Jump to content


Recommended Posts

Cerbera    1,968
12 minutes ago, Dannyx said:

Don't know how to do that (the symmetry thing, since I know where optimize is). I must also question why I need to do that to restore a circle that's already there. Again, this may be really stupid and daunting to ask, but that's the point of the whole discussion. I need to do something once and then I'll remember it.

You don't have to do it. But if you do, then you will only have to do half the work later.

 

12 minutes ago, Dannyx said:

This is because I couldn't get the first step right, but 3 edges ? Isn't it 5 edges ? I got the shape right shown in your second step, but by scaling 5 edges. I can now see why you did that extra first step, since I couldn't understand why and in what direction to "slice" the thing, since there's no axis in your snapshot to know which way is X/Y.

It's 3 edges if you're using symmetry, and 6 if you're not. We are not extruding out all the edges, which is why it's not 5 or 10.

You're right I didn't leave the axis in my reference - I built it on the X axis, so deleted the 5 polygons comprising the left half of the disc.

 

12 minutes ago, Dannyx said:

Assuming I got to this step, is there an "automatic" way to make the points follow a straight line like that together at once, or do I need to grab each one individually and align them ? I know there's the snap to grid option, but that's probably not it. I WAS able to get that shape by aligning them individually, but it takes a bit too much to be the ideal solution, so I'm pretty sure it's not it.

Correct - there is a better way - 2 of them in fact. Select all the points you need to be straight, then either scale them to 0 with the scale tool (shift to quantize) or by zeroing out the correct axis scale parameter in the coordinates manager.

 

CBR

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dannyx    0
  • Topic Author
  • 11 minutes ago, Cerbera said:

    It's 3 edges if you're using symmetry, and 6 if you're not. We are not extruding out all the edges, which is why it's not 5 or 10.

    I think I found the symmetry thing: is it the symmetry object we're talking about ? I deleted half the circle, made that a child of the symmetry object and it worked.

     

    I AM able to get the shape in "step 3" like so: after I'm at step 2 which is all fine and dandy, I select all the 4 points then type 0 for their X scale which makes a mess at first because the points all bunch up in the middle of the shape, but that's ok, because if I now hit E (move mode) and move the points in the X (red) direction, I sort-of get the shape, but there's a bloody triangle in the corner there, plus it doesn't have as wide of a base !

    Problem.thumb.png.7587ec4b84044e43a1a3660a1e78c23c.png

     

    If I manually do one extra step, which is to grab the offending point and move it left (green Y axis), it ends up looking like yours....perhaps I'm too picky here and request too much automation when sometimes it just HAS to be done by eye ?

    Almost.thumb.png.0822b294a86aac13f44e81ef79490656.png

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Dannyx    0
  • Topic Author
  • Actually no, it doesn't ! Just had another look: the lines corresponding to the bottom two points in your design are parallel - mine are at an angle still.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Cerbera    1,968
    5 minutes ago, Dannyx said:

    Actually no, it doesn't ! Just had another look: the lines corresponding to the bottom two points in your design are parallel - mine are at an angle still.

    When you are positioning points, just grab them with the move tool, and move them so they are close to the reference. We are in an orthographic view to do this so that we can only move the points on one plane, which makes them very easy to adjust with the move tool. Only when it's roughly right should you scale some vertices to perfectly flat, or use the slide tool to move points along edges. Otherwise, move tool is much faster.

     

    CBR

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Dannyx    0
  • Topic Author
  • Very rough, but I sort of got it :D Trouble is the cylinder is not round: it's rather jagged at the top and bottom. Something tells me I'm not doing the symmetry thing right and the two sides don't meet properly.

    5a4bde40beb4c_Gettingthere.thumb.png.c55a44f9a52ee574487db6e18c6ba27d.png
     

    However, if I untick the symmetry object the resulting half seems perfect, so funnily enough I managed to do half of it right :))

    5a4bdfae0ec5a_Gettingthere.thumb.png.c4f4e5580358c82a059c62eca823b099.png

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Cerbera    1,968

    You can solve that by selecting the center loop of edges, then scaling them to 0, (as described above, and presumably on X), and moving to 0 on X as well.

    It's easiest to use the coordinates manager for both these.

     

    CBR

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Dannyx    0
  • Topic Author
  • Will try it tomorrow (it's rather late here). I'll break it for sure at first, but that's part of the learning curve.

     

    To make sure I understand this: the "center loop of edges "refers to when the object is "flat" or already extruded ? There have been quite a few steps so far and I can't remember where to do this TBH. Thanks

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Cerbera    1,968

    These are the centreline edges... the ones on the symmetry axis.

     

    centreline.thumb.jpg.1fb434d0f795a03d541cf0d90871de10.jpg

     

    CBR

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Dannyx    0
  • Topic Author
  • Good. Hopefully this will work out....did it work for you from the first shot or did you have to tweak it after dropping it into the subdivision surface ? Just curious. I also noticed something which may be an issue as well: the half you showed has no caps (is hollow), whereas when I extruded mine, those sides have a cap (you can't see "inside" the object). I assume it's that "create caps" option again. Fortunately, I did a save just before extruding the thing so it's still flat and I can go again from there.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Cerbera    1,968
    8 minutes ago, Dannyx said:

    did it work for you from the first shot or did you have to tweak it after dropping it into the subdivision surface ?

    No, it was right for me straight away, but then I have 15 years+ of modelling experience, so it's reasonable to expect that might take you a little longer... but you can always put the model under HN now, then you can see what the final curve will look like while you move the points about.

     

    8 minutes ago, Dannyx said:

    also noticed something which may be an issue as well: the half you showed has no caps (is hollow), whereas when I extruded mine, those sides have a cap (you can't see "inside" the object). I assume it's that "create caps" option again.

    Yes it is very important that there are no polygons along the centerline - it should be hollow like mine is. If you leave those you will break the subdivision when it goes under Hypernurbs.

     

    CBR

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Dannyx    0
  • Topic Author
  • 7 minutes ago, Cerbera said:

    Yes it is very important that there are no polygons along the centerline - it should be hollow like mine is. If you leave those you will break the subdivision when it goes under Hypernurbs.

    That's the problem then. It will probably work for me too now.

     

    If some of the edges turn out too round when adding the subdivision surface (which they always do), I learned that adding a cut close to the edge straightens the edge out and this can be done even after the object is inside the subdivision surface (which is what I believe you refer to as HN - hypernurbs -  back there, since it took me a while to realize that :)) ) The resulting cut can be "slid" back and forth, closer or further from the edge to control this roundness- layman terms.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Cerbera    1,968
    4 minutes ago, Dannyx said:

    That's the problem then. It will probably work for me too now.

     

    If some of the edges turn out too round when adding the subdivision surface (which they always do), I learned that adding a cut close to the edge straightens the edge out and this can be done even after the object is inside the subdivision surface (which is what I believe you refer to as HN - hypernurbs -  back there, since it took me a while to realize that :)) ) The resulting cut can be "slid" back and forth, closer or further from the edge to control this roundness- layman terms.

    I'm referring to it as Hypernurbs because I thought that's what it was called in R15, which your profile says you're using. On reflection, perhaps they changed it to SDS before that. But yes, I do mean Subdivision Surface. And yes moving lines closer (or adding what are known as control loops) is how we control roundness under subdivision. That's kinda the golden rule of SDS poly modelling.

     

    CBR

     

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now

    • Recently Browsing   0 members

      No registered users viewing this page.

    ×