Hi! I'd like some advice on how to approach this edge flow. It's the forward sight post on a AK-47 and there's a tiny nook that is milled into the sloped area on one side of the sight post but, I'm unable to come to a good solution that is still a quad and connects the sloped area to the flat area while still keeping the highlighted edges hard.
I believe what, I have right now should work functionally but i'd like to know if there's a better way around this?
@martianlion Modeling the complex shapes of cabinet inlays flat then deforming them into shape can be a good option. A lot depends on what the final model will be used for and how accurate the details need to be. A couple of other options would be to use floating geometry or to create a clean high poly of the basic shape and do a sculpting pass on it in ZBrush. Maybe someone else has some other ideas about how to add repetitive surface details quickly and efficiently?
@JBurk You're welcome. No worries, you're doing well, it's all good.
@cookedpeanut Categorizing them by shape and making them visually searchable is something I've been looking at. Another thing I've been considering (if there's interest) is a high resolution collection of just the final cage meshes with their unsmoothed / smoothed wire-frames and subdivision previews.
What you came up with for the scroll looks pretty good. Depending on where the soft areas are you might be able to add a couple of support loops to sharpen it up and end the loops in a triangle or n-gon without effecting the surrounding shapes. Depends on what the overall goals for the project are and how closely the model will be viewed.
A couple of pages back in this thread are a few discussions about similar topics that may have the answers you're looking for. There's a lot of knowledge in this thread, posted by many different artists, so it's definitely worth the time to skim through the thread and look at how other artists have solved similar issues.
@Sims_doc If there isn't a specific technical reason the mesh needs to be all quads then there's often marginal benefit to investing a significant amount of time into manually generating quad grid geometry on flat surfaces. If there were any smoothing artifacts then it would be worth considering whether or not they're visible to players under normal viewing conditions.
The mesh in the upper right corner of your first image looks fine but
some of the excess loops on the flat areas could be removed to simplify
the cage mesh. The rest of the topology layouts look like they should
work but make sure the side of the front post is supported with edge loops like it is in
the mesh in the upper right corner.
Avoiding unnecessary mesh complexity will increase
the editiability of the cage mesh and flat surfaces can be a good place
to end edge loop segments. In most cases: if the mesh is properly supported, has good edge flow and subdivides without causing any major smoothing artifacts then it should be passable.
A couple of pages back in this thread are a few discussions about similar topics that may have the answers you're looking for. There's a lot of knowledge in this thread, posted by many different artists, so it's definitely worth the time to skim through the thread and look at how other artists have solved similar issues.
I want to create a polygroup of the alpha using the slice curve, but theres no drag rectangle option. Is there another way to do this or maybe I'm missing something.
To add too @FrankPolygon post, a lot of you guys forget that you can use floaters, saves time and is less hassley.
* Create your shape
* Loops around the area you want to panel
* Copy the face you want and "intrude", create support edges (depends on how hard you want them
* turbosmooth x 2 and you have the results
I made a softer version but you can easily go harder on the edges
Great Idea! But if floater will have some thickness and contain any panel breaks (inner extrusions), will they overlapped with the main shape and disappear in it? Or I just don't get it well?
I'm trying to model the receiver of a double barrel shotgun, and I'm struggling with this tricky zone, any tips to model this shape? Btw, I'm using blender (and I'll probably use zbrush and zremesher to create the high poly if necesary)
Examples:
My model right now:
I tried doing the rest of the receiver first, and then using a round cube to create the shape, but it didn't work well. How could be the best way to approach that shape?
Hi there! Seems that my question will be too nooby, but I'll try )
Is there any elegant way to resolve topology of supporting edges here without adding too dense geometry around this area? Or I just need to do some smoothing iterations to get more geometry to work with? What is the right approach in this case? Thanks in advance and have a nice day ahead!
Learn too work with existing geometry as supports when for instance introducing alternate axis aligned transitioning topology, there are many examples already posted over the last 5 pages alone.
@sacboi <-- what this man is saying, many examples over the pages. Please use these. @FrankPolygon has been continously working hard showing what one can do.
Pinching around shape intersections on cylinders is a common problem that's discussed a number of times in this thread. On the previous page there's an answer to a similar question and on page 177 there's another discussion about adding square shapes to cylinders.
Take a look at the answers there and try applying them to your shape. If you run into any other problems post here with an explanation of what the problem is, what solutions you have tried and what results you'd like to achieve.
This thread is a great resource to see how other artists have solved similar smoothing problems. It's definitely worth the time to skim through and look for examples of similar shapes.
Floating geometry is placed above the surface of the mesh so any indented areas won't poke through the underlying geometry. There's different strategies for blending the shapes together and sometimes it's appropriate to leave a hole in the underlying mesh and pass the floating geometry through it. In cases like this the floating geometry will have a flange around it that covers the hole so there won't be any baking artifacts. The Polycount wiki has a small section on floating geometry.
A good place to start would be to block out the basic shape of the ball fences (at the end of the breech) with a couple of spheres and adjust the number of segments until it all lines up with the rest of the geometry in the adjacent parts. Merge the shapes down, fill in the top portion and carve out a hole for the top lever and blend in the firing pin ports.
Take a look at the recommended examples then try blocking out the shapes and connecting the geometry as best you can and post the results. This way we can provide more specific feedback on any issue you encounter with this particular shape.
A couple of pages back in this thread are a few discussions about similar topics that may have the answers you're looking for. There's a lot of knowledge in this thread, posted by many different artists, so it's definitely worth the time to skim through the thread and look at how other artists have solved similar issues.
@rogi92 this have been explained several times, but i understand that searching 181 pages is a nuisance XD
With curved surfaces it's a must to add more geometry and if possible, to have a "quad grid" topology to avoid artifacts and tension issues. Here's an example:
Also, avoid edge propagation and don't add edge loops that will destroy the curvature.
I'm not really experienced with booleans yet, but trying to play around a bit with them. The middle piece is what I used on a simple thin cube to carve out a hole, but I'm not sure how to clean it up as efficient as possible, is A, B or C fine, or is there a better way? Any good rules when working with booleans?
I'm not really experienced with booleans yet, but trying to play around a bit with them. The middle piece is what I used on a simple thin cube to carve out a hole, but I'm not sure how to clean it up as efficient as possible, is A, B or C fine, or is there a better way? Any good rules when working with booleans?
If this is LP, all of them work. However UE4, Unity does not like long small triangles, in my experience. A modified version of C with less "long" triangles would be my choice.
Hey folks. I am trying to finish this model.
I know I can just boolean in the windows and call it done, but in the name of learning proper toplogy, I am trying to keep the model Sub-D all the way to final.
Thing is, the windows pretty much go against the flow of the rest of the surrounding surface. Any recommendations on how to connect everything up? I have included FBX and OBJ of the model as well if that helps.
@rogi92 Manually extruding and filling polygon strips can be a viable modeling strategy but some of the shapes in that mask could make it a tedious and time consuming process. Since you already have a solid start to outlining the shapes: consider streamlining this modeling strategy by using Blender's curve system to layout the major lines of the shape (later converting these curves to mesh) and using Blender's Grid Fill function to automatically generate clean geometry between the lines of the shape.
Edge extrusion, polygon strip modeling is a fairly straightforward process but the shapes it generates aren't always perfect and it can take a lot of planning, manual reworking and luck to get everything to line up correctly. This process can be quick and tends to work well on simple objects but the drawbacks can become problematic if there's a lot of sharp, complex shape intersections on compound curves. Working an edge extrusion modeling strategy off a single feature, without considering the topology requirements of adjacent shapes, can seriously compound these issues and tends to generate a mesh that's either too dense or not dense enough.
This is why it's generally considered best practice to block out the shapes of complex objects and match the geometry density of adjacent shapes whenever possible. Starting with the basic shapes and adjusting the number of mesh segments in each feature to match the adjacent shapes can make it a lot easier to plan out the topology flow and ensure there's enough geometry to support all of the major shapes. From there additional details can be added with a variety of different modeling strategies.
Here's an example of how the shape block out process can be used to quickly create a base mesh that has accurate shapes and consistent geometry density. Start by matching the basic shapes in the reference image. Adjust the segment count of each key feature to match the mesh density of the surrounding geometry. Try to position intersecting shapes where the geometry of the adjacent shapes provides support around the base of the shape intersection. Use tools and modifiers that add clean geometry without requiring a lot of manual input or re-work.
In this example the base geometry is mirrored and most of the major support loops are generated by a bevel / chamfer modifier. This makes it relatively easy to adjust the width of the support loops or edit the underlying mesh without having to manually adjust the support loops.
Depending on what the model will be used for, some of the smaller
surface details could be added with floating geometry and this would
simplify the geometry requirements for the base mesh. The last half dozen pages have a number of great discussions about modeling strategies and topology layouts that will be relevant to the shapes on this mask. Definitely worth the time to skim through and get a few different ideas about how to approach the shapes.
In most cases, it's neither right nor wrong to use booleans on subdivision models. Mesh smoothing behavior around intersecting shapes
is influenced by a variety of factors that include the underlying
shapes, surrounding geometry density, topology routing, boolean cleanup
strategy, etc. Whether or not it's a viable approach often depends on
what the mesh will be used for, how the topology has been cleaned up and
the surface quality level needed to support the materials that will be applied
to the final model.
Often it just comes down to two questions: how good does the model need to be
and how much time can be spent on hitting the quality target? More
often then not it doesn't need to be
perfect, it just needs to be good enough. With game art there's often
marginal returns on doing things the hard way or trying to improve on
something that players won't ever see or notice.
A lot depends on how players will interact with the model. Assuming
it's a situation where it won't be easy to change the density and
topology of the underlying geometry then it becomes an exercise in working
with what's already there.
Here's a couple examples of the same basic shape subtracted from a compound curve with a boolean operation. First row there's no cleanup around the boolean operation. Second row the surrounding geometry has been made all quads. Third row the perimeter of the shape is simplified but the supporting geometry is left in.
All that said: if that's the royal J-type 327 star ship and it's going to be viewed up close then it's likely going to require a higher quality mesh to support the highly mirrored material on the exterior. In the past, @Sacboi has shared several links to resources that cover creating car models with a very high quality surface finish. Maybe he would have some additional recommendations on resources for this specific case where the model has materials that replicate a mirror like finish.
Thank you for that detailed explanation. The effort is appreciated. Having said that, even after looking at your examples, I simply cannot do it. I think I'm going to have to just accept that doing proper Sub-Ds on the Queen's ship is simply beyond my abilities right now. Nothing I do, nothing I try, nothing I think of, will avoid pinching in one way or another. Especially once I get to triple edging to hold the edges of the window frames sharp. There are simply not enough spans to run those to. I get overwhelmed with n-gons or tris. Maybe one day I'll be good enough to be able to do it.
Thank you for that detailed explanation. The effort is appreciated. Having said that, even after looking at your examples, I simply cannot do it. I think I'm going to have to just accept that doing proper Sub-Ds on the Queen's ship is simply beyond my abilities right now. Nothing I do, nothing I try, nothing I think of, will avoid pinching in one way or another. Especially once I get to triple edging to hold the edges of the window frames sharp. There are simply not enough spans to run those to. I get overwhelmed with n-gons or tris. Maybe one day I'll be good enough to be able to do it.
@PixelMagic Even if the way Frank show would be doable, if you have more details in other directions and other sizes it will become such a huge pain to do it that is not worthed. You can see this youtube video on sacboi link to and older discussion in this thread. And is possible the best solution for this problem, Also you can do a retopogy before you project it to the base surface so you have loops running in the directions that you need.
Trying to get make a nut that dosen't have any bending, those first 4 you can see the problem I am talking about, by connecting the 6 sides with the round one you end up with polygons that are not flat with results in some bend.
This one I made using loft/bridge and adjusting how the 2 surfaces will blend, also had do to some manual adjustments on the tips of the 6 sides. I can't see any bending in this one but it's a bit of cumbersome way to do it. So what technique do you guys use for it, show your nut!
@PixelMagic It's difficult to provide more focused feedback without seeing any specific examples of the topology layout's you've tried and the smoothing errors you've encountered. Most of the advice that's been provided should get you close to some kind of usable result but there's no real way around the fact that it will take some effort to re-work the topology to accommodate the windows.
It may be helpful to focus on experimenting with
different topology solutions to see what works and asking for feedback
on that rather than focusing on coming up with the perfect topology
layout that meets some fuzzy idea of pure subdivision modeling. It's important to avoid conflating specific smoothing issues on this model with the idea that the only way to do subdivision modeling is to have an all quad mesh with a perfect grid layout. Any mesh that subdivides cleanly without causing any major smoothing errors is passable.
Looking at additional reference images: it seems like the hull of the ship is broken up into several major pieces with distinct panel lines separating each section. The panel lines that run around the window section could be used to break up the mesh into more manageable chunks. This would allow each panel to have it's own topology layout and mesh density to support adding specific details.
Here's a very basic example of how this could be done with existing topology. Break the mesh up into individual panels as shown in the references. Separate the panels at the center of the panel lines and adjust the topology and mesh density of each panel. Sections that require significant re-work could be done with face snapping, mesh projection, re-meshing or the shrink wrap modifier.
Having an all quad mesh doesn't always guarantee there won't be any smoothing issues. Subdivision smoothing is still susceptible to artifacts caused by shape and topology flow issues. Likewise, as shown in this example, having n-gons or triangles doesn't always mean the mesh will have major smoothing issues.
@Udjani The key to these type of shape problems is to remove the human factor and rely more heavily on the raw geometry generated by tools and pure shapes. Using an approach that mimics the operations and constraints of most CAD programs tends to increase the overall shape accuracy and reduce the amount of manual editing required.
Below is a basic example of how this could be done. Start with the basic shape. Subdivide the upper and lower rings to support the intersecting geometry. Create the angled slice and spin it into shape, matching the number of segments around the top of the nut. Run a boolean operation and then cleanup the mesh using merge by distance. Mark the appropriate edge bevel weights around the key features then add a bevel and subdivision modifier. This way the base mesh remains easy to edit and the support loops can be adjusted by changing the modifier parameters.
All of this assumes the model replicates the profile of common nuts and that the model will be subdivided. If there's a nonstandard shoulder profile or if this is a smooth shading issue on an un-subdivided model then that's a slightly different discussion.
Some other thoughts: the angle and height of the intersecting cone
shape will influence the width, profile and perceived flatness of the
chamfer. Here's an additional example of the same nut with a flatter chamfer profile.
Keep in mind that mass produced, commercial hardware can have a very
rough finish and some actually do have an uneven profile with random
imperfections caused by the speed of the manufacturing machines and
tooling issues. The final coating process can also impart some roughness
into the micro-surface which could cover any minor smoothing issues. A lot depends on the scale of the nut and the backstory behind
how it was made.
If it's some kind of large precision fastener that was hand made in a tool room then it's likely that there's a lot of consistency in the surface features and sharp edges between the shape transitions.
If it's a small nut that's just slammed out in a factory machine shop to fix a broken part and get something running again then it's likely the corners were just broken with a file or whatever tool was in the machine and it was sent out the door.
Thank you for that detailed explanation. The effort is appreciated. Having said that, even after looking at your examples, I simply cannot do it. I think I'm going to have to just accept that doing proper Sub-Ds on the Queen's ship is simply beyond my abilities right now. Nothing I do, nothing I try, nothing I think of, will avoid pinching in one way or another. Especially once I get to triple edging to hold the edges of the window frames sharp. There are simply not enough spans to run those to. I get overwhelmed with n-gons or tris. Maybe one day I'll be good enough to be able to do it.
Hi there,
I can relate to exactly what you're going through, subd modeling may at the best of times seem like a 'science' when an apparently unsolvable problem crops up but in the main I personally find a fairly straightforward method to implement an envisioned goal, especially for most hard surface objects. I mean, what mostly works for me at least, was asking myself *why* did this issue arise in the first place?! and what could I've done better and/or might have somewhat prevented occurring?!
So at a glance, just using your model as an example, any number of techniques we've shared with some forethought on your behalf will provide a workable solution. Now the only other advice I'd suggest, is reviewing Ali Ismail's work generating automotive content via polygonal workflows which may be of interest in particular - Modeling Cars in Polygons over at Ebal Studios. There's a ton of insight that helped me resolve similar problems in the past.
@Udjani the second model is the best for me. That's how i have modelled the nuts i use as floaters.
This is the way i solve too many things instead of using booleans, with mesh constraints or mesh projections. I just need to move the nut base mesh to obtain the slope angle desired. Here's the example:
And different approaches using different level of details. With more polygons we have better results, but i prefer a smoother look, more natural and with less polygons. I optimize the mesh using pentagons and triangles. The shading on the slope is pretty nice, and the cap is cleaner.
@AntBay If the manually placed edge loops need to wrap around the bottom of the shapes then the topology structure of the base mesh will need to be changed so it redirects the edge loop around all of the corners and down along the bottom edge. Below is an example of what this process could look like.
Here's a simplified comparison of the two topology layouts. It's also worth looking at alternate ways of adding support loops and round over features with different tools. The last column in this example shows that a bevel / chamfer operation will create the same topology on both layouts and it also provides a more consistent result than manually placing individual support loops.
The topology layout and modeling process can be further simplified by blocking out the basic shapes, rounding the corners with a bevel / chamfer operation, cutting in coarse support geometry and generating the final support loops with a bevel / chamfer modifier.
This modeling strategy also works if the bottom of the shape needs a specific profile. Just add the shape profile and let the bevel / chamfer modifier handle the rest of the support loops on the sharper areas.
Recap:
Adjust the topology flow at the most basic level (during the block out) and add the complex surface details onto that. Look for alternate tools and modeling strategies that will reduce the amount of time spent manually placing support loops while also increasing the overall consistency of the support loop edge width.
@FrankPolygon Wow, thanks for the amazing response. The images are greatly appreciated. I will experiment and try out the different methods. Thanks once again!
Hello everyone, I hadn't noticed this discussion post until now! I'm struggling with 3d modeling in general, I'm not sure where I should be improving. I wanna model but when I'm on it, there are a lot of questions that come into my mind. I do experiment, but there are more especific questions such as: Once i've added the support loops, is it safe to unwrap the model, I feel like the wireframe is a mess. Support loops that interfere with smoothing, making areas which should be smooth, really sharp.
I wanna model a hori hori knife, but I think that's too much complexity for now. For now I'm trying to model a knife
Reference:
For now I'm focusing in the blade. it will go inside the handle so I don't have to worry about the handle part yet.
I'm having trouble with the top part, since the top part has holes these loops wil have to end somewhere, so I'm thinking in putting them in the blade part, but these will intervene with the sharp subdivision that the blade needs. This is before using a shell modifier. Subdividing this, I think it would interfere with the sharpness of the blade. I might have done this wrong, how should I approach this?
@MegaSofteae Creating a detailed outline of an object's profile can seem like a logical place to start but in most cases this limits the way you think about the shapes by constraining it to a 2D space. This is why it's generally considered best practice to block out all of the major features of an object in 3D before divining in and adding all of the support loops and minor details.
Observation is a significant portion of many different art processes and learning to recognize and replicate the basic shapes that make up the prominent features of an object is a skill that takes time to build. After gathering reference images, begin by studying the object's shape and try to organize them into distinct groups based on how they interact with each other.
Below is an example that highlights the three main shapes. The surfaces highlighted in red are completely flat, with an even thickness, that makes up the bulk of the shape. Blue is a uniform beveled surface that follows the curve of the blade's profile. Yellow is a partially beveled surface that follows the compound curves along the top profile of the blade. Most of this area has a uniform bevel but the shape is interrupted by serrations and it tapers off near the tang where the grinding tool rolled out and off of the part.
The previous observations and analysis will help guide the modeling strategy, order of operations and rough proportions used to develop the primary shapes of the model. Blocking out the model is done to establish the primary forms, proportions and topology flow.
There's a significant amount of interplay between these elements so they all effect one another and changes to one will generally require changes to the others. This is why it's important to keep things reasonably simple and fairly accurate.
Using the minimum amount of geometry to effectively hold the shapes, while providing support for secondary details, means it will be easier to adjust the shapes and proportions of the mesh without having to constantly make manual adjustments to the support loops and fine details.
There's a number of different ways to approach modeling the block out and which approach makes the most sense depends on what tools are available and what the model will be used for. Here's one example of what this process could look like for a base mesh that will be used to develop a high poly model and a low poly model for a game asset.
Start by outlining the major forms according to the shape analysis. [In this example the basic shape profiles were established using curves because they provided an efficient and infinitely adjustable way to generate mathematically precise geometry with consistent spacing. The geometry density of the loops (around each individual surface profile) was adjusted until the number of segments was equal.]
Convert the curves to mesh and use automated fill operations to generate the geometry connecting the matching edge loops that define each surface.
Add depth to the object by extruding the outer edges of the shape's profile and setup a mirror modifier to reduce the amount of manual editing required. After these few basic steps the primary shape, proportion and topology of the object should be ready for additional details and support loops.
Use a bevel / chamfer modifier with edge weights and grouping to automatically generate support loops that are infinitely adjustable. Add a subdivision modifier and preview the mesh. If the proportions and topology are good then there shouldn't be any major smoothing artifacts and it's time to add the smaller secondary details.
Planning ahead for the amount of geometry required to support these additional details can save a lot of headache so be mindful of topology routing and geometry density early in the block out. Simplify areas that have excessive geometry and excess edge loops and increase the mesh density in areas that need to support finer details.
In this example the back portion of the top bevel profile needed some additional geometry to support the serrations. The geometry was properly routed during the block out so increasing the geometry density here was as simple as selecting the outer edge loops around the area and smooth subdividing the geometry segments.
Sometimes it's possible to manually cut in additional loops but doing this on compound curves and other complex surfaces will often disturb the segment spacing and produce undesirable smoothing behavior.
It is possible to manually adjust the positioning of support
geometry to compensate for smoothing artifacts but this often requires a
significant time investment and can produce undesirable smoothing
behavior elsewhere. This is why it's important to maintain a relatively consistent geometry density along curves during the block out phase and to rely on automated tools that generate mathematically accurate geometry.
Once the serrated details are added to the shape the edge weights and grouping that control the bevel / chamfer modifier are adjusted and the subdivision mesh is complete. Since all of the modifiers are still active the underlying base mesh is kept fairly simple which makes it easy to edit and basically provides a free low poly mesh that can be used with minimal adjustments. The bottom row shows the base mesh underneath the modifiers, the subdivision cage mesh generated by the base mesh + modifiers and the shaded subdivision preview.
When properly supported, flat surfaces are generally very tolerant to substantial topology changes so they can be a good place to simplify the mesh by culling unnecessary edge loop propagation. Triangles and n-gons are also fine, so long as they aren't causing any major smoothing errors. Subdivision modeling is an approximate process so it's all about balancing shape accuracy with process efficiency.
There's a lot of different modeling strategies and different ways to approach the topology layout. What makes the most sense often depends on the project's technical requirements and weighing the results versus the amount of time and effort required. It's important to strive for a high quality result but it's also important to learn where to put the quality because it doesn't make sense to spend a lot of time on something that doesn't really impact the quality of the results or waste time on things players won't ever see up close.
This thread has a lot of great examples of how other artists have solved shape and topology issues so it's definitely worth the time to skim through, look at the images for similar shapes and read up on how / why specific things work or don't work. As an example: a few pages back Sacboi posted a list of posts that cover modeling grip wrappings which should be helpful when it comes to replicating the grip in the reference image.
Recap:
Study the reference images to identify and group shapes according to how they interact with each other. Use this shape analysis to block out the basic shapes and establish the topology flow early on in the modeling process. Add details and support loops later and if possible use modifiers to generate support loops and reduce the manual workload. Avoid unnecessary mesh complexity and cull unnecessary edge loops to avoid smoothing issues caused by edge loop propagation. Continue to research, practice and evaluate different topology layout and modeling strategies.
@FrankPolygon Hello! I wanted to thank you! The careful explanation is really appreciated! There are a lot of things I didn't take into consideration and was confused!
Once I'm done with the blade, I will check the grip! Thank you!
@rogi92 Which approach is best will often depend on the specifics of a project's technical requirements. There's a lot of ways to approach modeling this part but there's also a lot of different factors that can influence modeling strategy decisions. Broad, open ended questions lack the context required to provide meaningful feedback. As Wirrexx has already mentioned: it's important to show the results of the modeling attempt and explain what may have gone wrong or what areas need to be improved.
A good place to start would be to analyze the reference image, break the part down into basic shapes and come up with a couple of topology routing strategies to connect the individual shapes. Once the form of the object is understood: it's generally considered best practice to start the modeling process by blocking out the primary shapes (matching geometry segments whenever possible) before adding minor surface details and support loops. The modeling process itself doesn't always require a set order of operations so it just comes down to learning how to use the tools and balancing shape accuracy with process efficiency.
Below is an example of what a basic modeling process and topology layout could look like. All basic inset and extrude operations with support loops generated by a bevel / chamfer modifier. The topology layout in this example has separate loop paths around each through hole feature.
This is just one example and there's a number of different ways to approach modeling the part in question. Whether or not one is better than another is something that can't really be answered without asking more specific questions or exploring different modeling and topology strategies and comparing the results.
Here's an alternate topology layout with a single loop path around the outside of the part. Comparing the topology layouts of each base mesh: the one above provides a clear path around each through hole but doesn't provide a clean path around the perimeter of the combined shape and it doesn't provide a clear path across the join between the large cylinder and the small tab. (This minor issue could be solved by splitting the mesh across the middle of the tab and filling the gap.) The one below provides a clear path around the perimeter of the combined shapes and across the join between the large cylinder and the tab but doesn't provide a clean path around the through holes.
Which layout makes more sense depends on which areas need to be sharpened and what tools are used to generate the support loops. Bevel / chamfer and inset operations can add support loops around both of these topology layouts without running into any major issues but individual loop cuts could run into potential routing problems that may require manual cleanup.
There's also the issue of optimal geometry density: it's possible to reduce the number of segments in the larger cylinder to simplify the mesh but that would also decrease the overall shape accuracy and require more creative topology routing to connect the two shapes. Since the top surface is mostly flat this shouldn't cause any major smoothing issues but it would disrupt the edge flow around the shapes. The disruption of the edge flow (in the base mesh) isn't a major issue if the support loops are added with a bevel / chamfer operation but it could cause issues if the support loops needed to be added with other tools.
So whether or not one is better than the other depends entirely on what factors are at play. It all comes down to project goals, resource constraints, technical constraints and personal preference.
It's also important to invest in self development so it's
definitely worth the time to research how other artists have solved
similar problems, apply this information by experimenting with different
topology strategies and asking for feedback on specific issues
encountered along the way.
@rogi92 Which approach is best will often depend on the specifics of a project's technical requirements. There's a lot of ways to approach modeling this part but there's also a lot of different factors that can influence modeling strategy decisions. Broad, open ended questions lack the context required to provide meaningful feedback. As Wirrexx has already mentioned: it's important to show the results of the modeling attempt and explain what may have gone wrong or what areas need to be improved.
A good place to start would be to analyze the reference image, break the part down into basic shapes and come up with a couple of topology routing strategies to connect the individual shapes. Once the form of the object is understood: it's generally considered best practice to start the modeling process by blocking out the primary shapes (matching geometry segments whenever possible) before adding minor surface details and support loops. The modeling process itself doesn't always require a set order of operations so it just comes down to learning how to use the tools and balancing shape accuracy with process efficiency.
Below is an example of what a basic modeling process and topology layout could look like. All basic inset and extrude operations with support loops generated by a bevel / chamfer modifier. The topology layout in this example has separate loop paths around each through hole feature.
This is just one example and there's a number of different ways to approach modeling the part in question. Whether or not one is better than another is something that can't really be answered without asking more specific questions or exploring different modeling and topology strategies and comparing the results.
Here's an alternate topology layout with a single loop path around the outside of the part. Comparing the topology layouts of each base mesh: the one above provides a clear path around each through hole but doesn't provide a clean path around the perimeter of the combined shape and it doesn't provide a clear path across the join between the large cylinder and the small tab. (This minor issue could be solved by splitting the mesh across the middle of the tab and filling the gap.) The one below provides a clear path around the perimeter of the combined shapes and across the join between the large cylinder and the tab but doesn't provide a clean path around the through holes.
Which layout makes more sense depends on which areas need to be sharpened and what tools are used to generate the support loops. Bevel / chamfer and inset operations can add support loops around both of these topology layouts without running into any major issues but individual loop cuts could run into potential routing problems that may require manual cleanup.
There's also the issue of optimal geometry density: it's possible to reduce the number of segments in the larger cylinder to simplify the mesh but that would also decrease the overall shape accuracy and require more creative topology routing to connect the two shapes. Since the top surface is mostly flat this shouldn't cause any major smoothing issues but it would disrupt the edge flow around the shapes. The disruption of the edge flow (in the base mesh) isn't a major issue if the support loops are added with a bevel / chamfer operation but it could cause issues if the support loops needed to be added with other tools.
So whether or not one is better than the other depends entirely on what factors are at play. It all comes down to project goals, resource constraints, technical constraints and personal preference.
It's also important to invest in self development so it's
definitely worth the time to research how other artists have solved
similar problems, apply this information by experimenting with different
topology strategies and asking for feedback on specific issues
encountered along the way.
Thank you for your help and the information, I really appreciate it.
It help me a lot.
I will keep those information in mind. Again many thanks. Rob
I thought this workflow might help some of you. This is one of my favorite workflows for creating certain hard surface parts is using a little workflow called "Pattern Creation & Deformers"
Let’s model the magazine of a machine gun with the following workflow:
1) Break down the model into a repetable pattern, so the bulk of the work is done by symmetry.
2) Create the model straight and use the help of a deformer to give it is final shape. The bend deformer is from Maya but most 3d packages have a similar deformer and settings.
Using symmetry will speed up the process and make sure our model is even. Using a deformer will allow us to create the bulk of our model with the ease of working in world space and simply just bend it into place towards the end of the modeling process. This workflow can be implemented to breakdown and create many complex hard surface models with relative ease.
I created a free pdf guide with more workflows like this which can be downloaded here. https://jlmussi.com/hsguide/
Is there any way to get a straight, even, consistent edge loop from this mesh? You can see the topo in the first image - the 2nd image is after removing the unwanted faces. It's a predictable outcome - just wondering if there's a way to create a usable loop for extruding straight back (like cylinder). If not I guess I'll have to retopo, right?
Is there any way to get a straight, even, consistent edge loop from this mesh? You can see the topo in the first image - the 2nd image is after removing the unwanted faces. It's a predictable outcome - just wondering if there's a way to create a usable loop for extruding straight back (like cylinder). If not I guess I'll have to retopo, right?
Thanks!
Daf
Most tools have a knife tool. I would go into your side view and cut a line from the top of the head to the bottom. It should cut through, this will give you a straight edge loops, but be careful as this will also give you a lot of ngons and triangles.
Hey thanks, Iaido! I did try it with the knife and it just made a big mess - ngons and tris like you said. I'll just do the retopo - it will be better anyway.
Hi all, I cannot for the life of me figure out how to have a perfect round silhouette and quads for subdividing, at the same time.
Is there a simple way of doing this?
Hi all, I cannot for the life of me figure out how to have a perfect round silhouette and quads for subdividing, at the same time.
Is there a simple way of doing this?
You could start with a 32 sided cylinder. Or model it flat and bend it with a modifier. Last tips is to use a proxy mesh and skinwrap your object to the proxy mesh
@aregvan For holes in cylinders the rule is quite simple. The bigger the hole, the less polygons you need. For smaller details, you just need more geometry, that's all.
hey, I'm trying to create this type of cut on a cylinder but I cant figure out how to get rid of the wierd pinching effect I'm getting and retain the same curvature of the cylinder.
How to connect it properly in my HP model? I've tried various ways but there is always some shading problems (surface is not smooth, there are little bumps etc.). When I add more horizontal edges to those vertices inside this big n-gon my cylinder is no round anymore.
Hi, Folks! I am working on a "OTs-14 Groza" hybrid and I'm currently polishing the carry handle but there is a persistent problem that is hampering me. This is an example, I've WIP up that is what effective highlights the issue that i am having.
The area that I've created next to the main rail is how, I think it looks on the reference itself however many of the other references that I've seen seem to lack this nook, which is the part that isn't rounded is what i've got so far. I think they may be airsoft.
I'd just like to get someones opinion on how i should approach modeling this nook
Replies
I want to create a polygroup of the alpha using the slice curve, but theres no drag rectangle option. Is there another way to do this or maybe I'm missing something.
But if floater will have some thickness and contain any panel breaks (inner extrusions), will they overlapped with the main shape and disappear in it?
Or I just don't get it well?
And this is a solution for another problem posted, but with different bevel radius.
Examples:
My model right now:
I tried doing the rest of the receiver first, and then using a round cube to create the shape, but it didn't work well. How could be the best way to approach that shape?
Please, how i need fix the topology to get rid of this pinching?
Thank you . )
With curved surfaces it's a must to add more geometry and if possible, to have a "quad grid" topology to avoid artifacts and tension issues. Here's an example:
Also, avoid edge propagation and don't add edge loops that will destroy the curvature.
I'm not really experienced with booleans yet, but trying to play around a bit with them. The middle piece is what I used on a simple thin cube to carve out a hole, but I'm not sure how to clean it up as efficient as possible, is A, B or C fine, or is there a better way? Any good rules when working with booleans?
Thank you for tips guys.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/znziyuu2f76ms4k/queenship_windows.FBX?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hbhbxv3nuaa2953/queens_ship_windows.obj?dl=0
Thank you for that detailed explanation. The effort is appreciated. Having said that, even after looking at your examples, I simply cannot do it. I think I'm going to have to just accept that doing proper Sub-Ds on the Queen's ship is simply beyond my abilities right now. Nothing I do, nothing I try, nothing I think of, will avoid pinching in one way or another. Especially once I get to triple edging to hold the edges of the window frames sharp. There are simply not enough spans to run those to. I get overwhelmed with n-gons or tris. Maybe one day I'll be good enough to be able to do it.
This one I made using loft/bridge and adjusting how the 2 surfaces will blend, also had do to some manual adjustments on the tips of the 6 sides. I can't see any bending in this one but it's a bit of cumbersome way to do it. So what technique do you guys use for it, show your nut!
This is the way i solve too many things instead of using booleans, with mesh constraints or mesh projections. I just need to move the nut base mesh to obtain the slope angle desired. Here's the example:
And different approaches using different level of details. With more polygons we have better results, but i prefer a smoother look, more natural and with less polygons. I optimize the mesh using pentagons and triangles. The shading on the slope is pretty nice, and the cap is cleaner.
Thanks once again!
I wanna model a hori hori knife, but I think that's too much complexity for now. For now I'm trying to model a knife
Reference:
For now I'm focusing in the blade. it will go inside the handle so I don't have to worry about the handle part yet.
I'm having trouble with the top part, since the top part has holes these loops wil have to end somewhere, so I'm thinking in putting them in the blade part, but these will intervene with the sharp subdivision that the blade needs. This is before using a shell modifier. Subdividing this, I think it would interfere with the sharpness of the blade. I might have done this wrong, how should I approach this?
Model Obj download
Thanks in advance! Cheers!
Hello! I wanted to thank you! The careful explanation is really appreciated! There are a lot of things I didn't take into consideration and was confused!
Once I'm done with the blade, I will check the grip!
Thank you!
Again many thanks.
Rob
Let’s model the magazine of a machine gun with the following workflow:
1) Break down the model into a repetable pattern, so the bulk of the work is done by symmetry.
2) Create the model straight and use the help of a deformer to give it is final shape. The bend deformer is from Maya but most 3d packages have a similar deformer and settings.
Using symmetry will speed up the process and make sure our model is even. Using a deformer will allow us to create the bulk of our model with the ease of working in world space and simply just bend it into place towards the end of the modeling process. This workflow can be implemented to breakdown and create many complex hard surface models with relative ease.
I created a free pdf guide with more workflows like this which can be downloaded here.
https://jlmussi.com/hsguide/
I cannot for the life of me figure out how to have a perfect round silhouette and quads for subdividing, at the same time. Is there a simple way of doing this?
And a with a cylinder of 16 sides, bigger hole:
@Blaizer
Thanks for the help guys! Seems pentagons aren't so bad afterall.
I'm trying to create this type of cut on a cylinder but I cant figure out how to get rid of the wierd pinching effect I'm getting and retain the same curvature of the cylinder.
Check out rule of thumb via intrusion shape cuts for curved surfaces, 4 posts above yours by @Blaizer - i.e. holes in cylinders.