Hello I'm a relative beginner to modeling and I'm currently taking a class for it. For the current project I have to model and texture these headphones. Here is my attempt so far. The one thing I'm not sure how to do is get the area in between the band and the headphone as seen in the 3rd image to look as it should and getting the band to look right where it curves as it connects to the headphone where I assume I have to Boolean it though correct me if I'm wrong . I've included my reference folder. This my first time posting to the thread also if I'm doing something wrong let me know. Thank you
Hello I'm a relative beginner to modeling and I'm currently taking a class for it. For the current project I have to model and texture these headphones. Here is my attempt so far. The one thing I'm not sure how to do is get the area in between the band and the headphone as seen in the 3rd image to look as it should and getting the band to look right where it curves as it connects to the headphone where I assume I have to Boolean it though correct me if I'm wrong . I've included my reference folder. This my first time posting to the thread also if I'm doing something wrong let me know. Thank you
One tip I can give you to save time.
Block out the big shapes, Block them out without using Subd. Just to make sure that all the pieces you need are there.
So, you start with only 2 parts that are blocked out,
1. Headband is one piece and earcups with drivers are one piece. (So two pieces) 2. Then you iterate further on the headband, splitting it up into 2 pieces.
3. You do the same thing with the earcups. You separate the cushion, earcups, and drivers from each other.
Rule of thumb.
Block out the big shapes.
Iterate on the block out by adding more loops to it or subdividing it once. rinse and repeat.
1. Main shapes (Primary)
2. Iterate one steps and go to the secondary shapes
3. when done with the big shapes and secondary shapes and you notice, Hey I can't work further on this, I don't have enough polygons to work with. You can subdivide once, clean up the mesh, and add the minimal shapes.
Hi there, I have a (probably a classic one) topology problem where when doing subdv., I get too high concentration of polygons into one end.
I'm trying to prepare this for sculpting, but I though to ask if someone could find another solution for getting this mesh into more even quads. How could I avoid this concentration of polygons? One solution I though of was to keep the different parts seperately from each other. Definitely need another brains for this! Thanks in advance!
Also if I try to keep the side as a quad the same problem occurs... looks one step better but the polygons get stretched along the way
edit: Here's a workaround I figured out. Since the bottom part is not going to visible, I can sculpt my details on this kind of mesh (below) and then bake down the part of it which will be visible (meshes above). This way I can at least achieve a consistent level of detail with the subdivisions.
No one really would want to do that sort of thing manually tbh. Projects could require you to make many dozens of objects, and manually solving even topology could be a very pointlessly tedious step that steals time away from creative tasks for not much benefit. Typically, some automatic topolgy solving workflow would be used, eg dynamesh or zremeshing in zbrush.
No one really would want to do that sort of thing manually tbh. Projects could require you to make many dozens of objects, and manually solving even topology could be a very pointlessly tedious step that steals time away from creative tasks for not much benefit. Typically, some automatic topolgy solving workflow would be used, eg dynamesh or zremeshing in zbrush.
Hi @Ghogiel and thanks for your answer! I see what you're talking about, it indeed does seem a bit tedious job and quite time consuming. The next add-on I'm going to buy is Quad remesher from Exoside, but meanwhile while I still can't afford it, I'm down to doing this by hand and also learning (probly) quite precious information about topology... thanks for your provided link! Cheers!
@VesaN This is what i do in most cases, quite simple!. Triangles are the key for me, and bevels on hard edges aswell. An example with high and low slope.
@VesaN This is what i do in most cases, quite simple!. Triangles are the key for me, and bevels on hard edges aswell. An example with high and low slope.
Hi guys, I'm currently working on a project in which this shape or something similar to it has come up a number of times and so I'm looking for some advice on how to refine my method for creating it. Essentially the shape is a smooth transition from a cuboid to the side of a cylinder that has two distinct, curved profiles. Here is an example of a drawing of a slightly more complicated version. My process to create such a shape is to start with a circle and extrude the profile from the front perspective. A boolean object, created by "spinning" the second profile, can then be used to cut away the second curve profile. This creates the correct shape but the resulting topology is not good, so new edges must be cut and the vertices rearranged and smoothed/relaxed in order to produce a good mesh for subdivision. While the end result is reasonably satisfactory, it may take multiple attempts in creating the initial mesh and boolean object to ensure that the spans of the various curves line up somewhat (using Blender) and the post-boolean cleanup fiddly and degrades the accuracy of the shape. Any advice to simplify this workflow/improve the accuracy of it would be most appreciated.
hi everyone, i have been trying to model this power button detail, the surface containing this detail is curved, the problem is if subdivide the surface so that it has enough geometry to support such tiny detail then it gets very messy and the surface becomes very hard to deal with, on the other hand if i use less geometry then i won't have geometry to have these sharp edges marked by the red arrows in the picture, how can i go about this?
In this instance, rather than attempt to hard model that button icon, I'd save myself the hassle and use floaters, assuming the goal is a realtime asset:
And a cross post from an earlier discussion on a insightful use case for floating geometry which I thought maybe helpful to those interested in the topic.
CapibleWizard said: Hey guys! I was discussing the placement of floating geo on more awkward shapes
with Joost the other day and came up with a solution which worked pretty
well. I haven't seen it anywhere before so I thought I'd do a little
write up of the technique. I realise you could really easily do the same
using NDo, but I know a lot of people prefer to use geo, as you can get
nice realtime feedback on what the final result will look like. Plus
you can render out some fancy high poly shots amirite??
So we all know that floating geo is great! no need to have complicated
geometry, just plonk the shape onto the area you're going to bake and
everything will work out fine!
But what about when it's on an awkward angle.. like this sphere? Unfortunately it's not quite as simple.
The first step is to break off the surrounding area around the floater and clone it.
Select the duplicate and go to edit poly mode. Pick the floater from the
dropdown and scale the mesh in the Z direction. You'll notice the whole
mesh will flatten to the floater.
Select the piece you broke off earlier and apply a morpher and a
turbosmooth. Pick the duplicate as the morph target. If you slide the
value around the mesh should flatten at 100 and return to the curve at
0.
Make sure that the morph is set to 100 (or that the mesh is flat with
the floater) and select the floating geo. Add a Skin Wrap modifier on top
of the turbosmooth and use the settings below. I found that Face
Deformation worked most consistently, but vertex deformation definitely
works. Add the underlying geometry and wait a few seconds for it to
compute. Once it's done this use morpher on the underlying geometry to
morph the mesh from flat to curved once again. The floating geo should
miraculously follow it!
The technique holds up pretty well once baked. It's not a perfect method
though and it's worth noting that the more curved the surface, the more
noticeable the seam will be. In this example I used a sphere and got a
pretty reasonable result, with really minimal seams. You can see below
that on a glossy material you can just make out the edge of the
floater. I tried it on something which was less curved yesterday and got
no visible seams at all. I also think you'd be able to reduce the seam
by increasing the turbosmooth iterations on both meshes.
Hopefully this has been useful for some people, let me know what you think!
hi everyone, i have been trying to model this power button detail, the surface containing this detail is curved, the problem is if subdivide the surface so that it has enough geometry to support such tiny detail then it gets very messy and the surface becomes very hard to deal with, on the other hand if i use less geometry then i won't have geometry to have these sharp edges marked by the red arrows in the picture, how can i go about this?
What is you final product ? if its a render, can you use normal maps or displacement maps ? also how were you trying to model it before ?
hi everyone, i have been trying to model this power button detail, the surface containing this detail is curved, the problem is if subdivide the surface so that it has enough geometry to support such tiny detail then it gets very messy and the surface becomes very hard to deal with, on the other hand if i use less geometry then i won't have geometry to have these sharp edges marked by the red arrows in the picture, how can i go about this?
@sacboi Already mentioned it. But paneling and small buttons can be made with floaters.
@ConvexSurface For those kind of meshes is better to use more geometry. Here's a similar model, using booleans aswell. It's done pretty quick.
@hassansheded If you want a 100% subdivision model, here's a quick attempt, but you must understand the use of pentagons and triangles. The process is quick, but not as much as with floaters. If you are making a game model, use floaters instead!
Hello everyone, started with modelling 8 months ago. Since my query pertains to subd modelling, I will post and ask here. If it isnt the right place for that question, please say so and I will remove this. So, basically, been going through this thread for couple of weeks. Basically, do you guys have any resources, books, or websites or anything, where I can look up and understand what subd is? I cannot keep relying on this wonderful thread to get around my issues lol. Currently, I get stuck when something isnt shading correct, with no clue on how to fix it correctly. Appreciate any help!
Still very handy since purchasing a copy way back when and do keep in mind, stuffing things up is all part of learning however a ton of practice will often ease the pain a bit
@sacboi Yessir, practice does make perfect. For example, I struggle with making nice, well shaded gun wooden stocks. So currently practicing those atm, to get a hang of them
Hi friends. Please tell me how to model a rhombic pattern on the shape of a chair in the photo? thank you
Word of note:
It is expected that when asking for help specific to this thread's topic, we also post an attempt regardless of result. So as a general reminder for future reference, education is not only confined too those asking but also for those that offer advice, as well.
Now, dependent on a given goal, there are various methods generating an upholstered pattern.
For example here's a couple of recently posted techniques, optimal (...scroll down slightly to relevant reply in this particular post) or simplified workflow.
Hello friends, Yesterday I tried 3d modeling for the first time, my reason for beginning to modeling is that I want to participate a contest called supercell maker, To this contest I have to do a skin for a video game character called Nita, but I don't have any experience, but I learned a litlle (I used blender) and I have some questions
1 - How can I create a swimsuit?
So the character uses a dress, but when I removed the dress, she had no belly, how can I make a belly for her and make her a swimsuit? Can I extensor her torso to create a belly? Because if I try to create one by zero it will look unatural.
2 - How can I add texture for her?
She does have her own texture, but how can change it to accept her new belly plus her swimsuit?
3 - How can I do my own texture?
4 -How can I make an object has multiples colors?
5 - How can I add a face to only vertices?
So I have vertices, but I don't have a face, how can I add it?
6 - How can I make new layout and mix with character naturally
The contest closes 18th April, so I hope someone could answer me until then the files of the character is there.
Got a noob problem with the smoothing/normals of a point; I'm modelling a bascinet and want to have a pointy top, but the smoothing is wrong. No idea how to fix it though. You can see a strong horizontal line as well as vertical lines going to the vertices ontop (the point), it's soft but noticeable.
Got a noob problem with the smoothing/normals of a point; I'm modelling a bascinet and want to have a pointy top, but the smoothing is wrong. No idea how to fix it though. You can see a strong horizontal line as well as vertical lines going to the vertices ontop (the point), it's soft but noticeable.
You could try not using a fan of triangles at the point and solve the end with quads.
Got a noob problem with the smoothing/normals of a point; I'm modelling a bascinet and want to have a pointy top, but the smoothing is wrong. No idea how to fix it though. You can see a strong horizontal line as well as vertical lines going to the vertices ontop (the point), it's soft but noticeable.
You could try not using a fan of triangles at the point and solve the end with quads.
Thank you very much, i didn't even think about that!
Got a noob problem with the smoothing/normals of a point; I'm modelling a bascinet and want to have a pointy top, but the smoothing is wrong. No idea how to fix it though. You can see a strong horizontal line as well as vertical lines going to the vertices ontop (the point), it's soft but noticeable.
You could try not using a fan of triangles at the point and solve the end with quads.
Transformed the top geometry into this, it's not good for a point like in your example, but this works too.
Follow up on my Bascinet, got another noob problem now dealing with the visor, of which I thought I was certain I had the meshflow right. There is some very noticeable pinching at a corner and a little bit at the nosebridge.
Anyone know why the pinching at the corner is so noticeable, what am i doing wrong?
I subdivided my mesh 1x and aplied it, and started working from there. Had to retopo almost the entire mesh lol. It looks a lot better now, though some of the smoothing artefacts are still there at the sharp corner of the eye holes. I'm going to try some more, but no idea how to properly fix it.
Than again, in some picutres I can see this same pinching (smoothing artefacts) on real life helmets, like in here. But I can also find some seriously good repoductions that also have the sharp corners but no pinching at all. Maybe it was a sign of a quality blacksmith/armorer or not?
Pinching here the the corners of the eye holes where it meets the base visor itself Sharp corners at the eyeholes but absolutely no smoothing artefacst what so ever.
Found a technique of fixing the issue for about 90% of what I was doing. I duplicated my mesh, remove the eye holes part and filled it up. Than I had to fix the meshflow again somewhat, but subdivided it was smooth.
Than I used that as my shrinkwrap base, I created a vertex group of the mesh with the eye holes and excluded the vertices of the eyeholes in the shrinkwrap. This meant that my mesh was being pushed onto the shrinkwrap model base model that had "perfect" smoothing, and it remove the majority of this pinching.
Some minor pinching still, but drastically better
the shrinkwrap base mesh, smoothing wasn't the greatest but i did this in like 2 minutes.
"Found a technique of fixing the issue for about 90% of what I was doing. I duplicated my mesh, remove the eye holes part and filled it up. Than I had to fix the meshflow again somewhat, but subdivided it was smooth.
Than I used that as my shrinkwrap base, I created a vertex group of the mesh with the eye holes and excluded the vertices of the eyeholes in the shrinkwrap. This meant that my mesh was being pushed onto the shrinkwrap model base model that had "perfect" smoothing, and it remove the majority of this pinching."
Dammit! was about to rain fire and brimstone...
Excellent, you'd managed too resolve the issue all by your lonesome
"Some minor pinching still, but drastically better"
I'm afraid a common characteristic working within an approximate modeling paradigm.
"shrinkwrap base mesh, smoothing wasn't the greatest but i did this in like 2 minutes."
When time permits. also look into vertex weights and mesh data transfer, I think you'll find are comparatively streamlined methodologies to implement, as well.
Hi everyone! I`m noobie in modeling, so i`m just training in topology. Now working on this guitar trying to achieve nice mesh as a goal. I'm stuck at this point because some areas are questionable. Can you tell if it is good or bad and what is wrong, please?
Also, if it's split in real life, split it in your geometry. It'll not only make your topology a bit cleaner, and have your meshes more accurate/nicer to look at, but it'll be much easier all around to not have to model everything as one solid piece.
Also, if it's split in real life, split it in your geometry. It'll not only make your topology a bit cleaner, and have your meshes more accurate/nicer to look at, but it'll be much easier all around to not have to model everything as one solid piece.
I`ll keep it in mind for the future. But here I want to make it as a solid piece for challenge to solve its geometry complexity.
@byas There's a few different ways to approach this. One way to optimize for limited mesh density and overall sharpness is to block out the basic shapes to establish the basic topology flow. Then use a bevel / chamfer operation to add a set of consistently spaced support loops that automatically use 2 to 1 loop reduction on the sharp corners.
Here's an overview of what this process could look like. Depending on the density of the mesh and the desired width (sharpness) of the loops it may be necessary to go in and make a few manual adjustments to the corners using edge dissolve to terminate the edge loop early or scale / edge slide to adjust the width of the loop where it reduces from 2 to 1.
The edge loop topology that's used to support the major shapes is what's most important in this example. The rest of the n-gons could be left as is or quad filled as required.
Subdivision modeling is largely an approximate process so it's about choosing the right tradeoffs between modeling efficiency and shape accuracy. Increasing the number of segments in the cylinder will tend to increase the overall accuracy of the mesh but it will also tend to increase the overall complexity of the mesh which can have a negative impact on the editability.
When it comes to overall mesh density a lot depends on how wide the support loops need to be. This example is probably over sharpened but it's a decent compromise between the number of segments used and the overall definition of the shapes. Widening the support loops would tend to make things a bit more forgiving in the corners and soften the look of the subdivided mesh.
@byas There's a few different ways to approach this. One way to optimize for limited mesh density and overall sharpness is to block out the basic shapes to establish the basic topology flow. Then use a bevel / chamfer operation to add a set of consistently spaced support loops that automatically use 2 to 1 loop reduction on the sharp corners.
Here's an overview of what this process could look like. Depending on the density of the mesh and the desired width (sharpness) of the loops it may be necessary to go in and make a few manual adjustments to the corners using edge dissolve to terminate the edge loop early or scale / edge slide to adjust the width of the loop where it reduces from 2 to 1.
The edge loop topology that's used to support the major shapes is what's most important in this example. The rest of the n-gons could be left as is or quad filled as required.
Subdivision modeling is largely an approximate process so it's about choosing the right tradeoffs between modeling efficiency and shape accuracy. Increasing the number of segments in the cylinder will tend to increase the overall accuracy of the mesh but it will also tend to increase the overall complexity of the mesh which can have a negative impact on the editability.
When it comes to overall mesh density a lot depends on how wide the support loops need to be. This example is probably over sharpened but it's a decent compromise between the number of segments used and the overall definition of the shapes. Widening the support loops would tend to make things a bit more forgiving in the corners and soften the look of the subdivided mesh.
Frank you are a MONSTER, i love you (in professional manner ) you solved my problem on the fly...
I still need to study the topology a lot ...
I just forgot about 2 to 1!
Thank you very much, your advice is as always precious.
I have as you see put into practice but I still have a bit of pinch in the convex polygon
I have already tried to turn up the loop but it creates an even worse effect, this is the best I got
another question... what program you use?
Do you have any advice for me to model more efficiently?
I currently use C4D, on some things it is much faster than others ... but on others I find more difficulties and fewer modifiers sometimes useful
Moving the root vertex away from the corner (about 50% of the loop's width) can improve the visibility of the highlight but much beyond that it tends to start effecting the overall consistency of the support loop. Some of this effect can be softened by dissolving the edges of the 2 to 1 reduction and just leaving them as n-gons but this also has it's own drawbacks.
After a certain point it comes down to a question of how closely the model will be viewed and how accurate the shapes need to be. If the existing mesh can't hold the shapes at the desired view level then it may be time to reevaluate the density of the mesh and adjust the number of segments accordingly.
For a background prop or small scale renders it's probably fine to have some minor shape inaccuracy there. Especially since that part is at the back of the faucet where it's less likely to be noticed. However if this model is going to be used in high resolution product renders it's probably worth the effort to increase the geometry density to provide better shape accuracy or look at alternative modeling strategies that will produce more accurate results. A lot depends on the model's intended use and average view distance.
Looking at the documentation for the application and understanding what tools are available is helpful. Every application has it's own unique tool set but most contemporary 3D DCCs have competent tool sets that can be used to create just about anything. If there's a particular modeling task that comes up often and there's a missing feature or game breaking issue with the tools in one application then maybe it is worth comparing different applications and looking into switching to one that's better aligned with your particular workflow situation.
For efficient modeling advice: Collecting a variety of reference images and studying them to understand the shapes is extremely helpful. Try to build a mental outline of the modeling process and order of operations required to produce the shapes. Block out the basic forms and try to resolve most of the major topology issues at the lowest possible mesh density level. Focus on accurately representing the basic shapes, establishing the major
edge flow paths and most of the remaining topology issues should fall
into line. Offload repetitive manual tasks to specific tools or modifiers whenever possible. Aim for a specific quality level that fits the end use case and accept that there will often be minor issues that don't negatively effect the viewer's experience.
Any idea on how to model this arm joint? Very challenging merge, I've tried crazy methods but looks like I won't escape manual retopo here and its going to take me time anyway.
Help... I'm Stuck, Full reference pictures and more detail here.
Hey guys, first time trying to model anything subtle like this without resorting to sculpting right away, I'd really appreciate some help! My attempt has failed because the helmet's very smooth and curvy and I'm essentially clueless on how to approach these things.
Hello, I'm struggling trying to replicate this pattern on the handle. How would you do it ? Sculpting it doesn't seem efficient and texturing it seems really hard ! Here's my poor attempt to it ! As you can see it's deformed and the cylinder is no longer straight !
Hello, I'm struggling trying to replicate this pattern on the handle. How would you do it ? Sculpting it doesn't seem efficient and texturing it seems really hard ! Here's my poor attempt to it ! As you can see it's deformed and the cylinder is no longer straight !
use a texture pattern with displacement map?
or work this in plane like a brick wall and shrink wrap along a cilynder?
Hello, I'm struggling trying to replicate this pattern on the handle. How would you do it ? Sculpting it doesn't seem efficient and texturing it seems really hard ! Here's my poor attempt to it ! As you can see it's deformed and the cylinder is no longer straight !
or work this in plane like a brick wall and shrink wrap along a cilynder?
Hello, I'm struggling trying to replicate this pattern on the handle. How would you do it ? Sculpting it doesn't seem efficient and texturing it seems really hard ! Here's my poor attempt to it ! As you can see it's deformed and the cylinder is no longer straight !
or work this in plane like a brick wall and shrink wrap along a cilynder?
i try to imagine how to work it...
@SnowInChina Thanks ! This seems so simple now looking back, and I feel like I was almost there !
@Ghogiel Thanks for the help too ! I'm using Blender and felt way more confortable with SnowInChina's method but I'm sure yours will help too !
EDIT : Well it's not really sub-d friendly, gotta find how to fix it :-( I feel like I missed a step. I select a few edgeloops, then I bevel a bit and then extrude inwards to create the "cut". Is it because of this last step ? I don't get how you managed to bevel and get the cut otherwise !
@NodrawNT More subdivisions for a tighter edge, and split the meshes entirely so it isn't one contiguous piece - this is how you'll get the sharper edges as well, since it likely is a separate piece anyway.
Replies
2. Then you iterate further on the headband, splitting it up into 2 pieces.
I'm trying to prepare this for sculpting, but I though to ask if someone could find another solution for getting this mesh into more even quads. How could I avoid this concentration of polygons? One solution I though of was to keep the different parts seperately from each other. Definitely need another brains for this! Thanks in advance!
Also if I try to keep the side as a quad the same problem occurs... looks one step better but the polygons get stretched along the way
edit: Here's a workaround I figured out. Since the bottom part is not going to visible, I can sculpt my details on this kind of mesh (below) and then bake down the part of it which will be visible (meshes above). This way I can at least achieve a consistent level of detail with the subdivisions.
Would love to hear any other solutions, though!
but if you want to solve the topology by hand for some reason, I would do some 3 to 1 or 4 to 2 edge loop reductions as the shape tapers to the bottom. like here https://topologyguides.com/assets/img/163679954765_0.png
We can use "quads only" if we want less polygons.
Hope it helps!
My process to create such a shape is to start with a circle and extrude the profile from the front perspective. A boolean object, created by "spinning" the second profile, can then be used to cut away the second curve profile.
This creates the correct shape but the resulting topology is not good, so new edges must be cut and the vertices rearranged and smoothed/relaxed in order to produce a good mesh for subdivision.
While the end result is reasonably satisfactory, it may take multiple attempts in creating the initial mesh and boolean object to ensure that the spans of the various curves line up somewhat (using Blender) and the post-boolean cleanup fiddly and degrades the accuracy of the shape. Any advice to simplify this workflow/improve the accuracy of it would be most appreciated.
Tutorial: Floating Geo on Awkward Shapes
Authored by CapibleWizardHey guys! I was discussing the placement of floating geo on more awkward shapes with Joost the other day and came up with a solution which worked pretty well. I haven't seen it anywhere before so I thought I'd do a little write up of the technique. I realise you could really easily do the same using NDo, but I know a lot of people prefer to use geo, as you can get nice realtime feedback on what the final result will look like. Plus you can render out some fancy high poly shots amirite??
So we all know that floating geo is great! no need to have complicated geometry, just plonk the shape onto the area you're going to bake and everything will work out fine!
But what about when it's on an awkward angle.. like this sphere? Unfortunately it's not quite as simple.
The first step is to break off the surrounding area around the floater and clone it.
Select the duplicate and go to edit poly mode. Pick the floater from the dropdown and scale the mesh in the Z direction. You'll notice the whole mesh will flatten to the floater.
Select the piece you broke off earlier and apply a morpher and a turbosmooth. Pick the duplicate as the morph target. If you slide the value around the mesh should flatten at 100 and return to the curve at 0.
Make sure that the morph is set to 100 (or that the mesh is flat with the floater) and select the floating geo. Add a Skin Wrap modifier on top of the turbosmooth and use the settings below. I found that Face Deformation worked most consistently, but vertex deformation definitely works. Add the underlying geometry and wait a few seconds for it to compute. Once it's done this use morpher on the underlying geometry to morph the mesh from flat to curved once again. The floating geo should miraculously follow it!
The technique holds up pretty well once baked. It's not a perfect method though and it's worth noting that the more curved the surface, the more noticeable the seam will be. In this example I used a sphere and got a pretty reasonable result, with really minimal seams. You can see below that on a glossy material you can just make out the edge of the floater. I tried it on something which was less curved yesterday and got no visible seams at all. I also think you'd be able to reduce the seam by increasing the turbosmooth iterations on both meshes.
Hopefully this has been useful for some people, let me know what you think!
Example file here: https://copy.com/C3nHqELlLwJ9hHPE (Excuse my horribly messy greentooth!)
For those kind of meshes is better to use more geometry. Here's a similar model, using booleans aswell. It's done pretty quick.
@hassansheded If you want a 100% subdivision model, here's a quick attempt, but you must understand the use of pentagons and triangles. The process is quick, but not as much as with floaters. If you are making a game model, use floaters instead!
Hello friends, Yesterday I tried 3d modeling for the first time, my reason for beginning to modeling is that I want to participate a contest called supercell maker, To this contest I have to do a skin for a video game character called Nita, but I don't have any experience, but I learned a litlle (I used blender) and I have some questions
1 - How can I create a swimsuit?
So the character uses a dress, but when I removed the dress, she had no belly, how can I make a belly for her and make her a swimsuit? Can I extensor her torso to create a belly? Because if I try to create one by zero it will look unatural.
2 - How can I add texture for her?
She does have her own texture, but how can change it to accept her new belly plus her swimsuit?
3 - How can I do my own texture?
4 -How can I make an object has multiples colors?
5 - How can I add a face to only vertices?
So I have vertices, but I don't have a face, how can I add it?
6 - How can I make new layout and mix with character naturally
The contest closes 18th April, so I hope someone could answer me until then the files of the character is there.
I hope I can atleast submit my skin.
Thanks for reading<3
I'm modelling a bascinet and want to have a pointy top, but the smoothing is wrong. No idea how to fix it though.
You can see a strong horizontal line as well as vertical lines going to the vertices ontop (the point), it's soft but noticeable.
You could try not using a fan of triangles at the point and solve the end with quads.
Anyone know why the pinching at the corner is so noticeable, what am i doing wrong?
It looks a lot better now, though some of the smoothing artefacts are still there at the sharp corner of the eye holes.
I'm going to try some more, but no idea how to properly fix it.
Than again, in some picutres I can see this same pinching (smoothing artefacts) on real life helmets, like in here. But I can also find some seriously good repoductions that also have the sharp corners but no pinching at all. Maybe it was a sign of a quality blacksmith/armorer or not?
Pinching here the the corners of the eye holes where it meets the base visor itself
Sharp corners at the eyeholes but absolutely no smoothing artefacst what so ever.
I duplicated my mesh, remove the eye holes part and filled it up. Than I had to fix the meshflow again somewhat, but subdivided it was smooth.
Than I used that as my shrinkwrap base, I created a vertex group of the mesh with the eye holes and excluded the vertices of the eyeholes in the shrinkwrap.
This meant that my mesh was being pushed onto the shrinkwrap model base model that had "perfect" smoothing, and it remove the majority of this pinching.
Some minor pinching still, but drastically better
the shrinkwrap base mesh, smoothing wasn't the greatest but i did this in like 2 minutes.
I'm afraid a common characteristic working within an approximate modeling paradigm.
I'm stuck at this point because some areas are questionable. Can you tell if it is good or bad and what is wrong, please?
I`ll keep it in mind for the future. But here I want to make it as a solid piece for challenge to solve its geometry complexity.
you solved my problem on the fly...
I have already tried to turn up the loop but it creates an even worse effect, this is the best I got
another question... what program you use?
Help... I'm Stuck,
The model I'm trying to make is essentially this:
My try:
or work this in plane like a brick wall and shrink wrap along a cilynder?
i try to imagine how to work it...
@Ghogiel Thanks for the help too ! I'm using Blender and felt way more confortable with SnowInChina's method but I'm sure yours will help too !
EDIT : Well it's not really sub-d friendly, gotta find how to fix it :-(
I feel like I missed a step. I select a few edgeloops, then I bevel a bit and then extrude inwards to create the "cut". Is it because of this last step ? I don't get how you managed to bevel and get the cut otherwise !
More subdivisions for a tighter edge, and split the meshes entirely so it isn't one contiguous piece - this is how you'll get the sharper edges as well, since it likely is a separate piece anyway.