened to the other render you made? I thought you had a moon behind the glass. That sun is too warm and the wood is too warm. I think the cool moon made a better balance.
(everyone's an expert
Cheers!
You can achieve similar trick by using creases (instead of making subdiv. groups, add a crease to the borders where your subdiv. groups would have been). That way you can adjust crease sharpness (you can also control overall sharpness a bit adjusting the amounts of subdividions).
(video (by fusobotic) if I failed at explaining what i meant).
wire
Looks like somebody took the challenge very seriously and studied how that window is really built: great work giobianco!
Hi sinneD, I didn't like the moon anymore, guess I'm a warm guy :P
Overall satisfied with this piece. Need to work on intuitively managing mesh density. I will rarely get stuck in making the HP work, but its taking too long for me imo to add clean edge loops since the mesh I made is quite dense.
wires!
Anyway. it seems like you could use some symmetry to make this and then at the end just add the bottom and fix some of the non-symmetrical aspects. Looks like a lot of fun!
Reverse image search shows its a cast iron sediment strainer.
Strainer Data Sheet
I figured it was a simple S bend at the beginning but check it out. The outlet on the left flattens out making a bulb shape at the intersection. The inlet on the right is like a 90 degree elbow that tapers into the junction.
Anyway, that's one hell of a shape. I'm still deciding on whether or not making the inside...
Maybe to model an S shaped tube and dilate it at the center part could be an approach ...
Beauty shot.
Clay Render.
Smooth and unsmoothed wire renders here.
wireframe+smooth
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/401/zff6.jpg
how should i do the transition from screw to screwhead
the thing that sticks out and goes in a spiral around the whole cylinder
where it goes into the cylinder it looks okay, even though i have n gons and tris
only small artifact visible under extreme angles (right)
but on the other side of the cylinder i need to get rid of my tris because they give me more obvious smoothing artifacts (left)
My smoothed wires are HERE
wire http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/800x600q90/513/86ku.jpg
for some reason the image is cut off, click on it for full version
I'm interested to see which shapes I completely whiffed this week after everyone else submits the correct mesh. :P
Thankya sir, it should be fixed now
Nice wires on this mesh btw, it's quite clean and the shapes are very readable!
Here's my shot at it. I pretty much brute forced it, there's probably a better way to do it. There's some weird tri's where the two pipes intersect that i can't figure out how to solve that cause some shading errors but it looks pretty minor.
Wires
Thanks a lot for the additional ref, Paznos! Much appreciated
At that link I discovered the company that makes those valves is 40 km from where I live :P
Not sure if anyone looked at the pdf but these images from it really does help, as you can see it not symmetrical. Thanks Paznos
On the image the line on the sides doesn't seem to fit with the hole, but that's because of the photo perspective I'd say, so.. it seems to be mostly symmetrical? Which means the left pipe widens a lot, and the upper pipe does a sharp angle to connect to it and then go down.
Thanks for the estimates, im more basing it off the reference from the pdf the left is just more narrow and tighter then the right. Trying to accurately accomplish is the tricky part, Warren did a good job but a little off
Oh yeah, left and right pipes aren't symmetrical obviously, I'm just saying sides A and B are symmetrical :P
wires
and looking good guys. Remember to follow the reference as closely as possible, A lot of the ones i'm seeing so far deviate from the original proportions of the concept.
It would be better practice for you to have the shapes accurate, But errors in geometry rather than an inaccurate model and relatively clean geometry. A lot of people around here can share their .02 on how to correct topology and geometry, But that's only if you guys ask questions and seek help
Just to try a new method, I may make this weeks highpoly between zbrush max then retopologize and bake in max then bake it. I want to see how feasible the workflow is for complicated shapes.
And i'd say Alex is correct, It's an A-symmetric concept. One of many reasons I chose it this week