whole objects from 1 primitive

[julie_elsen]

Hello,

I would like to make a tree but my goal is to make it all out of one primitive instead of combining several objects. I started with a cilinder and used symmetry wich brought me so far:  

But now I am lost. I would like to split each branch in to 2 other branches like I did with the basic cilinder but how can I do this?

[julie_elsen]

Hello,

I would like to make a tree but my goal is to make it all out of one primitive instead of combining several objects. I started with a cilinder and used symmetry wich brought me so far:  

But now I am lost. I would like to split each branch in to 2 other branches like I did with the basic cilinder but how can I do this?

[rendermaster]

try extrude to spline instead...
1- create a spline, direction of the branches you want

2-select the polygon you wish to extrude

3 and or try combining extrude, scale and move

[rendermaster]

try extrude to spline instead...
1- create a spline, direction of the branches you want

2-select the polygon you wish to extrude

3 and or try combining extrude, scale and move

[julie_elsen]

I tried this one and it is a possibility but it doen't really is what I wanted. This looks kind of like when I make a new cilinder and place it on the one I already have. I know that these options (use a new primitive or use of splines) are common used options for modeling complex objects but I am trying and exploring other ways to learn more.

Maybe what I try is not possible or maybe I don't explain it correct in English. But with the first cilinder, I used symmetry and I like the result. It really looked as if the 2 barks came out one basic bark and that I have 2 new barks, the original one has splitted into 2. When I use splines or a new primitive it looks as if I have one large cilinder as a basic and that all the other cilinders are just placed on this basic one, but the basic one never stops. It just goes one till the top as one very long bark.

I have added an attachement to show a bit better what I mean

[julie_elsen]

I tried this one and it is a possibility but it doen't really is what I wanted. This looks kind of like when I make a new cilinder and place it on the one I already have. I know that these options (use a new primitive or use of splines) are common used options for modeling complex objects but I am trying and exploring other ways to learn more.

Maybe what I try is not possible or maybe I don't explain it correct in English. But with the first cilinder, I used symmetry and I like the result. It really looked as if the 2 barks came out one basic bark and that I have 2 new barks, the original one has splitted into 2. When I use splines or a new primitive it looks as if I have one large cilinder as a basic and that all the other cilinders are just placed on this basic one, but the basic one never stops. It just goes one till the top as one very long bark.

I have added an attachement to show a bit better what I mean

[bioclone_ax45]

You can continue adding divisions into each cilinder by moving the symmetry "mirror" point...

However, at all I would say to not continue this way... it will look good but probably the topology where one bark splits into 2 will be a mess and willl be noticeable on the rendering even later smothing groups will be updated....

For me would be way better to.

A: create Cilinder... make sure at least have some subdivision on the top...

B: use extrude on half the top faces of that cilinder... llater, do the same to the other half...

C: use relax on the object...

😧 subdivide the later extrussions and repeat the process of extruding the top face...

I add one image of it so can be undertood easier... (its a lazy work so it looks worse it could be)

PS: Instead cilynders, would be better to do it alll based on a cube (square barks insteasd of cilyndrical) willl make way easy to keep the quads / loops better... then a soft turbosmooth or a combination of tesselate + relax, can "fill the gaps" and finish with a much more "organic" look and of course with rounded edges.

[bioclone_ax45]

You can continue adding divisions into each cilinder by moving the symmetry "mirror" point...

However, at all I would say to not continue this way... it will look good but probably the topology where one bark splits into 2 will be a mess and willl be noticeable on the rendering even later smothing groups will be updated....

For me would be way better to.

A: create Cilinder... make sure at least have some subdivision on the top...

B: use extrude on half the top faces of that cilinder... llater, do the same to the other half...

C: use relax on the object...

😧 subdivide the later extrussions and repeat the process of extruding the top face...

I add one image of it so can be undertood easier... (its a lazy work so it looks worse it could be)

PS: Instead cilynders, would be better to do it alll based on a cube (square barks insteasd of cilyndrical) willl make way easy to keep the quads / loops better... then a soft turbosmooth or a combination of tesselate + relax, can "fill the gaps" and finish with a much more "organic" look and of course with rounded edges.

[julie_elsen]

I am trying to do as you say but it really looks like nothing. After I devided the top of the cilinder into 2 parts and extrude, I don't succeed in getting that half cilinder (and the rest of the tree) back to a nice round object. 

And when I use mirror, I only get to mirror the whole object. How do you use mirror on just 1 part of the object?? I must be doing something stupid that it doesn't work

Meanwhile I am trying another way but it isn't perfect either. It is not really what I want because this option is not modeling with just 1 primitive and there are some issues aswell. I started with 2 cilinders: a bigger one as the trunk and a smaller one as the bark. After putting them together, I used proboolean. Now the transition from trunk to bark is a 90 degree corner and I don't get it to look like a realistic transition. I get really stupid looks because non of the vertices matches. The trunk stands vertical, the bark horizontal and after using proboolean, the two objects become one, but the vertices don't get together. So it got really messy and complex and the outcome is not what it should be.

Are there any other solutions? Or good video's to help me out? Or maybe a nice step by step learning guide for dummy's? 

[julie_elsen]

I am trying to do as you say but it really looks like nothing. After I devided the top of the cilinder into 2 parts and extrude, I don't succeed in getting that half cilinder (and the rest of the tree) back to a nice round object. 

And when I use mirror, I only get to mirror the whole object. How do you use mirror on just 1 part of the object?? I must be doing something stupid that it doesn't work

Meanwhile I am trying another way but it isn't perfect either. It is not really what I want because this option is not modeling with just 1 primitive and there are some issues aswell. I started with 2 cilinders: a bigger one as the trunk and a smaller one as the bark. After putting them together, I used proboolean. Now the transition from trunk to bark is a 90 degree corner and I don't get it to look like a realistic transition. I get really stupid looks because non of the vertices matches. The trunk stands vertical, the bark horizontal and after using proboolean, the two objects become one, but the vertices don't get together. So it got really messy and complex and the outcome is not what it should be.

Are there any other solutions? Or good video's to help me out? Or maybe a nice step by step learning guide for dummy's? 

[rendermaster]

the method you take will not do any good. you need a lot of tweaking. anyhow i presented already some method. good luck. check this also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnFxk9RbzNE

[rendermaster]

the method you take will not do any good. you need a lot of tweaking. anyhow i presented already some method. good luck. check this also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnFxk9RbzNE

[julie_elsen]

I am sorry. I didn't mean to give the idea that the previous options were not good. They are definitly good ways. I was just trying something else, playing around you know? . And that is what I was looking for. I was looking for one specific methode. 

I know there are several ways to model objects and that splines is one of them. But I was wondering if you can also make a realistic looking tree with just one cilinder. No splines or combining objects, just one cilinder (of cube) and modeling with extrude and other stuff... But that is were I got lost because I am not such an expert in the program. And I hoped that you guys might know ways to do this since you know a lot more about it than me :). But maybe it just isn't possible what I am looking for? 

[julie_elsen]

I am sorry. I didn't mean to give the idea that the previous options were not good. They are definitly good ways. I was just trying something else, playing around you know? . And that is what I was looking for. I was looking for one specific methode. 

I know there are several ways to model objects and that splines is one of them. But I was wondering if you can also make a realistic looking tree with just one cilinder. No splines or combining objects, just one cilinder (of cube) and modeling with extrude and other stuff... But that is were I got lost because I am not such an expert in the program. And I hoped that you guys might know ways to do this since you know a lot more about it than me :). But maybe it just isn't possible what I am looking for?