Jump to content

How to model a rounded star?


Go to solution Solved by hvanderwegen,

Recommended Posts

It has been suggested a few times, including by me 🙂 For now easy enough to patch a plane, or use Quad cap in HB modelling bundle , or just bridge / poly pen it across manually, or CPH and then cut it in of course...

 

CBR

Link to post

In the end it doesn't really matter. Some things are faster in one app, other things in the second app.

 

What is important though is to understand poly flow in subd modeling. William Vaughan's Pushing Points books are a great resource for beginners in this regard. These books are application agnostic.

 

http://pushingpoints.com/v2/the-pushing-points-topology-workbook/

http://pushingpoints.com/v2/the-pushing-points-topology-workbook-volume-2/

 

 

Link to post

Only thing I would add here is that at the stage you re-topo the center section; there is no need to create or allow triangles here, and indeed this is not what SDS wants ideally, which is 100% quads. This is especially true on curved surfaces. In this case, Cinema's Catmull Clark algoithm is very forgiving, and it may not have had a noticeable effect on the surface here, and as you aren't animating the edge flow is less important, but the point remains that you should always aim for all quads when working with subdivision surfaces, which allows it to work and export in utterly predictable and reliable ways. It was possible to make this from 100% quads, and from a purely technical / foundational point of view, I feel it is important to point that out to anyone learning modelling basics.

 

CBR

Link to post

@CerberaYou are of course correct. In my rush I omitted the step to dissolve the edges to create quads only.

 

image.png.cef8b19b80aef8068c0c01df4d898082.png

 

image.png.2f366a86f8558bd8fb99dc16b043d8c0.png

 

I would also add one loopcut in the face to reduce the poly stress caused by the mouth.

 

image.thumb.png.cb0f74de293e3777cfa9792a8e9cf807.png

 

Looks better now. Flow should be more natural and follow the face lines, but I did not want to spend more time on it.

 

image.thumb.png.1dd2ed226cc65265ec1602679994cf6b.png

I am not convinced that a pure all quad process is required in all cases. Tris can be used, especially when they are part of sections that remain hidden or part of a flat/static area that is not affected by (animated) deformation.

Link to post
6 hours ago, Jami Stewart said:

Wow amazing! I would have never guessed that. I REALLY appreciate the time and effort you've done to give me such awonderful tutorial Thank you SO much!!

 

No worries! Half the work is thinking it through before starting to model something. I suggest checking out the pushing point books as well. In my opinion some of the best material out there about classic "old-school" subdivision and polygonal modeling technique. 

 

I say "old-school" because nowadays almost everyone switched to Zbrush or sculpting to create characters, while only relying on polygonal modeling to start a base mesh to work from (if at all).

 

*edit* Someone posted this video demonstrating their process to model a dragon using the traditional "old-school" polygonal modeling approach. Different software (Lightwave) but still quite informative and fun to watch. In truth almost no-one would do it like this anymore, and instead rely on a sculpting workflow followed by a retopo. But it is still a viable technique for less realistic stylized characters like this star character.

 

 

Link to post

I think it's probably misleading to say that poly modelling is relegated to the old-school. As you say it has a valid place in a modern character workflow, even where sculpting is involved, sometimes not only for the base mesh, but also during the retopology phase where helpful edge flows for animation are established. 

 

And there are many many objects in the world that aren't organic characters / forms, and I'd say poly modelling remains much more suitable for those than any sculpted approach.

Likewise I have not been and am not now short of work that demands polygonal modelling on a daily basis, so I really can't even start thinking of it as superfluous or old school to any  serious degree.

 

Perhaps a related but more suitable comparison could be made between the control loop approach to SDS and the newer crease set method ? There is definitely a trend towards that happening, but of course that is not without its problems either, and I note with interest just how often the 'crease set crowd' find themselves control looping as well in order to get their perfect surfaces...

 

I don't feel an epic need to go round the 'tris under subdivision' debate again, so won't get drawn into it here, but suffice to say 'there were no triangles in the Game of Thrones Dragons' and leave it at that 😉

 

CBR

 

Link to post

Yeah, I agree. It might not be quite obvious from my response, but I prefer polygonal modeling myself (since I tend to do much more hard surface models and more stylized cartoony stuff).

 

For high-end realistic organic characters sculpting is the way to go - which is what I tried to say. Anyway, I find the two methods are more often than not complementary, and I may switch between the two while modeling. As you say, good knowledge of poly flow is essential during the retopo as well.

 

I love to switch to sculpt mode after modeling some hardware and put in dents, or deforming/wrecking parts. Much more free flowing than pulling verts...

Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...