Hello, guys! Need your help to find out how to work with sperical objects, orbs in sci-fi and industrual style.
Something like this
Maybe this one too.
For the first one you could just make a smooth sphere, then make the outside edges of the panels as a separate object, lastly make the inside edges and move it all into place with face-snapping to the original sphere.
For the second one I'd do the same but make the lines with beziercurves, retopo the spherical parts and make some insets that you scale outwards a tiny bit. You could sculpt it if you wanted to as well.
I don't think you'd benefit much from making this out of a hexsphere.
i gave it a go but for some reason I could not make a breakdown of it, didn't look good as my first result :poly122: Hope you still find it useful.
I started with a 8-sided cylinder, added two vertical edges to each face, moved up the top center horizontal edges to create rounded ditch shape. Some taper scaling and for the top, extended the top segment and used 'make it round' tool to create octagon to cylinder transition(the name changes between the apps). And then added supporting loops.
Can be improved more, though the quad usage on the left side seems to yield better shading than n-gons on the right side.
Some people would model this by 'double smoothing' method, probably a wiser way to approach this shape.
As you can see, the top part of my model looks like complete crap. I thought about approaching it by modeling it as a flat surface, and then using a bend modifier, honestly thought that would've been the best way . Then I thought about using a tube and cutting the faces to try to make the shape that way... Doesn't look too hot. Any ideas?
As you can see, the top part of my model looks like complete crap. I thought about approaching it by modeling it as a flat surface, and then using a bend modifier, honestly thought that would've been the best way . Then I thought about using a tube and cutting the faces to try to make the shape that way... Doesn't look too hot. Any ideas?
As you can see, the top part of my model looks like complete crap. I thought about approaching it by modeling it as a flat surface, and then using a bend modifier, honestly thought that would've been the best way . Then I thought about using a tube and cutting the faces to try to make the shape that way... Doesn't look too hot. Any ideas?
Wow Falkrum... I didn't even think about using booleans. Even if someone had mentioned it I wouldn't have thought to use it, but the proof is in the pudding! I'm going to have to check it out myself, but kudos to you man and Thanks!
first, you are needing an edge to hold your corners down and I think to avoid pinching you need to spread the edge out to smooth it out. The shaded version is still a bit pinchy. Is there a better way, is making the cylinder more round to start with the way to go, that could make modelling annoying depending on what you are making.
Here you go Colddeez. I didn't use booleans, just the Slice tool in modo (Shift+C) and then welded some verts and added edge-loops. Started with a 24 sided cylinder.
There could be some better edge-flow, but this works for the most part and any pinching is kept to a minimum.
I've read through much of the first few years of the thread and noticed a lot of talking about floaters. In particular the inset floaters intrigued me and since then I've seen video of artists doing it. I'm not sure how it works. Am I to understand correctly that the floater is literally floating over the mesh and not even touching it? As in something that would work for a normal bake but not a "final mesh"? I've seen people doing it on Twitch feeds and I'm thinking, "Wait, how are they doing that so it looks like a hole? Wouldn't you see the base mesh coming through it? Thanks.
Yes, a floater is just floating over the mesh, if it's an inset hole, you have to float it far enough away it doesn't penetrate the base mesh. Also it's a good idea to keep floaters pretty shallow, you can make something look like a hole without it being very deep.
I've read through much of the first few years of the thread and noticed a lot of talking about floaters. In particular the inset floaters intrigued me and since then I've seen video of artists doing it. I'm not sure how it works. Am I to understand correctly that the floater is literally floating over the mesh and not even touching it? As in something that would work for a normal bake but not a "final mesh"? I've seen people doing it on Twitch feeds and I'm thinking, "Wait, how are they doing that so it looks like a hole? Wouldn't you see the base mesh coming through it? Thanks.
When you get around to trying it, pull the camera back and aim straight on to the face that the pieces float above; that's pretty much how it looks to the normal map bake process, minus any effects from the perspective camera.
Hey guys!
I'm modeling my 3rd car and I've been stuck. I'm trying to harden the door-frame corner but I keep getting weird pinching and an ugly bump with turbosmooth when I add supporting loops. The only way I could get this to work was if I subdivide the mesh at 2 iterations, collapse, extract the door and chamfer the edges..but this makes the mesh hard to control. I've looked at a lot of car models on SketchFab and noticed they have some weird bumps on their door frame corners.
hey, mrgesy, could you show an overall screenshot of the door with the wireframe turned on? I'm thinking you have not have enough edges, but I won't know for sure until I see how everything is distributed.
the reason is that you the curve where you have your hole in has less segments than you need for the actual hole.
You could probably work with that ammount of sides on the big cylinder. But the hole itself would need to be simplified. Infact you could probably delete that hole the way it is now and just extrude that stuff like a box.
Hey guys, I have been stumped on this receiver for a while now. I figured since we are discussing receivers already that maybe you guys could give me some advice on how to fix this issue. I have an ejection port that is on a curve and I need to preserve the edges of the receiver as well. However, when I do so, it messes up the ejection port. I am sure this will be easy for you guys to help me out with. Thanks in advance.
(Sorry for the crappy screenshots. Don't have much time.)
Hey guys, I have been stumped on this receiver for a while now. I figured since we are discussing receivers already that maybe you guys could give me some advice on how to fix this issue. I have an ejection port that is on a curve and I need to preserve the edges of the receiver as well. However, when I do so, it messes up the ejection port. I am sure this will be easy for you guys to help me out with. Thanks in advance.
(Sorry for the crappy screenshots. Don't have much time.)
dude.. it's like, you can't have nice results if your base geo looks like that..
first of. the you base geo is insuficient. try and start with a cylinder with more sides, delete half of the cylinder and go from there.
The other thing, you dont even have proper control loops at the same distace on both ends of the shell ejection port. Obvioulsy you wont get the same result.
starting with more geo than you have now will not only help in the HP but it will help you with the LP when it comes time to do it. Because you will have enough sides to work with. You will either keep the sides you have or remove a couple loops.
Either way it will be more easy to work than with what you have atm.
ps: when i say more geo, please be sensible, I don't mean like 64 sides or something crazy like that.. Be sensible.
edit. when you come to fix it, try something like this.
Okay, I restarted with a cylinder and used your advice. It looks much better now, but there is still some undesired hardness that I can not seem to circumvent. I have circled these areas in the image. Thank you for your time.
Okay, I restarted with a cylinder and used your advice. It looks much better now, but there is still some undesired hardness that I can not seem to circumvent. I have circled these areas in the image. Thank you for your time.
Thanks guys, I think I got it pretty close. There is still a little pinching on the corners, but I think I can fix that later on the normal map. :P Images:
The normal map will pick up the pinching. I mean, yeah, you could edit it out in Photoshop, and I've done that before for sculpts since I'm still learning Z-Brush, but it's really not the way you want to do things as it just winds up wasting more time.
Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with the last high-res mesh that you've shown. If you REALLY want to eliminate all pinching, you're probably just better off modeling the piece with NURBS and converting it to polygons at the highest setting .. Or stop using 3DS Max and start using MODO with Mesh Fusion . or just use Z-Brush.
Thanks jewski-bot,
I think I will just leave it in. It's not really bothering me too much. Modo looks really cool though and I have heard only good things about it.
...I don't think there's anything wrong with the last high-res mesh that you've shown.
...better off modeling the piece with NURBS...
Or stop using 3DS Max and start using MODO with Mesh Fusion .
or just use Z-Brush.
Edited to make clear which version on the picture was which.
The trouble is what if the model changes and you need to re-bake. Or change the UVs. Or optimize the mesh. Or anything at all happens?
Now you have to paint out the errors again. It's not a good workflow.
That was my point (although I failed at explaining the image - before editing). I wanted to demonstrate that it's not just "fixing" after every bake, but it also looks funky if you photoshop gradients.
Thanks again guys,
I guess editing the normal map in photoshop is generally not the way to go on these sort of things. I'll try to avoid it in the future. I am glad I asked.
Thanks again guys,
I guess editing the normal map in photoshop is generally not the way to go on these sort of things. I'll try to avoid it in the future. I am glad I asked.
Also, the video was a nice breakdown as well.
Evan
Yea, it's a huge no no for baked maps.
While normal maps are a texture, they are not the same as regular textures (Diffuse/Albedo, Specular, Gloss/Microsurface/Roughness etc.) in that they store mathematical values which are essentially encoded during the bake via the tangent basis.
Each pixel found in a normal map has an RGB value, each RGB value represents a normal and each normal represents a vector, which in turn, represents the surface slope of the high poly mesh. As such, different RGB values represent different directions that control where each pixel is facing in 3d space.
Editing these values (colours) directly modifies the vectors stored within the texture and while it is theoretically possible to edit them by hand, the chances are that the vectors will be incorrect after doing so, which will give you a bad result. To compound the issue only certain colours represent correct normals which reduces the chances of a correct edit even more, so it's generally a can of worms that people shouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.
In addition to those facts (and mentioned above), you will probably have to edit other bakes such as AO and your colleagues won't thank you if they have to have to fix your bad bakes at some point either.
I should point out that these same restrictions don't always apply to normal maps generated from images in applications like Knald or nDo, but you still need to be careful and stick to some rules.
Namely being that you should ensure that the blue channel doesn't contain too much information (Blue only contains values from 128-255 in TS nmaps) and you should always normalise the normal map after editing. You can still get problems like incorrect values resulting in invalid normals so most of the time it is still better to change the strength of the normal map during generation than fudge it with PS.
The trouble is what if the model changes and you need to re-bake. Or change the UVs. Or optimize the mesh. Or anything at all happens?
Now you have to paint out the errors again. It's not a good workflow.
Kinda want to emphasize this point.
The time saved on bandaging normal maps is almost never a better option than just fixing your approach.
Because the next time this shape comes up (it will.) you still don't know how to fix that pinching. Theoretically you do, but you never put it into practice. So the problem just persists and you never really fix the real mistake, which is your approach.
Practice makes perfect. Seriously. Learn from your mistakes, don't paint over them.
One thing I would now like to discuss is how to deal with modeling the mask area of the image above (and such things of a similar type). It started with a spline drawing of the outlining shape, then and extrude, then converting to editable poly, then adding some bad details just for a bend, then a bend modifier, then redrawing the details. The thing is now it doesn't look pretty. Without the wires showing you have "warblyness" based bad topology. Those spike-shapes need to stay sharp when sub-divided. Adding loops of course adds to the bad geo with such a sensitive little piece. Or should I not subdivided at all and just make it a heavier part tri-count-wise to leave in the lowpoly version? Or should i go in the opposite direction and add a crap-ton of geo so the spike-shapes can be sharp and still have the overall silhouette? That last one would be very committal so I'd better have it in perfect placement before hand. Also notice the N-gons around the eyes. Thoughts?
I cant find it in the 196 pages lol but can anyone tell me how to make a philips screw head?
This is as far as I got..
Details such as those would best be done by using a height map and then nDo it on in Photoshop. Quicker, crisper and easier. Assuming you keep a uniform texel density on your unwrap.
If you had to model it, then add supporting edge loops to the tops of the cross section (Quad Chamfer) and rework that triangulated edge loop. All quads.
I'd start with a quadball and play with it. Add some support loops/bevels, no need to be super consistent though since this is just a screw which is small.
My mate designed a canopy in 3ds max, he wants to cover the top surface of each canopy with a layer that fits around the top surface of the canopy, he has tried the cloth modifier but had no luck, any suggestions?
I'd start with a quadball and play with it. Add some support loops/bevels, no need to be super consistent though since this is just a screw which is small.
Silly question, Is that your viewport or a render (I think it's a render) I like the antialiased wireframe. If it is, would you just share the settings?
And a General question is can you have antialiased wireframe with nitrous? Like the cool ones you get from DirectX?
Replies
For the second one I'd do the same but make the lines with beziercurves, retopo the spherical parts and make some insets that you scale outwards a tiny bit. You could sculpt it if you wanted to as well.
I don't think you'd benefit much from making this out of a hexsphere.
I started with a 8-sided cylinder, added two vertical edges to each face, moved up the top center horizontal edges to create rounded ditch shape. Some taper scaling and for the top, extended the top segment and used 'make it round' tool to create octagon to cylinder transition(the name changes between the apps). And then added supporting loops.
Can be improved more, though the quad usage on the left side seems to yield better shading than n-gons on the right side.
Some people would model this by 'double smoothing' method, probably a wiser way to approach this shape.
Ok here's my current geo.
I'm trying to get this into the model.
I'm stumped as to how to approach this guys.
Solved, here's what I did.
Here's my Reference
The bend modifier would be perfect for this, in max it is a bit unwieldy but it will get you the results you need.
(probably need moar geo?)
Sorry for small reference, it's actually quite difficult to find detailed pictures of this piece.
I made a water barrel but i'm having a problem with the lid:
I can't seem to correctly add edges and keep the circular shapes. When I add them along the sides this happens:
I tried chamfering the edges but that makes it even worse.
Take a look at this video by Peter Stammbach: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKZK3gBWwwQ&list=UUQ2NYo3MqqKi96TqQyl5_jQ
Hopefully it will help and I would recommend going through the rest of his videos. He has a lot of great material there.
I saw this video a long time ago.
I solved this problem but it's anoying that I still have to solve problems in subd even when I want to build something simple looking.
Hey , I found this old post http://www.polycount.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2044313&postcount=4043 shows how somethign similar was solved.
I tried as well since I was curious.
first, you are needing an edge to hold your corners down and I think to avoid pinching you need to spread the edge out to smooth it out. The shaded version is still a bit pinchy. Is there a better way, is making the cylinder more round to start with the way to go, that could make modelling annoying depending on what you are making.
Here you go Colddeez. I didn't use booleans, just the Slice tool in modo (Shift+C) and then welded some verts and added edge-loops. Started with a 24 sided cylinder.
There could be some better edge-flow, but this works for the most part and any pinching is kept to a minimum.
When you get around to trying it, pull the camera back and aim straight on to the face that the pieces float above; that's pretty much how it looks to the normal map bake process, minus any effects from the perspective camera.
I'm modeling my 3rd car and I've been stuck. I'm trying to harden the door-frame corner but I keep getting weird pinching and an ugly bump with turbosmooth when I add supporting loops. The only way I could get this to work was if I subdivide the mesh at 2 iterations, collapse, extract the door and chamfer the edges..but this makes the mesh hard to control. I've looked at a lot of car models on SketchFab and noticed they have some weird bumps on their door frame corners.
Here you go
Also, I did a quick cut-away to show you how my mesh flows, though it's basic and not based on any real car.
And the result:
I pray this is of help!
You could probably work with that ammount of sides on the big cylinder. But the hole itself would need to be simplified. Infact you could probably delete that hole the way it is now and just extrude that stuff like a box.
image to explain with i mean.
(Sorry for the crappy screenshots. Don't have much time.)
Evan
Model Images:
http://i.imgur.com/Z4gNP2a.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/vUxBaS8.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/kMPDQOx.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/gG7NHN7.jpg
Reference:
http://i.imgur.com/Qefgj07.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/WZWxb2C.jpg
dude.. it's like, you can't have nice results if your base geo looks like that..
first of. the you base geo is insuficient. try and start with a cylinder with more sides, delete half of the cylinder and go from there.
The other thing, you dont even have proper control loops at the same distace on both ends of the shell ejection port. Obvioulsy you wont get the same result.
starting with more geo than you have now will not only help in the HP but it will help you with the LP when it comes time to do it. Because you will have enough sides to work with. You will either keep the sides you have or remove a couple loops.
Either way it will be more easy to work than with what you have atm.
ps: when i say more geo, please be sensible, I don't mean like 64 sides or something crazy like that.. Be sensible.
edit. when you come to fix it, try something like this.
http://i.imgur.com/r7QjWBs.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/VdmxyBi.jpg
Evan
My question to you is.. Why aren't you using symetry on this part?
Because both ends of the hole look diferent.
Evan
Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with the last high-res mesh that you've shown. If you REALLY want to eliminate all pinching, you're probably just better off modeling the piece with NURBS and converting it to polygons at the highest setting .. Or stop using 3DS Max and start using MODO with Mesh Fusion . or just use Z-Brush.
I think I will just leave it in. It's not really bothering me too much. Modo looks really cool though and I have heard only good things about it.
Evan
'Tis but a smudge :poly124:
(the pinching wasn't too visible so I compensated for it while "repairing" in photoshop)
Edited to make clear which version on the picture was which.
Now you have to paint out the errors again. It's not a good workflow.
That was my point (although I failed at explaining the image - before editing). I wanted to demonstrate that it's not just "fixing" after every bake, but it also looks funky if you photoshop gradients.
I guess editing the normal map in photoshop is generally not the way to go on these sort of things. I'll try to avoid it in the future. I am glad I asked.
Also, the video was a nice breakdown as well.
Evan
Yea, it's a huge no no for baked maps.
While normal maps are a texture, they are not the same as regular textures (Diffuse/Albedo, Specular, Gloss/Microsurface/Roughness etc.) in that they store mathematical values which are essentially encoded during the bake via the tangent basis.
Each pixel found in a normal map has an RGB value, each RGB value represents a normal and each normal represents a vector, which in turn, represents the surface slope of the high poly mesh. As such, different RGB values represent different directions that control where each pixel is facing in 3d space.
Editing these values (colours) directly modifies the vectors stored within the texture and while it is theoretically possible to edit them by hand, the chances are that the vectors will be incorrect after doing so, which will give you a bad result. To compound the issue only certain colours represent correct normals which reduces the chances of a correct edit even more, so it's generally a can of worms that people shouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.
In addition to those facts (and mentioned above), you will probably have to edit other bakes such as AO and your colleagues won't thank you if they have to have to fix your bad bakes at some point either.
I should point out that these same restrictions don't always apply to normal maps generated from images in applications like Knald or nDo, but you still need to be careful and stick to some rules.
Namely being that you should ensure that the blue channel doesn't contain too much information (Blue only contains values from 128-255 in TS nmaps) and you should always normalise the normal map after editing. You can still get problems like incorrect values resulting in invalid normals so most of the time it is still better to change the strength of the normal map during generation than fudge it with PS.
Kinda want to emphasize this point.
The time saved on bandaging normal maps is almost never a better option than just fixing your approach.
Because the next time this shape comes up (it will.) you still don't know how to fix that pinching. Theoretically you do, but you never put it into practice. So the problem just persists and you never really fix the real mistake, which is your approach.
Practice makes perfect. Seriously. Learn from your mistakes, don't paint over them.
One thing I would now like to discuss is how to deal with modeling the mask area of the image above (and such things of a similar type). It started with a spline drawing of the outlining shape, then and extrude, then converting to editable poly, then adding some bad details just for a bend, then a bend modifier, then redrawing the details. The thing is now it doesn't look pretty. Without the wires showing you have "warblyness" based bad topology. Those spike-shapes need to stay sharp when sub-divided. Adding loops of course adds to the bad geo with such a sensitive little piece. Or should I not subdivided at all and just make it a heavier part tri-count-wise to leave in the lowpoly version? Or should i go in the opposite direction and add a crap-ton of geo so the spike-shapes can be sharp and still have the overall silhouette? That last one would be very committal so I'd better have it in perfect placement before hand. Also notice the N-gons around the eyes. Thoughts?
This is as far as I got..
Details such as those would best be done by using a height map and then nDo it on in Photoshop. Quicker, crisper and easier. Assuming you keep a uniform texel density on your unwrap.
If you had to model it, then add supporting edge loops to the tops of the cross section (Quad Chamfer) and rework that triangulated edge loop. All quads.
And a General question is can you have antialiased wireframe with nitrous? Like the cool ones you get from DirectX?