I wish PN could be part of the Max modeling package. NURBS in Max with its unfriendly interface has been stagnant for as long as I can remember. For product designs, there are many alternatives to Max's NURBS that it might as well be dead. Take a look at http://moi3d.com/. Doesn't this look friendlier to use? PN could basically replace the existing spline-to-surface modeling and NURBS in Max. I wish, I wish...
As for this discussion, I think comparing PN to subdivision poly modeling is like comparing apples and oranges. These are two very different approaches to modeling, and either could be used for different purposes.
Graphite... I no longer need to upgrade my Polyboost when 2010 is released. Yay! 🙂
As for this discussion, I think comparing PN to subdivision poly modeling is like comparing apples and oranges. These are two very different approaches to modeling, and either could be used for different purposes.
Graphite... I no longer need to upgrade my Polyboost when 2010 is released. Yay! 🙂
Steve, I like what you did with the holes inside the cylinder. It's nicely organized and well thought out. Since you've thought through with this method, if I had to nit-pick, I would probably go even further for a nicer edge flow. I will post a screenshot shortly.
"I wish PN could be part of the Max modeling package."
Might be tough since it's one of their flagship products, but who knows?
Not me...
Didn't we (Max) get PowerBooleans from them? So, why not PN? Buy the world, I say. :cheese:
Picky picky 😛
My pleasure. 😛
One thing I didn't do (to keep the number of steps down) is to pull a few vertices around to get better edge flow - the subdivision tends to smooth them out anyway (to a degree).
I'll be interested to see what you can do with it anway - always room for improvment 🙂
I need to break for lunch, but I'll get back to this thread. 🙂
I need to break for lunch, but I'll get back to this thread. 🙂
Lunch? They let you out for lunch as well? Whatever next... 😄
There is no "they". I let myself out for lunch. I get cranky when I'm hungry. 😄
Okay, getting back to this thing. I basically used your method, which I liked, and expanded on it.
For me, I found that whenever you're modeling a circular/cylindrical surface for subdividing (Meshsmooth/NURMS), it works best when you break them apart as a quadrant. Or at least, think of them as 4 quadrants making up a whole. From there, I know I can make them modular and add an extension that is a rectangular surface or cylindrical. I wrote about this in another thread, and the concept is basically the same. Each model will have a different set of challenges and may require adapting to the situation at hand, but you can pretty much apply the same idea and make it work.
I would rather stay away from dogmatic approaches to modeling methods or tools, but before I settled on this thinking, I always ran into a fork because the edge loops didn't flow. This quadrant approach has helped me to save time from cutting and re-cutting edges to get those clean lines.
Anyhow, my poly count is probably higher in the end, and if you want to be a stickler for this sort of thing, then it should work. 🙂
My post in another thread: area.autodesk.com/forum/Autodesk-3ds-Max/modeling/how-to-make-it-quad/#79563
It'a a nice workflow Anna, and one I considered when creating my original one (before I did the write-up), howver, there's a couple of things which make it sligtly less easy than it at first seems.
The original (the OP's original, I mean) only had 6 holes (7 counting the central one) - that pretty much precludes dividing the object by 4, would have to be thirds (or sixths). In order to not have to cut through in an "odd " manner, some thought (and probably testing) needs to be done on the location of the holes, the orientation of the holes, and the number of sides the holes have - all will affect quite where you can make the seams between the elements (quadrants).
My workflow was complicated enough without adding that little lot into the mix, so I went for the more laborious, but maybe slightly easier to understand method.
It also looks (from the images) as though you duplicated the top to the bottom (as "full circles") before creating the sides of the "holes", the outer faces and the chamfering - if working with "quadrants" (regardless of how many) it seems to me that as much as can possibly be done to 1 segment should be done before cloning the segments into the final object. The idea being "do it once, then copy it" (unless I'm missing something - not unheard of 🙂 ).
Hi Steve.
I downloaded the OP's file and used the same number of holes in the file. I thought it was 9 including the center hole. Maybe I'm wrong. In either case, it really doesn't matter because my workflow would follow the same idea. I could have used your example (7 holes) and come up with similar result. The reason for this is not the number of holes in the objects, rather, it's the number sides on the little holes and the outer ring. Take a look at the number of sides/segments you have in your example vs. mine. If you had made the number of sides on the little holes so that they can be cut up into 4 quadrants and do the same for the outer ring to match those sides, you'd end up with a nice edge flow. I hope this makes sense.
The duplicate bottom was a copy of the top afterwards, and I flipped it. Then I used the Bridge for corresponding Borders. I then added few rows of edges using Connect (2 segments with Pinch).
Anyhow, it's fun, no? :cheese:
"Didn’t we (Max) get PowerBooleans from them? So, why not PN? Buy the world, I say. :)"
Hmmm, yes, a chip off the old block, but would they sell the whole block?
AND, what happens to continuing development of the program then?
Isn't this usually the death knell to further development?
I was just joking, rather unsuccessfully. :red:
I don't want to see smaller developers get bought up and see their products stagnate over time. I wouldn't be happy if Graphite/Polyboost stopped improving. I'd rather pay for an upgrade as a plugin if it meant no further development. My comment was a way to say that Max's NURBS needs an overhaul.
Hi Ekah,
My original file did use 9 holes inc. the centre hole. But I'm interested in what you say to Steve about splitting it into quads so that the same procedure can be used for any number of holes and how it's only relevant to the number of holes on the little holes and outer ring.
I've tried following the same procedure using 6 holes inc. centre hole. The holes are 8 sided so they can be broken up into quadrants but as I've got 5 outer holes it means that I can't break this into quadrants. I would need 4, 8, 12 etc (multiples of 4) holes to do this. I've attached an image of what I got, is this the best way of going about it?
You say that the outer ring should break down into 4 quadrants, I don't see how this could be done in this situation.
Thanks
'I downloaded the OP’s file and used the same number of holes in the file. I thought it was 9 including the center hole. Maybe I’m wrong. In either case, it really doesn’t matter because my workflow would follow the same idea. I could have used your example (7 holes) and come up with similar result. The reason for this is not the number of holes in the objects, rather, it’s the number sides on the little holes and the outer ring. Take a look at the number of sides/segments you have in your example vs. mine. If you had made the number of sides on the little holes so that they can be cut up into 4 quadrants and do the same for the outer ring to match those sides, you’d end up with a nice edge flow. I hope this makes sense.'
My original file did use 9 holes inc. the centre hole. But I'm interested in what you say to Steve about splitting it into quads so that the same procedure can be used for any number of holes and how it's only relevant to the number of holes on the little holes and outer ring.
I've tried following the same procedure using 6 holes inc. centre hole. The holes are 8 sided so they can be broken up into quadrants but as I've got 5 outer holes it means that I can't break this into quadrants. I would need 4, 8, 12 etc (multiples of 4) holes to do this. I've attached an image of what I got, is this the best way of going about it?
You say that the outer ring should break down into 4 quadrants, I don't see how this could be done in this situation.
Thanks
It can't - 5, 7, 11 (spot the sequence...) are never going to divide evenly. Although "quadrants" are an easy way to explain it, there's no reason you couldn't use 3rd, 6ths... it's just a method of keeping things nice and even, and not having to do the same job (for example) 8 times when you could do it twice and clone the rest. It's a useful labour saving device.
In you example above, you would need to make 1/5 of the whole then make4 clones. In this case each "segment" would have to cover 72 degrees (5*72=360).
You'll also notice, if you play with it, that there's a relationship between the number of holes (excluding the central one) and the number of sides to each hole. Below is one I made with 5 holes (excl the central one) - 5 holes, each hole has 5 sides, built from 5 sections.
In you example above, you would need to make 1/5 of the whole then make4 clones. In this case each "segment" would have to cover 72 degrees (5*72=360).
You'll also notice, if you play with it, that there's a relationship between the number of holes (excluding the central one) and the number of sides to each hole. Below is one I made with 5 holes (excl the central one) - 5 holes, each hole has 5 sides, built from 5 sections.
As Steve mentioned, the quadrants only work with even number of holes, but you can still find a way to divide evenly with odd numbers. As I've written in the example, you always look at the numbers of segments (resolution of your small hole), number of outer holes, and how they correspond with the outer ring. I'll put together and upload an example using the 5 holes shortly.