3D modeling in general

[asparagin]

As you can see the polycount is already very high,mainly because of the exhaust nozzles details,but as this is my first model,I'm not bothering myself with it.Next model will be cleaner I hope.

Thx! the details on the tail are glued?

Cleaning up is a technique like any other, but maybe not for all so fun (like for Grimes :smilewink:). I think is normal to leave it for later.

@ Grimes: You simplified the model by adding trigs on the side, do you use other smoothing commands, or does turbosmooth take it ok in this case?

[Grimes]

Well optimizing is something you should do before you texture, but IMO you should keep it in mind as you model and try to keep it as simple as possible. In many cases, optimizing it makes it difficult to work with as you add tri's and other stuff to get rid of edge loops. Whenever a tri is present in a model it makes the ring and loop selection features useless.

 

For poly info. My wheel (left) is 548 polygons. My friends wheel (right) is 2796 polygons. My model has no turbosmooth, his has 1 iteration. I simply went in and deleted the extra geometry that he had added to add detail. (to make "sharp" edges with turbosmooth you need to have 2 edge loops close to each other, the further the away they are the more gradual of a smooth you get.) Anyrate I used smoothing groups to get the ideal smoothing look out of my model. On the treaded area of the tire I added double the # of faces. This is why the tri's are there. Those edges don't complete to the center of the wheel as the others do, since you only see the "roundness" detail of an object wherever the object is silhouetted.

 

Here's the thing about turbosmooth, its quick and easy but not necessarily what you want. If you are going to use it, and there is nothing wrong with using it, use a max iteration of 2. However I prefer to add in extra edge loops and just use an turbosmooth of 1. It depends on what you are making and however you prefer to make stuff. In my friend's model he had a TON of extra geometry that was there for the sole purpose of working with turbosmooth. The detail that he added was the sort that you could easily accomplish with smoothing groups or when you texture the model. So the physical detail added in served no real purpose and is wasteful of polygons.

 

I did a test a while back with turbosmooth. I wanted to see how the number of polys of the base model reacted to adding turbosmooth iterations. I created 5 rows of 5 cubes. In the first column I had 5 cubes with the number of segments 1x1x1 and the turbosmooth iteration value 1-5. 2nd row was 2x2x2 and iteration 1-5. And so on. In the first column with turbosmooth it became a more perfected circle with the first few being quite rough look and getting much more smooth as the iterations progressed. On the 2nd column it looks more like a cube to start with and became a more perfect cube.

 

The interesting bit was how the cube with 4x4x4 and 1 turbosmooth iteration had exactly the same poly count as the 2x2x2 and 2 turbosmooth iterations. However due to the extra polygons built into the model it was a much better looking cube. Granted cubes aren't much to look at, but you might get the idea.

 

Wow that was long. :D

[asparagin]

Keeping the model simple is of course necessary. When using turbosmooth, and by reducing you come to tris, you have to try a lot to see if the result is ok.

 

About your example with the sqaure: The one where you had extra loops looks better because you "hand-picked" the loops right, where turbosmooth would just put one in the middle. So it will look more like you want it to look, same amount of polys, but not to forget the extra work, and maybe in some cases you don't need it that perfect. But then again this is just depending on eachone's workflow. There is no right way.

[Grimes]

actually turbosmooth makes all polys into quads, whenever you have a tri or 5 or more edges (which are actually tris because it subdivides it anyway) in a poly it creates funky looking quads that don't edge loop at all. Theres nothing wrong with having em, the presence of tri's are vitally important to character models. My comment about the turbosmooth test was more about pointing out the fact that more control is typically better than more iterations. Obviously it all depends on what you are making.

 

Honestly, massive amounts of turbosmooth usage drive me crazy. One of my worst professors from school basically taught the premise that turbosmooth is the best way to fix terrible modeling. Suffice to say, I didn't really learn any of the cool modeling tools or smoothing groups for quite a while.

[StrongHarm]

3D Modeling already discussed in this thread:

 

[asparagin]

3D Modeling already discussed in this thread:

 

Good God look at the tree: it is not straight anymore!!!

[joey45]

what tree :huh:

[asparagin]

mhrm: I meant: due to her frontal weight, the tree bend

[monotwix]

It’s near the vertex 123 or XYZ coordinates can’t be simulated.

[monotwix]

Coconuts grow on palms so much that the flora theory has to be correct.

[dawestsides]

Thx! the details on the tail are glued?

Cleaning up is a technique like any other, but maybe not for all so fun (like for Grimes :smilewink:). I think is normal to leave it for later.

 

Yes they are,I hope this will not be an issue when texturing time will come. :helpsmilie:

 

Anyone knows good tutorials for dummies?

[joey45]

look on the front page, loads of links and stuff

Edited January 29, 2010 by joey45

[dawestsides]

Thanks Joey,that 3DBuzz tutorial "When F14s attack" looks very interesting but you have to pay for it :(

 

latest update:

 

I know this is too much,but i can't stop playing with my Foxbat!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what do you think?Should I continue detailing or is it enough for texturing?

Edited January 30, 2010 by dawestsides

[joey45]

*** deleteed due to adult content***

 

It's your plane mate.... If you want to do more you can.

[dawestsides]

*** deleteed due to adult content***

 

 

:megalol:

:megalol:

:megalol:

 

I'm afraid to add details because of unwrapping....

[Grimes]

But the texture is where you add the rest of the details...

 

Some hints at unwrapping.

 

DO split the model up into easy to edit pieces. You had the wings separated earlier, keep it that way.

 

If you have a duplicate of the exact same object keep them seperate, and just unwrap one of them. You can then save the UVW file and load it into the other one without worries.

 

Save often, save very very often. Either with iterations or updated .UVW files.

 

Make sure a section is perfect before unwrapping it.

 

If you have more physical detail that is needed just make em into a new object.

[monotwix]

I don’t like saving UVs because they don’t always come out perfect but instead I animate the sliced model in and out of layout and then select “all” vertices and weld them to 0.001m and some times it’s useful to keep things in another scene to keep the working one less populated, grouping is very useful but they all have to be sorted prior to exporting it. What is useful though is that you can rip a piece of geometry and merge it with the animated mapping scene for example where you can modify the mesh at any stage during texturing and merge it back.

It can be useful because when you combine the LODs, animation, damage, texturing, mesh alterations, map alteration, it can be like a ton.

A fixed state or stage of the development of a 3D model should not exist.

Do u know what I mean bro?

My tips are:

1,Retain all major parts to the same scale.

2. Point the wing/s so that whatever they do, u don’t work diagonally.

3. Leave at least 15 pixels between the parts on the map (even if it’s the same object) .

4. Plan is plan, test it.

[dawestsides]

thanks a lot guys,will try these.

[Agg]

How do you guys go about making the canopy? That's the part that's always troubled me when trying to make 3d models of aircraft. Do you simply cut it out with a boolean, or do you make the canopy a separate piece of geometry?

[dawestsides]

How do you guys go about making the canopy? That's the part that's always troubled me when trying to make 3d models of aircraft. Do you simply cut it out with a boolean, or do you make the canopy a separate piece of geometry?

 

That was the most tricky part of my model.I tried the boolean but the result was not perfect.

I ended doing it separately.

 

Have a look on my WIP here:

 

http://www.military-meshes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3597

 

And how to model the canopy here:

 

http://www.military-meshes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3810

[joey45]

 

can you guess what it is yet..

 

 

 

some moer might follow....

[dawestsides]

mmhhh...still not clear,but as I saw you asking questions on mil-mesh,I guess you're preparing something... :music_whistling:

 

Nice start!

[hitman]

looks like a foxbat or foxhound.

[Kuky]

to me looks like Tornado (variable geometry wings are giveaway and intakes shape)

[USSR_Gys71]

to me looks like Tornado

+1 :) I think Tornado ADV.

Edited March 21, 2010 by USSR_Gys71