@Dvids You got the shape of the decocking lever wrong, it's not rectangular at the top but rather one continuos curve. I've attached some references that might help. It's always good to get a lot of refs from different angles to get a better idea of the overall shape. I'd build the whole lever first and do the serrations last, boolean + cleanup is a valid approach.
(It's also worth considering if you really need to model the serrations. Those are really shallow and you'd only see the silhouette change at specific angles and extreme close-ups. Doing this detail in texture would be easier. All depends on the project scope and requirements)
You are absolutely right that I misinterpreted the shape. Was doing this at 4am last night lol, think I got sleepy. I also didn't have reference showing the backside of the lever - may I ask where you found that? Just google or a specific source?
I re-created the whole thing and started with the back transition using a cut off cylinder. This way I got the main shape right before even worrying about the serration. I also understand that they are less deep in real life - I am intending to exaggerate them a little on purpose to get a nice looking normal map. If this was for production, I would not model these but solve it in Painter, but since this is a personal project with the objective to practice good topology and sub-d modeling, I am doing as many details by hand as I can.
This is the second attempt. Still have to clean up the edgeflow but got the main shape correct this time.
okidoki Thank you for actually going ahead and modeling it. Turns out I just needed better reference
Actually went back to the base mesh and built it again. This is the cleanest I managed to come up with so far. There are still ngons along the edge which I can't find a smart way to resolve, but the shading actually seems to be working regardless, so I'm just gonna leave them for now.
Funny side note - I'm modeling this handgun because 8 years ago, I abandoned the same project. I managed to find the old project files and threw them in to compare it to what I am doing today. For this declocking lever specifically.. let's just say the version from 8 years ago acurately reflects my frustration with sub-d modeling at the time 😆
Hey, so I've been working on this drum paddle for a bit and its giving me a really tough time. I got a few attempts to show but none of em "feel right" if that makes sense. I traced out a base from the top view but I got no idea how to go forward from here. Idk if I'm biting off more than I can chew with a shape like this. Any guidance would be appreciated. Attempts and Refs below.
What would be a better way to resolve these edge loops so they don't cause that sharp of a corner edge on their way out?
Your misstake is continueing the sharp edge away from the bevel details. I would " attach" the edge of those details to the edge of the model instead of continueuing the lines and try to cut them off halfway along the edge of the model.
And in order to keep those surfaces more sharp between the bevel detail and the edge, i would just use inset instead of creating more edgeloops.
@Veer_P It's generally considered best practice to block out the forms from largest to smallest. Keep things simple at first. This makes it easier to adjust the larger shapes and place geometry where it's needed to support smaller shapes and shape intersections. Work through the block out in stages and only add smaller details once the larger shapes are accurately defined and the basic topology flow smooths cleanly.
Below is an example of what this iterative block out process could look like: Start with relatively simple geometry that captures the overall shape and contours of the object then increase the mesh density as required, by adding loops with loop cut and bevel / chamfer operations or by applying the subdivision, until there's enough geometry to support the next smallest surface features.
Adjust the topology layout as required to turn corners around shapes and redirect the loop flow that defines the narrower edges between some of the shape transitions.
Here's an additional (front) view of the topology layout around the part.
There's more than one way to approach the order of operations and topology flow. Which approach makes the most sense and how complex the base mesh should be depends entirely on how accurate and detailed the final high poly mesh needs to be.
For something like this, it probably makes sense to keep the mesh relatively simple while creating the basic shapes and setting up the loop flow around the sharper edges then apply one or two levels of subdivision before adding the smaller details like the drain and screw holes.
@Zoddo The solution provided by @Neox should cleanly resolve your mesh to all quads.
Briefly adding to that: occasionally there's a subtle smoothing artifact near pole vertices and it may be necessary to adjust the vertex's height so it's consistent with the surrounding geometry. Usually it's not an issue but sometimes star poles can leave little dimples on compound curves, even after they're resolved to quads.
On surfaces that have compound curves like this, sometimes the corner details are constrained by the number and size of the radial segments and other times it's the circumferential segments that are the limiting factor. Ideally the number of segments in the curve will line up with and support the corners and any intersecting shapes.
Below is an example of how segment spacing impacts the size and quality of rounded corners on shapes with compound curves. Increasing the segment count does tend to increase the accuracy but how
much geometry is required to hold the shapes really depends on the size
of these details and the desired sharpness or quality of the corners.
It tends to be a lot easier to work through the basic shapes first,
adjusting the segment spacing of the curves whenever possible to match
edge and corner details. This also makes it a lot easier to solve any
topology routing issues and avoid creating poles out in the middle of a
curved surface. After the basic topology flow is solved the support loops around the edge of the shape can be added with a simple bevel / chamfer operation.
@Veer_P It's generally considered best practice to block out the forms from largest to smallest. Keep things simple at first. This makes it easier to adjust the larger shapes and place geometry where it's needed to support smaller shapes and shape intersections. Work through the block out in stages and only add smaller details once the larger shapes are accurately defined and the basic topology flow smooths cleanly.
Below is an example of what this iterative block out process could look like: Start with relatively simple geometry that captures the overall shape and contours of the object then increase the mesh density as required, by adding loops with loop cut and bevel / chamfer operations or by applying the subdivision, until there's enough geometry to support the next smallest surface features.
Adjust the topology layout as required to turn corners around shapes and redirect the loop flow that defines the narrower edges between some of the shape transitions.
Here's an additional (front) view of the topology layout around the part.
There's more than one way to approach the order of operations and topology flow. Which approach makes the most sense and how complex the base mesh should be depends entirely on how accurate and detailed the final high poly mesh needs to be.
For something like this, it probably makes sense to keep the mesh relatively simple while creating the basic shapes and setting up the loop flow around the sharper edges then apply one or two levels of subdivision before adding the smaller details like the drain and screw holes.
@Zoddo The solution provided by @Neox should cleanly resolve your mesh to all quads.
Briefly adding to that: occasionally there's a subtle smoothing artifact near pole vertices and it may be necessary to adjust the vertex's height so it's consistent with the surrounding geometry. Usually it's not an issue but sometimes star poles can leave little dimples on compound curves, even after they're resolved to quads.
On surfaces that have compound curves like this, sometimes the corner details are constrained by the number and size of the radial segments and other times it's the circumferential segments that are the limiting factor. Ideally the number of segments in the curve will line up with and support the corners and any intersecting shapes.
Below is an example of how segment spacing impacts the size and quality of rounded corners on shapes with compound curves. Increasing the segment count does tend to increase the accuracy but how
much geometry is required to hold the shapes really depends on the size
of these details and the desired sharpness or quality of the corners.
It tends to be a lot easier to work through the basic shapes first,
adjusting the segment spacing of the curves whenever possible to match
edge and corner details. This also makes it a lot easier to solve any
topology routing issues and avoid creating poles out in the middle of a
curved surface. After the basic topology flow is solved the support loops around the edge of the shape can be added with a simple bevel / chamfer operation.
Hey I appreciate the help and insight. A lot of the time I struggle to even get the base right regardless of how low poly or "simple" its meant to be which means that I can't progress to things like cleaning up edge flow or adding detail later. It also leads to a ton of overthinking and second guessing. I'm looking at the pics you sent (the first one specifically) and I dont know or understand how you got the result of the first blockout mesh (top left). Trying to replicate it right now and I just can't get it right.
"I'm looking at the pics you sent (the first one specifically) and I dont
know or understand how you got the result of the first blockout mesh
(top left). Trying to replicate it right now and I just can't get it
right."
It's an iterative process as Frank wrote so curious if you had read through info he'd also linked?
Subdivision modeling: block outs and incremental progression.
[...]
Creating a block out may not be the most exciting thing in the world but
jumping into a model without having a clear idea of what the shapes are
and how the topology will flow often results in creating an
unnecessarily complex mesh. All of this added mesh complexity often makes it
difficult to join shapes, route topology and (most importantly) make
changes to the model.
Here's an example of a
typical modeling workflow where the block out process stops after the
basic outline of the shape is created. Support loops are added right
away and the rest of the model is created with a subdivision modifier
active. A lot of time and effort goes into manually placing and
straightening support loops to provide space for additional surface
details. All of the details are added with basic modeling operations
that preserve the underlying quad topology.
@Veer_P Not a problem. Like @sacboi pointed out, subdivision modeling tends to be an iterative process and there's a few different ways to establish the basic building blocks that define the shapes. The modeling approach used to create the very first shape in the
previous example is usually called edge extrusion or point inflation
style modeling.
Which approach you use to model those basic shapes really comes down to personal preference and the tool set available in your application.
This is going to be a bit of a tangent but after thinking about it for a minute, it kind of seems like a lot of the fundamentals (especially the terms) aren't talked about in detail all that much anymore and a lot of the resources that many of us older artists learned on are long, long gone. (Though here's an old thread from 2006 comparing box modeling to strip modeling.) Even searching here on the Polycount forums, it seems like there isn't all that much discussion about some of these fundamental concepts and the niche terms we used to use to describe them.
Which makes sense because most artists probably came here after learning the basics of modeling somewhere else. There used to be a bunch of websites / forums dedicated specifically to
subdivision modeling and a lot of the discussions there covered
different ways to approach pure subdivision modeling for everything from
non-living organics to detailed human anatomy to hard surface objects.
There's probably some video tutorials or even older text tutorials that
explain the different modeling styles. A lot of subject specific
workflows have evolved to use dedicated applications (E.g. organics, characters, and
creatures are mostly sculpted, clothing and soft goods are often
simulated, hard surface is increasingly done with boolean remeshing or
parametric modeling, etc.) and pure subdivision modeling isn't the primary go
to, do all that it used to be and quite frankly it hasn't been for some
time. At least not in game art.
[Though there still are some areas where it's relevant or useful.]
This is by no means an exhaustive description or list of subdivision modeling philosophies but some of the more common approaches are:
Box modeling (Subdividing, manually manipulating and merging primitive shapes to create complex forms.)
Edge extrusion modeling (Extruding edges in 3D space then connecting and adjusting them to create complex forms.)
Point inflation modeling (Extruding a string of vertices along a 2D plane then rotating or pushing them into 3D space and connecting the adjacent edges to create complex forms.)
Strip modeling (Extruding a line of quads to create shape profiles then connecting them with a quad grid fill to create complex forms.)
Boolean modeling (Using tools to generate primitive and complex shapes that are automatically combined into more complex forms.)
Each of these approaches has it's own strengths and weaknesses, so they tend to be used more for one specific type of modeling. E.g. box modeling naturally forces quad grid topology and requires capturing the larger shapes first before applying the next level of subdivision and doing a detail pass so it tended to be used more with organics and cartoon style characters. Edge extrusion modeling and strip modeling provided a greater level of control over geometry density and topology flow but it required more planning and experience so it tended to be more useful for complex characters, clothing, and 'semi-organic' hard surface subjects like vehicles.
Point inflation modeling was kind of an offshoot of edge extrusion only instead of using edges it was individual vertices. Boolean modeling was something of a bridge from subdivision modeling to the re-meshing workflows that took over hard surface. It leveraged the flexibility of more advanced modifier based tool sets to allow for non-destructive block outs and semi-automated support loop placement on very complex surfaces.
Most of the actual modeling operations in 3D DCCs can be applied to each style of modeling and there's some overlap between the different approaches. Which is why these definitions are pretty basic. Another rabbit hole is "loose Vs strict" modeling and topology layout strategies. [One of the reasons any of this is still relevant is: learning about poly and subdivision modeling helps build transferable fundamental skills like artistic observation, problem solving, order of operations planning, shape recognition, mesh optimization, etc. by practicing processes that provide direct feedback.]
Here's a brief visual overview of the typical edge extrusion and box modeling approaches to the basic shapes of the part in question.
Edge extrusion / point inflation modeling process: Start with either a flat primitive and extrude the edges into shape or extrude a sting of vertices that follow the basic curvature of the shape. Extrude the edges outward to create the shape profile then merge the center vertex at the end to bring everything to a sharper point. Push the vertices of the center edge up to loft the shape then add a loop cut to control the curvature on either side and push the edges / verts around until the basic curvature matches what's in the reference images. Everything here is done with the subdivision preview enabled, so use creases to control the edge transitions at the back of the shape.
Box modeling process: insert a cube and adjust the dimensions until it creates a rough bounding box around the shape. Add some loops down the middle of the rectangle then add a subdivision modifier and enable subdivision preview. Select the edges that define the bottom and back of the shape then apply a crease to limit the smoothing. Scale and move the edge loops until the basic curvature is formed from the top view then start adjusting the position of individual edges and vertices to refine the curvature in 3D space. Add a loop cut near the front to constrain the hemispherical shape fall off there. Push and pull the N pole verts at the front to adjust the height and curvature.
It may also be worth looking some older, application specific, subdivision modeling videos on YouTube to see the fundamentals and individual modeling operations in action.
Addendum: made a couple of minor edits in the contemporary workflow description to soften the language around the reduced prominence of subdivision modeling in game art workflows. Subdivision modeling can still be relevant for game art. It's just that for certain things it's not time efficient when compared to other sculpting and parametric modeling workflows.
This is especially true when talking about pure subdivision modeling that relies almost exclusively on manual editing operations. Hybrid subdivision workflows that leverage booleans, creases, and modifiers are much more time efficient (if not competitive) and can produce lightweight models with high quality surfaces for baking and rendering. The primary downside is the learning curve is a bit steeper than some contemporary workflows.
"I'm looking at the pics you sent (the first one specifically) and I dont
know or understand how you got the result of the first blockout mesh
(top left). Trying to replicate it right now and I just can't get it
right."
It's an iterative process as Frank wrote so curious if you had read through info he'd also linked?
Subdivision modeling: block outs and incremental progression.
[...]
Creating a block out may not be the most exciting thing in the world but
jumping into a model without having a clear idea of what the shapes are
and how the topology will flow often results in creating an
unnecessarily complex mesh. All of this added mesh complexity often makes it
difficult to join shapes, route topology and (most importantly) make
changes to the model.
Here's an example of a
typical modeling workflow where the block out process stops after the
basic outline of the shape is created. Support loops are added right
away and the rest of the model is created with a subdivision modifier
active. A lot of time and effort goes into manually placing and
straightening support loops to provide space for additional surface
details. All of the details are added with basic modeling operations
that preserve the underlying quad topology.
[...]
I did not read the additional resources but I'll check em out now
@Veer_P Not a problem. Like @sacboi pointed out, subdivision modeling tends to be an iterative process and there's a few different ways to establish the basic building blocks that define the shapes. The modeling approach used to create the very first shape in the
previous example is usually called edge extrusion or point inflation
style modeling.
Which approach you use to model those basic shapes really comes down to personal preference and the tool set available in your application.
This is going to be a bit of a tangent but after thinking about it for a minute, it kind of seems like a lot of the fundamentals (especially the terms) aren't talked about in detail all that much anymore and a lot of the resources that many of us older artists learned on are long, long gone. (Though here's an old thread from 2006 comparing box modeling to strip modeling.) Even searching here on the Polycount forums, it seems like there isn't all that much discussion about some of these fundamental concepts and the niche terms we used to use to describe them.
Which makes sense because most artists probably came here after learning the basics of modeling somewhere else. There used to be a bunch of websites / forums dedicated specifically to
subdivision modeling and a lot of the discussions there covered
different ways to approach pure subdivision modeling for everything from
non-living organics to detailed human anatomy to hard surface objects.
There's probably some video tutorials or even some surviving text tutorials that explain the different modeling styles but ever since subject specific workflows have evolved away from subdivision modeling (E.g. : organics and creatures are mostly done with dedicated sculpting software, clothing is often done with dedicated textile simulation software, hard surface is often done with dedicated parametric modeling software or boolean remeshing, etc.) So subdivision modeling isn't the go to, do all that it used to be and quite frankly it hasn't been for some time. At least not in game art.
This is by no means an exhaustive description or list of subdivision modeling philosophies but some of the more common approaches are:
Box modeling (Subdividing, manually manipulating and merging primitive shapes to create complex forms.)
Edge extrusion modeling (Extruding edges in 3D space then connecting and adjusting them to create complex forms.)
Point inflation modeling (Extruding a string of vertices along a 2D plane then rotating or pushing them into 3D space and connecting the adjacent edges to create complex forms.)
Strip modeling (Extruding a line of quads to create shape profiles then connecting them with a quad grid fill to create complex forms.)
Boolean modeling (Using tools to generate primitive and complex shapes that are automatically combined into more complex forms.)
Each of these approaches has it's own strengths and weaknesses, so they tend to be used more for one specific type of modeling. E.g. box modeling naturally forces quad grid topology and requires capturing the larger shapes first before applying the next level of subdivision and doing a detail pass so it tended to be used more with organics and cartoon style characters. Edge extrusion modeling and strip modeling provided a greater level of control over geometry density and topology flow but it required more planning and experience so it tended to be more useful for complex characters, clothing, and 'semi-organic' hard surface subjects like vehicles.
Point inflation modeling was kind of an offshoot of edge extrusion only instead of using edges it was individual vertices. Boolean modeling was something of a bridge from subdivision modeling to the re-meshing workflows that took over hard surface. It leveraged the flexibility of more advanced modifier based tool sets to allow for non-destructive block outs and semi-automated support loop placement on very complex surfaces.
Most of the actual modeling operations in 3D DCCs can be applied to each style of modeling and there's some overlap between the different approaches. Which is why these definitions are pretty basic. Another rabbit hole is "loose Vs strict" modeling and topology layout strategies. One of the few reasons any of this is still even remotely relevant is having a sense of how things work helps with both shape recognition and mesh optimization.
Here's a brief visual overview of the typical edge extrusion and box modeling approaches to the basic shapes of the part in question.
Edge extrusion / point inflation modeling process: Start with either a flat primitive and extrude the edges into shape or extrude a sting of vertices that follow the basic curvature of the shape. Extrude the edges outward to create the shape profile then merge the center vertex at the end to bring everything to a sharper point. Push the vertices of the center edge up to loft the shape then add a loop cut to control the curvature on either side and push the edges / verts around until the basic curvature matches what's in the reference images. Everything here is done with the subdivision preview enabled, so use creases to control the edge transitions at the back of the shape.
Box modeling process: insert a cube and adjust the dimensions until it creates a rough bounding box around the shape. Add some loops down the middle of the rectangle then add a subdivision modifier and enable subdivision preview. Select the edges that define the bottom and back of the shape then apply a crease to limit the smoothing. Scale and move the edge loops until the basic curvature is formed from the top view then start adjusting the position of individual edges and vertices to refine the curvature in 3D space. Add a loop cut near the front to constrain the hemispherical shape fall off there. Push and pull the N pole verts at the front to adjust the height and curvature.
It may also be worth looking some older, application specific, subdivision modeling videos on YouTube to see the fundamentals and individual modeling operations in action.
It's nice to be able to get explanations on modelling approaches, when and why to use them. I've used box modelling for objects that are either very boxy and low res or very obviously cylindrical and low res so curved shapes like these are completely outside of my comfort zone. Box modellings the only approach I'm somewhat comfortable with so I gotta experiment with the others. I'm aware that SubD's not the go to for hard surface high poly game art but its something that I'd like to get good at. Just want to get a very strong foundation in modelling down before moving onto anything fancy like Zbrush Booleans and things like that.
I'm currently working on a stylized-but-semi-realistic project, and I need to create a pair of tassel earrings
Welcome to Polycount! It’s not helpful to create duplicate posts in different places; I’ve deleted your post in here, and replied to your Topic instead. Best of luck with your project!
It's nice to be able to get explanations on modelling approaches, (snipped)
Another little tidbit of forum etiquette that members appreciate… it’s usually best to minimize the amount of text in a quote, just to reduce the amount of scrolling involved (especially on mobile omg) and to increase the signal-to-noise ratio.
I wish we could improve the forum software to do this automatically, but that’s a bit out of our hands atm.
Replies
You are absolutely right that I misinterpreted the shape. Was doing this at 4am last night lol, think I got sleepy. I also didn't have reference showing the backside of the lever - may I ask where you found that? Just google or a specific source?
I re-created the whole thing and started with the back transition using a cut off cylinder. This way I got the main shape right before even worrying about the serration. I also understand that they are less deep in real life - I am intending to exaggerate them a little on purpose to get a nice looking normal map. If this was for production, I would not model these but solve it in Painter, but since this is a personal project with the objective to practice good topology and sub-d modeling, I am doing as many details by hand as I can.
This is the second attempt. Still have to clean up the edgeflow but got the main shape correct this time.
okidoki
Thank you for actually going ahead and modeling it. Turns out I just needed better reference
Funny side note - I'm modeling this handgun because 8 years ago, I abandoned the same project. I managed to find the old project files and threw them in to compare it to what I am doing today. For this declocking lever specifically.. let's just say the version from 8 years ago acurately reflects my frustration with sub-d modeling at the time 😆
And in order to keep those surfaces more sharp between the bevel detail and the edge, i would just use inset instead of creating more edgeloops.
Just a quick mobile drawing. Collapse red, remove pink
Below is an example of what this iterative block out process could look like: Start with relatively simple geometry that captures the overall shape and contours of the object then increase the mesh density as required, by adding loops with loop cut and bevel / chamfer operations or by applying the subdivision, until there's enough geometry to support the next smallest surface features.
Adjust the topology layout as required to turn corners around shapes and redirect the loop flow that defines the narrower edges between some of the shape transitions.
Here's an additional (front) view of the topology layout around the part.
There's more than one way to approach the order of operations and topology flow. Which approach makes the most sense and how complex the base mesh should be depends entirely on how accurate and detailed the final high poly mesh needs to be.
For something like this, it probably makes sense to keep the mesh relatively simple while creating the basic shapes and setting up the loop flow around the sharper edges then apply one or two levels of subdivision before adding the smaller details like the drain and screw holes.
Some additional write-ups that cover the iterative block out process:
https://polycount.com/discussion/comment/2751240/#Comment_2751240
https://polycount.com/discussion/comment/2751340/#Comment_2751340
https://polycount.com/discussion/comment/2776197/#Comment_2776197
Briefly adding to that: occasionally there's a subtle smoothing artifact near pole vertices and it may be necessary to adjust the vertex's height so it's consistent with the surrounding geometry. Usually it's not an issue but sometimes star poles can leave little dimples on compound curves, even after they're resolved to quads.
On surfaces that have compound curves like this, sometimes the corner details are constrained by the number and size of the radial segments and other times it's the circumferential segments that are the limiting factor. Ideally the number of segments in the curve will line up with and support the corners and any intersecting shapes.
Below is an example of how segment spacing impacts the size and quality of rounded corners on shapes with compound curves. Increasing the segment count does tend to increase the accuracy but how much geometry is required to hold the shapes really depends on the size of these details and the desired sharpness or quality of the corners.
It tends to be a lot easier to work through the basic shapes first, adjusting the segment spacing of the curves whenever possible to match edge and corner details. This also makes it a lot easier to solve any topology routing issues and avoid creating poles out in the middle of a curved surface. After the basic topology flow is solved the support loops around the edge of the shape can be added with a simple bevel / chamfer operation.
Which approach you use to model those basic shapes really comes down to personal preference and the tool set available in your application.
[Though there still are some areas where it's relevant or useful.]
Point inflation modeling was kind of an offshoot of edge extrusion only instead of using edges it was individual vertices. Boolean modeling was something of a bridge from subdivision modeling to the re-meshing workflows that took over hard surface. It leveraged the flexibility of more advanced modifier based tool sets to allow for non-destructive block outs and semi-automated support loop placement on very complex surfaces.
Here's a brief visual overview of the typical edge extrusion and box modeling approaches to the basic shapes of the part in question.
Box modeling process: insert a cube and adjust the dimensions until it creates a rough bounding box around the shape. Add some loops down the middle of the rectangle then add a subdivision modifier and enable subdivision preview. Select the edges that define the bottom and back of the shape then apply a crease to limit the smoothing. Scale and move the edge loops until the basic curvature is formed from the top view then start adjusting the position of individual edges and vertices to refine the curvature in 3D space. Add a loop cut near the front to constrain the hemispherical shape fall off there. Push and pull the N pole verts at the front to adjust the height and curvature.
It may also be worth looking some older, application specific, subdivision modeling videos on YouTube to see the fundamentals and individual modeling operations in action.
Addendum: made a couple of minor edits in the contemporary workflow description to soften the language around the reduced prominence of subdivision modeling in game art workflows. Subdivision modeling can still be relevant for game art. It's just that for certain things it's not time efficient when compared to other sculpting and parametric modeling workflows.
This is especially true when talking about pure subdivision modeling that relies almost exclusively on manual editing operations. Hybrid subdivision workflows that leverage booleans, creases, and modifiers are much more time efficient (if not competitive) and can produce lightweight models with high quality surfaces for baking and rendering. The primary downside is the learning curve is a bit steeper than some contemporary workflows.
sometimes even a simple artist for 7 years starts to see the trees for the forest.
It’s not helpful to create duplicate posts in different places; I’ve deleted your post in here, and replied to your Topic instead. Best of luck with your project!