Community
I haven't got a finished picture to show you. It would be exactly like the image that you've posted above but instead of the chamfered holes, they are smooth and the straight edges of the outside of the cylinder are slightly smoothed too.
I would get this result when applying a smooth modifier to the shape but as you can see there are problems on the top surface of the cylinder as after the boolean it doesn't have a proper spline structure.
I don't understand how I could smooth before booleaning (it would work for the outside of the cylinder) as I need to do the boolean subtraction, then chamfer to be able to smooth in the first place.
I would get this result when applying a smooth modifier to the shape but as you can see there are problems on the top surface of the cylinder as after the boolean it doesn't have a proper spline structure.
I don't understand how I could smooth before booleaning (it would work for the outside of the cylinder) as I need to do the boolean subtraction, then chamfer to be able to smooth in the first place.
I'm not sure if we are on the same track here. I'm using turbosmooth as a method to smooth. I want to keep my poly count as low as poss so I'm low-poly modelling and then turbosmoothing (which would produce similar results to any other smoothing method, no?).
A smoothing modifier in the stack, if converted to a boolean and then back to an editable poly will be lost, so there is no use in doing this. I need to finally convert to an editable poly so as to apply the chamfers to the entrances of the holes. As I need these to be smooth and low poly, I guess the only method is to apply a smooth modifier at the end to smooth out the chamfer. But as we see the results aren't good because of the wireframe on the top surface.
Looking at it, it seems that I need to totally restructure the top surface but this seems to defeat the purpose of using a boolean to speed up and ease my workflow. Am I missing out on some simple methodology here of how to set it up before using boolean (alignment, number of sides etc.)? - as I'm fairly new to the program.
I produced a similar result to what I was intending to achieve for the entrance of the hole (only the inner hole area is relevant here). This was produced using a simpler boolean using boxes and heavy turbosmoothing afterwards.
A smoothing modifier in the stack, if converted to a boolean and then back to an editable poly will be lost, so there is no use in doing this. I need to finally convert to an editable poly so as to apply the chamfers to the entrances of the holes. As I need these to be smooth and low poly, I guess the only method is to apply a smooth modifier at the end to smooth out the chamfer. But as we see the results aren't good because of the wireframe on the top surface.
Looking at it, it seems that I need to totally restructure the top surface but this seems to defeat the purpose of using a boolean to speed up and ease my workflow. Am I missing out on some simple methodology here of how to set it up before using boolean (alignment, number of sides etc.)? - as I'm fairly new to the program.
I produced a similar result to what I was intending to achieve for the entrance of the hole (only the inner hole area is relevant here). This was produced using a simpler boolean using boxes and heavy turbosmoothing afterwards.
Hi Playdo,
I think you may be confusing smoothing with Turbosmooth. Turbosmooth actually adds polygons to your model and "smoothing" adds the appearance of smoothness without adding polygons.
If your objective is low-poly then I wouldn't recommend using Turbosmooth.
Would something like this below work...? There are plenty of potential problems with this model, but if you are not limited 4 sided polygons and if you aren't planning on deforming this then maybe it will work. Otherwise there would be a lot more work to do.
I think you may be confusing smoothing with Turbosmooth. Turbosmooth actually adds polygons to your model and "smoothing" adds the appearance of smoothness without adding polygons.
If your objective is low-poly then I wouldn't recommend using Turbosmooth.
Would something like this below work...? There are plenty of potential problems with this model, but if you are not limited 4 sided polygons and if you aren't planning on deforming this then maybe it will work. Otherwise there would be a lot more work to do.
A few points here Playdo....
System scale - having System Units at Inches and Display Units at mm is a bad idea. At least have them both Imperial or both Metric - preferably the same units.
That model is BIG - is it really 4'6" by 5'1" ?
Always model at the origin, then move into position when completed. Trying to model at an odd angle a long way from the origin just makes life difficult.
Be careful using the Orbit Tool (lower right corner of the Max window) - if you click-drag while outside the onscreen circle, you are changing the perspective viewpoint relative to the world grid, which again makes life difficult. Stay within the circle, or use Alt+MMB instead.
Finally - please put your Max version, and brief system specs, in your sig. This can be very important, especially in these non version-specific forums.
As for the model, I recreated it from scratch - booleans are always going to give you smoothing problems which can take an age to correct. Spending time on the original construction can save you a lot of time later on, and give you better results.
Attached file contains an exported model - import it, convert to EP, then either turn on NURMS, or apply Meshsmooth or Turbosmooth - 2 iterations should suffice in either case. I can write up the construction process later if you want it.
System scale - having System Units at Inches and Display Units at mm is a bad idea. At least have them both Imperial or both Metric - preferably the same units.
That model is BIG - is it really 4'6" by 5'1" ?
Always model at the origin, then move into position when completed. Trying to model at an odd angle a long way from the origin just makes life difficult.
Be careful using the Orbit Tool (lower right corner of the Max window) - if you click-drag while outside the onscreen circle, you are changing the perspective viewpoint relative to the world grid, which again makes life difficult. Stay within the circle, or use Alt+MMB instead.
Finally - please put your Max version, and brief system specs, in your sig. This can be very important, especially in these non version-specific forums.
As for the model, I recreated it from scratch - booleans are always going to give you smoothing problems which can take an age to correct. Spending time on the original construction can save you a lot of time later on, and give you better results.
Attached file contains an exported model - import it, convert to EP, then either turn on NURMS, or apply Meshsmooth or Turbosmooth - 2 iterations should suffice in either case. I can write up the construction process later if you want it.
16355_srU69QVJ87e88vueFezi.zip
Valen, yes that's the look i was going for. I didn't realise that was the difference between smooth and turbo smooth. Though I presume when you set turbo smooth to only show in render then it doesn't increase the poly count? Another problem that I was having with it is when booleaned the resulting edges on the surface cause problems with being able to chamfer cleanly. I guess that I thought it would be a simple process, looking at Steves work there's a lot more that needs to be done - are other 3D programs similar in this do you know?
I didn’t realise that was the difference between smooth and turbo smooth. Though I presume when you set turbo smooth to only show in render then it doesn’t increase the poly count?
Smooth is really just a shading effect. Turbo Smooth does affect the geometry, and will add polys to the object. If show only in render is set, the new faces will be created for the render. This is just to prevent high polys in the viewport.
I would suggest finding a way to do this without using Boolean. I avoid any of the Compound Objects whenever I can. It looks like you could just draw the shape with the circles for holes, then extrude it. Add the Edit Poly and chamfer your edges, then Smooth.
Chris Medeck
Did you find this post helpful? Feel free to Like this post.
Did your question get successfully answered? Then click on the ACCEPT SOLUTION button.
Edit: My response is based on an email I recieved fromt he forum at 10:13 am EST):
OK, I understand, my point is however or whenever you do the smoothing (before or after) you will raise the face count.
Since smoothing afterward is causing issues I was going with smoothing before.
This image (attached) is 6500 faces (from 26,000 using Pro Optimize modifier), lower than that will start to cause facets.
How many faces are in your example above, a few I would think.
OK, I understand, my point is however or whenever you do the smoothing (before or after) you will raise the face count.
Since smoothing afterward is causing issues I was going with smoothing before.
This image (attached) is 6500 faces (from 26,000 using Pro Optimize modifier), lower than that will start to cause facets.
How many faces are in your example above, a few I would think.
Forums Links
Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.
Post to forums
