PDA

View Full Version : Attention all genius modellers!

sean hargreaves
07-30-2007, 02:57 PM
Guys, I'll be impressed if you can figure this out without a plethora of steps to solve it:

In the three attached images I have two objects joining one another. But what I want to end up with is a 'flange' that joins them. That is, a part that 'joins' the two pieces. So, in essence, the smaller shape flares out into the larger one, so I don't have the 90 degree join. Its a nightmare. Are there any modelling gurus out there that can walk me through the process? My three manuals are useless in this sense. Much appreciated! :thumbsup:

Surrealist.
07-30-2007, 03:27 PM
Subpatches would do it easy. Just a matter or setting up the geometry. You can use booleans too. Check out my tutorial on subpatches.

It would be easy for instance to take this geometry and flange it with the stretch or size tool.

sean hargreaves
07-30-2007, 03:31 PM
Ok, but how do I flare it more than your example?

hrgiger
07-30-2007, 03:54 PM
Sean, you'll basically want to use a boolean and then clean it up so that it's suitable for subpatching. Meaning making it all 3 and 4 point polygons. You could use CC's which don't require 3 or 4 point polygons but it's won't be as nice as surrealists example.

It's easiest to do this by matching the number of sides of your cutting object up to the object it will be attached to. This way, it's easy to manually creating some bridging three and 4 point polygons. I do a quick tutorial on it on this page: http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11372&page=2&highlight=mosquito about halfway down. I haven't looked at Surrealists tutorials but I'm assuming he does something similar.

sean hargreaves
07-30-2007, 04:01 PM
Thanks guys, I knew it would'nt be simple, I'll check out both your tutorials.

Hardwater
07-30-2007, 05:00 PM
I THINK i remember Pictrix showing off some script that did what ya want. Sorry i cant help much more...

sean hargreaves
07-30-2007, 05:04 PM
It seems like a simple thing, but of course its not. Newtek need to write code that lets you (I apologise) 'morph' together the forms. Like a blob lamp from the 60's. When one form gets close to the other it joins and becomes part of the other. All this frigging hand modelling of complex compound and convex shapes is a pain. Tired of it, I tell you, tired. :D

cagey5
07-30-2007, 05:17 PM
On your second picture with the basic square shapes what is the result if you leave a small gap between the objects, select the 2 facing polys and bridge them before hitting sub patch.

sean hargreaves
07-30-2007, 05:22 PM
errrrrrrrrr.....................ummmmmmmmmmm? Don't know!

sean hargreaves
07-30-2007, 05:25 PM
Another thing about my morphing comment, is you could enter in a sum on how loose or tight the morph is! its a genius idea, but I dont know how to write code!

Andyjaggy
07-30-2007, 05:45 PM
It seems like a simple thing, but of course its not. Newtek need to write code that lets you (I apologise) 'morph' together the forms. Like a blob lamp from the 60's. When one form gets close to the other it joins and becomes part of the other. All this frigging hand modelling of complex compound and convex shapes is a pain. Tired of it, I tell you, tired. :D

That's why you pay people like me to model if for you :D But seriously often it is easier to go in and create stuff by hand. Complex little tools like you are talking would often cause more problems then they would solve.

You might want to check out the untangle tool, it kind of does what you are trying to do here. I attached 4 screenshots of how it works. I'm not sure how well it works on a cylindar, but it can be very handy on flat surfaces.

Surrealist.
07-30-2007, 06:05 PM
Ok, but how do I flare it more than your example?

You would simply select a loop of points and one my one stretch them until you have it right. As mentioned the bridge tool is pretty handy too.

But in general it just depends on the shape what you are trying to do as to how you set it up.

Here is a hammer (using the untangle tool as above). I show the steps at the end of my tutorial.

sean hargreaves
07-30-2007, 06:33 PM
Mummy...............

sean hargreaves
07-30-2007, 06:46 PM
Andy, I like your example, but i would probably lathe that shape instead. My problems arise form joining compound or convex shapes to other shapes. I thank everyone for all their help. :thumbsup:

jin choung
07-30-2007, 11:29 PM
hey sean,

what you're describing, and the degree of control you're looking for, is a picture perfect example of a task that is performed ludicrously simply in nurbs and not at all well in other methodologies.

there are TONS of things that poly/subd modeling can do better than nurbs, but when you're talking about joining discrete shapes by means of a "flange" as you say (blend or fillet otherwise known as) without the shapes affecting each other - buddy, that's what nurbs was born to do!

right tool for the right job. fittingly, we have a pic of hammer - which is a good illustration of "when all you got is a hammer, everything starts lookin' like a nail." which should be avoided. :)

jin

Surrealist.
07-31-2007, 12:30 AM
Andy, I like your example, but i would probably lathe that shape instead. My problems arise form joining compound or convex shapes to other shapes. I thank everyone for all their help. :thumbsup:

I think you were missing Andy's point.

He is illustrating a method to merge two shapes. Something that untangle can help with. But there are other ways too. Subpatches are easy and merging different contours can be done simply.

Here's another use of untangle.

This example plans that you want to create a flange so, then you create it, extrude it, add the needed geometry, merge the polys, use untangle and then extender plus. I terminated the end for illustration.

Surrealist.
07-31-2007, 12:31 AM
The final stages. You can see more theory behind these steps in my tutorial.

bjornkn
07-31-2007, 03:18 AM
I could certainly use that untangle tool, but I cannot find it!
I found it mentioned in the pdf-modeler manual, but not in Modeler or web-help, and not on any of my HDDs.

cagey5
07-31-2007, 03:31 AM

bjornkn
07-31-2007, 03:59 AM
Well, it isn't there - for some reason. I hate that unsroted Additional list, but I think I looked at ever single menu item. Neither is it possible to find it using search/find tools.

BTW this is how I would've done the flange.
Copy the end face of the small tube into a new layer.
Scale it up a little.
Use it to stencil a "hole" in the larger tube.
Select all the polys in the hole and merge them (shift-z)
Shift-select end poly of small tube and then use bridge to make the flange.
You could also Smooth shift the "hole out a little to get a flange with a thickness before brdiging, or scale the "hole" vertically before bridging to get a non-uniform flange. Or knife the flange to get more polys to smooth the transition a bit.
It may be necessary to do some clean-up by welding points afterwards.

colkai
07-31-2007, 03:59 AM
I'd go old school.
Use drill to cut the areas, then some quick splines and patching for a smooth seam.
Or some careful editing then apply rounder.

Andyjaggy
07-31-2007, 08:56 AM
Well, it isn't there - for some reason. I hate that unsroted Additional list, but I think I looked at ever single menu item. Neither is it possible to find it using search/find tools.

BTW this is how I would've done the flange.
Copy the end face of the small tube into a new layer.
Scale it up a little.
Use it to stencil a "hole" in the larger tube.
Select all the polys in the hole and merge them (shift-z)
Shift-select end poly of small tube and then use bridge to make the flange.
You could also Smooth shift the "hole out a little to get a flange with a thickness before brdiging, or scale the "hole" vertically before bridging to get a non-uniform flange. Or knife the flange to get more polys to smooth the transition a bit.
It may be necessary to do some clean-up by welding points afterwards.

Yes I remember I didn't have the new flatten tool when I first installed 9.2. I think I had to reload some of the core plugins and then it showed up.

One of my peaves is that Newtek makes these new tools and then hides them under some obscure menu so unless you have followed the beta you wouldn't know they exist. Seems kind of stupid to me.

bjornkn
07-31-2007, 09:08 AM
In what core plugin is it supposed to reside then?
If I reload it I suppose all menu entries from that plugin-pack will have to reinstalled again too? Not fun, but the untangle tool looks quite interesting, so I guess I'll give it a try - if only I knew what .p file to reload..

sean hargreaves
07-31-2007, 09:34 AM
See, I knew this was an important problem! It makes shapes look less cg or modelled with these kind of details, like they're welded or molded or cast.

Giacomo99
07-31-2007, 09:54 AM
You have opened up a real can of worms--the class of problems you're describing is just something poly-based modelers (i.e., Lightwave) are very poor at. People here have suggested what amount to complex and very clever workarounds, but all of them, in my opinion, just require too much labor to be useful in a professional setting--if I had to use bjornkin's technique to flange every one of twenty intersections, I'd probably go nuts.

Jin choung's reply was slightly OT, but from a certain standpoint he is spot on--if you're going to be doing a lot of this sort of thing, you need to look at a spline-based modeler (Rhino or Form Z, perhaps). There is the additional problem that you'll also need to find a renderer that can support spline-based geometry--since Lightwave Layout is also polys-only--or deal with the additional issues created when tesselating spline-based forms for export.

sean hargreaves
07-31-2007, 10:15 AM
Wow! And I was timid in my initial questioning, now I don't feel so bad. It does seem like a lot of work. I mean, imagine building a bike frame for example, and all those joiny welds and flanges.

colkai
07-31-2007, 11:17 AM
The trick there would be planning though, I'd likey do it with sub-D's so you can extrude to your hearts content. :)

intssed
07-31-2007, 11:54 AM
I have same question one year (I have no find plugin for welding, but I remeber I have see better mode...)

I have use this way. Some phases you can do better.

Surrealist.
07-31-2007, 12:10 PM
I could certainly use that untangle tool, but I cannot find it!
I found it mentioned in the pdf-modeler manual, but not in Modeler or web-help, and not on any of my HDDs.

If you can't find a tool. Use the search function in the Edit Menu Layout panel.

cagey5
07-31-2007, 12:16 PM
Well, it isn't there - for some reason. I hate that unsroted Additional list, but I think I looked at ever single menu item. Neither is it possible to find it using search/find tools.

Seems like he tried that already.

Surrealist.
07-31-2007, 12:21 PM
Wow! And I was timid in my initial questioning, now I don't feel so bad. It does seem like a lot of work. I mean, imagine building a bike frame for example, and all those joiny welds and flanges.

It is not that bad. The sample I gave you only took less than 15 minutes and just off the top of my head. A bicycle frame would be easy. Some work yes. But very basic and easy.

Just take some time, go though some tutorials. After you have been modeling for a while these things will come to you second nature. Flanges are real simple. Again it only matters what your over all use is going to be as to how you accomplish it.

If it seems long and too many steps of difficult, just do it more. Things become faster and simpler. No need to jump to some other technology. You can literally do anything with subpatches and easy.

Surrealist.
07-31-2007, 12:23 PM
I have same question one year (I have no find plugin for welding, but I remeber I have see better mode...)

I have use this way. Some phases you can do better.

Yes, Rounder is yet another great tool for this. You could use this same method with subpatches.

Just make sure after an Boolean operation you merge points.

Good one.

bjornkn
07-31-2007, 12:57 PM
"My" technique didn't take more than 2 min, at most, if you don't include clean-up/welding, which isn't really necessary. It's really fast, and can be modified to also work on "welds" that are not perpedicular to the axes.

bjornkn
07-31-2007, 01:02 PM
Seems like he tried that already.
Yes I did, without luck.
As I will probably have to rebuild some menus after reloading that core plugin file I was hoping to get some help to find that file from some of you that have untangle, so that I don't have to mess up more than necessary by trial-and error...
AFAIK you could easily fnd the name of the .p file by doing a search on untangle - if you already have it installed that is.

sean hargreaves
07-31-2007, 01:05 PM
Thanks for the encouragement Richard, much appreciated. :thumbsup:

jin choung
07-31-2007, 02:05 PM
hmmmf,

actually, i was assuming you were talking about a true smooth blend or fillet (using cad terminology).

if you are just going for a WELD... that's pretty easy in terms of subds.

just create the joins as people are suggesting and then just smooth shift out a little "puff" and noise that up a bit before applying subds.... you don't even have to technically cut the attachment point because the weld obscures it entirely.

a WELD JOIN is very doable in subds. it is the smooth transitions that are much harder and better tackled with nurbs.

jin

Surrealist.
07-31-2007, 02:13 PM
hmmmf,

actually, i was assuming you were talking about a true smooth blend or fillet (using cad terminology).

if you are just going for a WELD... that's pretty easy in terms of subds.

just create the joins as people are suggesting and then just smooth shift out a little "puff" and noise that up a bit before applying subds.... you don't even have to technically cut the attachment point because the weld obscures it entirely.

a WELD JOIN is very doable in subds. it is the smooth transitions that are much harder and better tackled with nurbs.

jin

I am interested.

Why not post some examples of the things that are difficult to do with subd's and that are easy to do with nurbs, then post some examples of how you tacked it with nurbs? I'd like to see examples of what you are talking about.

sean hargreaves
07-31-2007, 03:34 PM
Well, I was talking about smooth transitions! I think its terminology we are getting mixed up with.

Surrealist.
07-31-2007, 04:14 PM
No terminology problems here. Smooth transitions are what Subpatches do well. In fact it is really a step further than Metamorph Subdivision which was the precursor to SDS in LW and the tool of choice for such things.

However if there are some examples of things that nurbs do better I am interested of course.

Giacomo99
07-31-2007, 04:18 PM

I don't want to turn this into a "Lightwave Vs. Brand X" thread, but: in the above screen cap (from Form Z) I created two primitive cylinders, Booleaned them together, selected the intersecting edges and filleted them (with the fillet radius specifiable as a numerical distance). The entire operation took less than five seconds, with no tedious selecting of points or cleanup involved.

My point is that if you're going to be doing this kind of thing on a regular basis (i.e, professionally), some kind of parametric modeler is pretty much a necessity. Yes, you can do it with polygons, but it's extremely labor-intensive compared to using splines.

sean hargreaves
07-31-2007, 04:39 PM
Wow, what do you think guys?

Surrealist.
07-31-2007, 04:52 PM
I don't want to turn this into a "Lightwave Vs. Brand X" thread, but: in the above screen cap (from Form Z) I created two primitive cylinders, Booleaned them together, selected the intersecting edges and filleted them (with the fillet radius specifiable as a numerical distance). The entire operation took less than five seconds, with no tedious selecting of points or cleanup involved.
.
Thanks for the example. It is always good to see things that are done in other packages and how.

I usually find it great to spark new ideas of how to do things.

Here's a LightWave example.

Steps:

1) Create a subpatch cylandar primitive, 8 sides (very easy and fast to do and you can keep these ready made around for use).

2) Boolean and merge points.

3) Press Tab.

For more contol and a tighter flange:

4) bandsaw pro

sean hargreaves
07-31-2007, 05:09 PM
Wow, thats great guys. Battle of the flanges. I love it! Thanks! :D :thumbsup:

Surrealist.
07-31-2007, 05:09 PM
Using a 16 sided disc allows you to clean up the center. For any new people the Boolean is Boolean Union after rotating 90% (r) on the keybopard.

Surrealist.
07-31-2007, 05:17 PM
Wow, thats great guys. Battle of the flanges. I love it! Thanks! :D :thumbsup:

No problem. So, you have some ideas now. How 'bout let's see some of your attempts and maybe even your own ideas on how to implement this?

sean hargreaves
07-31-2007, 05:24 PM
Richard, I hate myself, how do I make a subpatch cyliner primitive? Step 1) in your three step tutorial.

Giacomo99
07-31-2007, 05:51 PM
Just go to Primitives--Disc in Modeler and draw the cylinders normally, then hit Tab to activate SubPatches. (If you're not using Catmull-Clark subs, you'll have to either find some way to make the end polys 3- or 4-sided, or delete the end polys entirely.)

N.B.--If you're using Surrealist's method, be sure your base forms are set up so that you have only 3- and 4-sided polygons--i.e, don't rotate the cylinders axially with respect to each other. Otherwise, you will get a big mess when you SubPatch the form.

sean hargreaves
07-31-2007, 06:05 PM
Im a disaster today. Richard, I did what you said, i promise I did. I can't merge points nor can I boolean. It says I need template in background layer. Im just having a heck of a time getting from 1st base!

sean hargreaves
07-31-2007, 06:09 PM
Me to me :twak:

Ow!

Giacomo99
07-31-2007, 06:12 PM
If you're going to Boolean, the two objects need to be in separate layers. Does that help?

voriax
07-31-2007, 06:15 PM
Boolean works by putting objects in separate layers. You put one cylinder in layer one, the other in layer two, then hit boolean with one of them as a background layer.

sean hargreaves
07-31-2007, 06:24 PM
Guys, ok, look, here are two subdivisions. Catmull-Clark and subpatch. Looks like something happened. Something bad. Something real bad! :twak: me to me again!

voriax
07-31-2007, 06:51 PM
Try again.. I don't know how you managed to do that.

sean hargreaves
07-31-2007, 06:58 PM
This sucks. It wont work.

This is what I did:

1) Made 8 sided model on layer 1
2) Made 8 sided model on layer 2
3) Merged points
4) Boolean union
5) Hit tab
6) Nightmare and tears!

What am I doing wrong?

sean hargreaves
07-31-2007, 07:03 PM
Here is the pre-subpatched model.

voriax
07-31-2007, 07:12 PM
Hmm, you're right, something goes dodgy on mine as well. But only on 8-sides cylinders.
Try 12 instead, or another number.

sean hargreaves
07-31-2007, 07:16 PM
Surrealist did it somehow! Go figure! :screwy:

Surrealist.
07-31-2007, 07:19 PM
Richard, I hate myself, how do I make a subpatch cyliner primitive? Step 1) in your three step tutorial.

Take a look at my tutorial for more exact steps with pictures, but it is easy.

All you have to do it put a slice near the ends and then on the end poly, simpy select both then hit b for bevel with the ctrl key held LMB drag and bevel slightly. Then create the cross pattern with Add edges tool. Look at my example or my tutorial.

This makes a cylinder that will subpatch and remain a cylinder.

Surrealist.
07-31-2007, 07:20 PM
Guys, ok, look, here are two subdivisions. Catmull-Clark and subpatch. Looks like something happened. Something bad. Something real bad! :twak: me to me again!

You had it here. All you had to do was be using the subpatch cylinder primitive.

Surrealist.
07-31-2007, 07:20 PM
Surrealist did it somehow! Go figure! :screwy:

Let's see. :)

Matt
07-31-2007, 07:34 PM
Have to say Richard, your examples show some very clean modeling, a true understanding of subpatching! Awesome!

sean hargreaves
07-31-2007, 07:36 PM
I tried it using 12 sided and then 24 sided, the problem is, the FLANGE SIZE is too big. I want a relatively subtle flange. How is the flange size changed?

voriax
07-31-2007, 07:48 PM
Use bandsaw pro to make a slice near the edge you want to fillet.
If you've never used it, select the polys of one part of the cylinder, then click bandsaw pro, then adjust the slider so that the slice is near the attachment point, then you can adjust it for sharpness by moving it closer or further from the join.

Edit: after you hit bandsaw pro, bring up the numeric window to change the settings for it.

Giacomo99
07-31-2007, 08:42 PM
The Knife tool might work better than Bandsaw Pro to adjust the fillet/flange size.

You could even get an uneven-radius fillet that way--something that I wouldn't even know how to attempt in Form Z.

voriax
07-31-2007, 08:56 PM
Knife tool would give a straight slice, where he needs it to follow the contour of the attachment.

Form Z is a surface/solid modelling tool, right? Works so differently to LW. I use Solidworks which is also a solid modeller, and filleting objects in that is a breeze because it doesn't rely on polygons. However, that doesn't help Sean's situation ;)

Surrealist.
07-31-2007, 08:58 PM
Matt - thanks. :)

Sean - yes, bandsaw pro or knife as mentioned. (also look back at step 4 in my example) And if you go through my tutorial it is easy with many illustrations and steps you should be able to follow. It will help with many of the basic questions.

jin choung
07-31-2007, 09:55 PM
i don't have any inclination to start posting images... just do a search on nurbs vs. subds on google or do a search of me on this board along with nurbs for more detailed explications.

(or heck, play around with a nurbs modeler for a day)

even from the examples being posted here, the subds process is invariably more painful and slower than nurbs (or even solids) solutions. basically it amounts to subds being unable to handle booleans and have a clean, adjustable, controllable, blend/fillet without REMESHING. and many times, having to remesh creates changes in the underlying topology of one or the other surface.

i'm not saying it can't be done. i'm saying it can be done better and faster.

it is FACT. there are indeed things that are done better and faster in NURBS, just as the inverse is true. there is no one size fits all, super magic bullet. the right tool for the right job.

jin

Surrealist.
07-31-2007, 11:48 PM
OK got it. Well, since you've mastered it why not post some images anyway, should take all of five minutes to show us some examples. That would be a great help.

jin choung
08-01-2007, 12:19 AM
haha...

funny how you get forwarded the original post before you edit yourself. :)

don't worry, won't hold it against you... let me see if i can find some links.

jin

intssed
08-01-2007, 01:37 AM
I still recommend: Speed Boolean (in same Layer)-> Union-> Merge Points-> Rouder.
You can use for more objects in same time and Save Preset.

Surrealist.
08-01-2007, 01:49 AM
haha...

funny how you get forwarded the original post before you edit yourself. :)

don't worry, won't hold it against you... let me see if i can find some links.

jin

Thanks.

But the reason I edited that was because all I want to see is some examples that you can do using the nurbs program that you use as it relates to this thread if you can. A flange, a change of form, you get the idea.

Sincerely, it would be a great help.

Surrealist.
08-01-2007, 01:54 AM
I still recommend: Speed Boolean (in same Layer)-> Union-> Merge Points-> Rouder.
You can use for more objects in same time and Save Preset.

Yeah, I think if you are going to stay in polygon mode and just use smoothing that would work. (might want to use less Rounder segments though)

I got off on the whole Subpatch thing on the flange idea and never got around to messing with Rounder too much on it. Have you played with a wider flange? I was going to mess with that a bit. Maybe I will.

intssed
08-01-2007, 01:59 AM
Ok, ok if 8 sides cilinder just use Edges mode in Rounder.

intssed
08-01-2007, 02:03 AM
sorry I mean cylinder ore Disc.

Surrealist.
08-01-2007, 02:33 AM
Here's a couple of other quick examples. The first one is just a boolean of two subpatch primitives (see my tutorial) then filling in the geometry with add edges. And the second is the same but using Rounder then stretching those points a little to widen the flange.

bjornkn
08-01-2007, 03:03 AM
This seems to turn into something different from what it was in the start?
If you join 2 tubes with exactly the same diameter and sides you end up with aligned edges/points, and no faces with more than 4 polys. Then it is an easy task to use either SubDs or plain polys.
The problem is when you want to join a smaller tube as a branch into a bigger one, without deforming any of them, while keeping it precise. That's where I always have big problems with SubDs, because you may need to add a lot of extra geometry to get it right, without deformations. You also need to do a lot of clean-up to get rid of polys with more than 4 points.
Another thing is that a welded tube joint, like on a bicycle frame, often is not a perpendicular joint.
SpeedBoolean/Union + Rounder seems to be the fastest method, although you may have to do some editing before/after rounding it?
But SubDs may make the smoothest looking joints?

PS.
As I never received any hints on in which .p file the (missing) untangle plugin was located I did a search for the text "untangle" in all the .p files. Found it in modelertools.p, just in case someone else is also missing it.
I just loaded the file, without removing it first (I've read warnings against doing that), and it seems to work without any problems here.

jin choung
08-01-2007, 04:01 AM
alright. messy example but it will do.

so basically, whenever you have:

1. two shapes that must remain EXACTLY (as in, precision counts) as they are with the exception of:
2. a JOIN that blends the forms together ... basically, any time you want one pre-defined shape to "melt" into another without compromising the integrity of either shape....

this is a good time to use nurbs. when basically, you are looking to model precision COMPONENTS that simply melt into each other. an air ram on the hood of a car is a good example. model the hood, model the ram. melt.

i'm not saying this CAN'T be done in subds. it can. i've done it. but it involves a lot of work and the wrong kind of thought - energy that can be better spent elsewhere.

in subds, because you are NOT "booleaning" the LIMIT SURFACE, only the BASE CAGE, you must REMESH, reconstruct, to create a smooth shape once you hit tab.

AND FREQUENTLY, this causes INTERFERENCE in the topology of one or the other COMPONENT SHAPE. because you remeshed into the other shape and introduced a dimple or warp. or because you're trying to line up rows/columns and the stitching is causing a pinch.

in nurbs, you are working on the final shape, you can specify the "melt" (blend/fillet) as you please and this is all non-destructive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

a LOT of industrial design forms benefit from nurbs. i've seen many many cars done in polys and subds but most of the time, i'm thinking, that would have been soooooooo much easier in nurbs.

also things like attaching wheel wells to modern car bodies.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

as i said, all CAN be done in polys. but unless you do it right, you're unlikely to get good results and it involves more blood sweat and tears.

right tool for the right job.

just as you wouldn't build a character (though you COULD) in nurbs, you probably - meh, better - *I* wouldn't tackle these kinds of blends in subds.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

this example is a sphere melting into an ellipsoid and the resulting surface being perfectly smooth and the integrity of the sphere and elllipsoid shapes are absolute.

jin

jin choung
08-01-2007, 04:05 AM
also, some things like CUT-LINES on car bodies must be stenciled on the hi-res, frozen surface of a subd.

can you say NOT IDEAL?

in nurbs, you can slice and dice to your hearts content and nothing is "frozen".

cut lines is actually another really good example.

jin

Andyjaggy
08-01-2007, 08:18 AM
I've been wanting to learn Rhino for a long time now. You just convinced me to download a demo and take it for a test run.

Andyjaggy
08-01-2007, 08:23 AM
As a student I can get it for 195 AND use it commercially. Can't beat that! Going off to scrounge up some change :)

sean hargreaves
08-01-2007, 09:19 AM
This is great! :D All this help! Thanks!

sean hargreaves
08-01-2007, 10:42 AM
Jin, are nurbs a Rhinoceros thing then?

Andyjaggy
08-01-2007, 11:12 AM
Nurbs is not just a Rhino thing but Rhino is kind of the standard for nurbs modeling.

sean hargreaves
08-01-2007, 11:21 AM
So what do you do then, get Rhino for this kind of modelling, save as an .obj file and load it into Lightwave for the rest of your modelling?

Andyjaggy
08-01-2007, 11:25 AM
Rhino has a renderer called Flamingo (I think) but I believe most people convert their object to something like an OBJ and then texture and render in a seperate package, such as Lightwave.

Andyjaggy
08-01-2007, 11:31 AM
I also believe that Vray is available as a plugin for Rhino.

sean hargreaves
08-01-2007, 12:03 PM
Thanks Andy. I'm just interested in overcoming the modelling problems, and using the most straightforward way. Then texturing and lighting using another software such as Lightwave. I'm happy with Lightwave, but if I'm dealing with complex form modelling, I want it to be easy. Did you say Rhino was \$195? Whats their website please?

Andyjaggy
08-01-2007, 12:07 PM
rhino is 195 for the educational version. Meaning you have to be a teacher or student to get it for that price. However unlike most company's the educational version is actually a commercial license so you can use it to make money.

I believe the regular price is 995 or something.

Oh and the site is rhino3d.com

sean hargreaves
08-01-2007, 12:08 PM
Holy ----! I checked! Its \$795.

1) Why is nothing simple
2) Why is everything expensive

8~

sean hargreaves
08-01-2007, 12:10 PM
So Andy, did you fiddle around with it? What do you think? Is it intuitive? Are you trying a semi-complex model and seeing if its relatively easy?

cagey5
08-01-2007, 12:13 PM
Doesn't blender have nurb modelling?

sean hargreaves
08-01-2007, 12:31 PM
Can you use Rhino on a Mac?

intssed
08-01-2007, 12:46 PM
All done with 1.Speed Boolean ->2.Rounder in point mode in the same Layer.

sean hargreaves
08-01-2007, 12:49 PM
I need to know if you can use Rhino on a mac? Im so P----d right now with all this software crap. ALL SOFTWARE MANUFACTURERS NEED TO KNOW: PEOPLE USE MACS AND PC'S. MAKE SOFTWARE FOR BOTH PLATFORMS! :devil:

And guys, DO NOT start a debate in this thread about Mac vs. PC. I just want to know if Rhino can be used on a Mac.

Giacomo99
08-01-2007, 12:53 PM
As far as I know, Rhino is PC-only. I don't know how well it might work in emulation on the new Intel Macs.

N.B.: Tesselating parametric models into polygonal formats can be EXTREMELY unreliable for complex forms. Don't assume that you'll be automatically be able to export any parametric form from Rhino as an .obj that will render cleanly in Lightwave.

sean hargreaves
08-01-2007, 12:55 PM
:2guns: Software manufacturers living in stoneage! I hate you!

sean hargreaves
08-01-2007, 01:26 PM
What about Moko, or Mojo, or whatever its called?

sean hargreaves
08-01-2007, 01:29 PM
Intssed, can you walk me through what you just did, in your example please?

Andyjaggy
08-01-2007, 01:31 PM
Serves you right for using a MAC!

Not to seem mean or anything Sean, you know I like you, but it seems like you are looking for a magic solution where non exists. You want to be able to model anything without learning how to model or putting forth the required effort to model it. I would suggest getting some of the KURV DVD's on modeling if you are serious about wanting to get good at it, they should cut the learning curve by about 6months.

To answer your question I used Rhino about 4 years ago when I was just starting to get into 3D. I remember liking it and it being fairly straight forward. That's about all I can say about it at this point though, I am still debating buying a copy though, for 195 I wouldn't have much to loose.

sean hargreaves
08-01-2007, 01:36 PM
Speed Boolean what? Union? Subtract? Which layer am I on when I Speed boolean. Please don't assume I know what I'm doing? Please explain to the lowest common denominator > me!

My hands are tightening around my throat at this point! :bangwall:

Glendalough
08-01-2007, 02:11 PM
Here is an fairly extraordinary program, very well designed with super simple interface that uses nurbs and is free at the moment.

It would probably run fine in emulation on a Mac. The idea is to be ergonomic and not to destroy your posture, is designed to be used with tablet away from the keyboard though mouse (and keyboard) is okay.

http://moi3d.com/

N.B. It seems this software is written by one Gibson who created Rhino

jin choung
08-01-2007, 02:17 PM
i do believe rhino is pc only but lots of people are successfully using it using somekind of emulator... forgot what it was called.

nurbs is not rhino only. maya and max and si and all the other big packages support not only it but other modeling paradigms....

nurbs is not EASY. remember when i said nurbs has lots of strengths? it has lots of weaknesses too. if you're gonna try to model an entire model with nurbs only, instead of just using to generate geom for "problem areas", you are in for one heckuva learning curve.

basically, the situation is this:

THE SPACE SHUTTLE is not easy... but it's the preferable to try to get into orbit with this rather than by flapping your arms.

as andy said, you're gonna have to calm down, put in your time and dues and learn.

jin

sean hargreaves
08-01-2007, 02:33 PM
OK, but I still can get annoyed at the software companies!

sean hargreaves
08-01-2007, 02:42 PM
I'm leaving now that Andy scolded me!:D

Surrealist.
08-01-2007, 03:03 PM
Holy ----! I checked! Its \$795.

1) Why is nothing simple
2) Why is everything expensive

8~

I am not going to scold you. :D

But you have gone the long way around to the conclusion. Just take a look at my tutorial from the beginning and you will have a very good understanding of the basics of subds and what they can do. It is long and it starts out very basic. But in the end you'll have a real good idea of how all of these tools are used and what you can accomplish. From there you can start looking at more complex jobs.

With this information you can see that there is no need ever to have to freeze a model to get detail. You can keep it in subds all the way.

(Speed Boolean uses to mesh in the same layer.)

Good luck.

jin- thanks for the explanation and example. :)

NURBS look pretty cool. I have been keeping an eye on them a bit since I first saw them in HASH 13 years ago or so but have not ever owned a platform that used them.

Definitely a different way of thinking. Maybe LW will get them some day.

sean hargreaves
08-01-2007, 03:15 PM
Thanks guys for all your help and patience, I come from an illustration background and I'm so used to just drawing things. But I love 3d now, and i sometimes just get frustrated. :D

ps I also call on all software developers to continue to make the interface simpler and easier. A lot of stuff now is, but a lot is'nt!

Andyjaggy
08-01-2007, 06:25 PM
I'm leaving now that Andy scolded me!:D

There there now, it will be okay. The first year of learning 3D is tough, it's a steep learning curve, and you really can't take many shortcuts. Keep at it. You'll get it.

sean hargreaves
08-01-2007, 07:21 PM
Hold on...wait........

How do I make a box?

:D

steve0077
08-01-2007, 10:42 PM
Sean, Have you watched the tutorial videos on the Lightwave site and many others that are free. I found watching these videos will answer many of my questions and demonstates the use of many tools and techniques for modeling. Its kind of hard to learn on the forums without learning some of the basics first and these videos do help.

I also found learning Lightwave easier than trying to master Rhino.

jin choung
08-01-2007, 10:47 PM
yah, hang in there sean. learning new stuff is half the fun anyway.

richard,

yah, it's different. i showed you an example where it is clearly advantageous but there are other examples that show how PAINSTAKING the planning and thought that must go into other kinds of modeling tasks.

with polys, you just sit down and go. with nurbs, at times, a lot of time is spent thinking about how your construction is going to proceed.

hash animation master isn't nurbs. there are other kinds of patch surfaces other than nurbs that are akin to patching lw splines - only the spline surface doesn't have to be frozen into polys.

i believe sensei's company sells a plugin that allows for this kind of spline patches....

but these are NOT nurbs.

it is the parameterized nature of nurbs (the surface provides a way of knowing the location of every (and ANY arbitrary) point on the smooth surface) that allows for things like trims and blends all the other cool things nurbs can do.

so anyhoo, everything has a strength and weakness... exploit strengths, avoid weaknesses if you can.

------------------------------------------------------------------

we DO have nurbs CURVES (yep, NonUniformRationalBasisSpline have both curves and surfaces) by way of LWCAD 2. i'm hoping, that by lwcad 3, we will get our implementation of nurbs through viktor (lwcad's author).

jin

intssed
08-02-2007, 01:05 AM
Intssed, can you walk me through what you just did, in your example please?

1. In Layer create ojects, select one, Ctrl+Shift+RMB->File->Polygons->Detail->SpBooleaUunion;
2. Select both object common points, press M-> Fixed->enter Your nearest point number->Ok, (must appear popup message how meny points elimenated).
3. Ctrl+Shift+RMB->File->Polygons->Bevel Polygons->(choose->Edges->Preset insets and Rounding Polygons)

creativecontrol
08-02-2007, 08:30 AM
Here's an easy way using a very handy plugin from pictrix called KO Pointfit.

Make your tubes and remove the endcaps.
Cut the tube you want to fillet with at least 3 segments near the end.
Hit Tab to convert to sub-d's.
Make sure "action center" is set to "selection".
Select the end points, and size them up to the size of the flare you want.
Put the two pipes on seperate layers. Put the one you want to flare in the foreground.
Select the end points and use Pointfit. Use the default settings being sure to get your direction right (-x in this case). Pow! It fits!
You're done!

It's not a perfect fillet but it's not bad.

I've been crying for a real fillet for years but have mostly been ignored.

creativecontrol
08-02-2007, 08:32 AM
Here's the last steps.

Kuzey
08-02-2007, 09:03 AM
Can you use Rhino on a Mac?

Hey guys....Rhino is Coming to the Mac and you can join the beta testing now!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

http://community.irhino3d.com/

Kuzey

Surrealist.
08-02-2007, 01:48 PM
Here's an easy way using a very handy plugin from pictrix called KO Pointfit.

Make your tubes and remove the endcaps.
Cut the tube you want to fillet with at least 3 segments near the end.
Hit Tab to convert to sub-d's.
Make sure "action center" is set to "selection".
Select the end points, and size them up to the size of the flare you want.
Put the two pipes on seperate layers. Put the one you want to flare in the foreground.
Select the end points and use Pointfit. Use the default settings being sure to get your direction right (-x in this case). Pow! It fits!
You're done!

It's not a perfect fillet but it's not bad.

I've been crying for a real fillet for years but have mostly been ignored.

I like that approach a lot. With a little extra planning you could even connect it and you could use the same idea with other shapes.

Nice plug in and great example.

sean hargreaves
08-02-2007, 02:23 PM

creativecontrol
08-02-2007, 02:39 PM

I think this is it. I downloaded it some time ago and the site was different.

http://www1.plala.or.jp/Otsuka/graphics/LIGHTWAVE.HTML

Try that.

creativecontrol
08-02-2007, 02:43 PM
If in doubt, search flay.com

Andyjaggy
08-02-2007, 05:09 PM
Cool, that's an awesome plugin. Not sure how I missed it all this time.

achrystie
08-02-2007, 06:54 PM
Nurbs brings back memories for me. :)

Honestly I'm surprised more people aren't aware of it.

http://www.moi3d.com

It's sort of the Rhino "lite" with decent polygon export features.
Exports .obj .lwo and .3ds and you can adjust parameters for all quads, quads and tris, ngons, as well as mesh density. For hard surface stuff like this it's more than sufficient.

I had to play around a bit to figure out how to make this shape, since I barely use this stuff anymore, let alone this particular program, and, honestly, it wasn't as intuitive as I'd hoped, but now that I know how, it would be easy to repeat, far easier than creating from scratch with polygons for sure.

Basically I made two cylinders in the right positions.
Trimmed them with each other and deleted all the "extraneous" end cap surfaces.
Moved them into exact position with each other.
Joined them together.
Then Filleted the edge, which has not only "size" options but "shape" options like circular, tangency, etc.

See my attached image.
The program is free right now, as it is in beta, but I think it's close to a 1.0 release, no idea what the pricing will be, but if it's relatively inexpensive, like Silo or Hexagon pricing, I'll strongly consider it.

ABC

intssed
08-03-2007, 05:46 AM
Here's the last steps.
Good plugin!

creativecontrol
08-03-2007, 08:22 AM
Nurbs brings back memories for me. :)

Honestly I'm surprised more people aren't aware of it.

http://www.moi3d.com

ABC

Yes, I LOVE Moi. Most awsome. I wish they would integrate it into modeler! Seriously. It's just a pain having to switch programs just to do a simple fillet.

creativecontrol
08-03-2007, 08:23 AM
Good plugin!

It's one of my all-time favorites and really should be a permenant part of modeler.

Andyjaggy
08-03-2007, 09:58 AM
It's one of my all-time favorites and really should be a permenant part of modeler.

Like a lot of awesome free plugins out there. If it wasn't for them I wouldn't be here :D

Sensei
08-03-2007, 12:23 PM
we DO have nurbs CURVES (yep, NonUniformRationalBasisSpline have both curves and surfaces)

NURBS means Non-Uniform Rational B-Spline..

And in EasySpline http://www.easyspline.com three types of splines can be used and mixed in single spline patch- Catmull-Rom (where curve shape crosses the all control points), Bezier and B-Spline (where curve shape just crosses the first and the last control point, and the all other are just powers that are attracting curve shape).

You can see such curve mixing in this tutorial:
http://www2.trueart.pl/Tutorials/LightWave/Fish/Files/TrueArt_Tutorial_EasySpline_Modeling_Texturing_Fis h.rar

Stooch
08-03-2007, 01:05 PM
OK got it. Well, since you've mastered it why not post some images anyway, should take all of five minutes to show us some examples. That would be a great help.
why dont you? or why dont you pay the guy for his time?

Stooch
08-03-2007, 01:16 PM
aaah rhino. its niiice. i hear alot of lw/modo people talk smack about maya modeler. like its the worst ever. and its funny but you can do alot of these things AND subds all in one place. it makes sense now why people talk so low about the application in terms of modeling, they are only using it for subd instead of combining nurb and subd and poly workflows together. nice little bonus to nurbs is the fact that the uvs are already taken care of.

jin choung
08-03-2007, 01:42 PM
sensie,

are you correcting me? you're repeating what i said about what nurbs stands for....

and by the way, the "b" in b-spline means "basis".

and easy spline does NOT have nurbs. you're basically saying that but the way you say it makes it sound like you're contradicting my assertion that easyspline does in fact not have nurbs.

cuz as we all know, b-spline patches are NOT the same as NURBS patches.

jin

Andyjaggy
08-03-2007, 01:44 PM
Hey Sensei does virtual render come with your plugin pack or do you have to buy it seperately?

Sensei
08-03-2007, 01:54 PM
Hey Sensei does virtual render come with your plugin pack or do you have to buy it seperately?

TrueArt's Modeling Pack http://modelingpack.trueart.eu has only modeling tools, so the answer is unfortunately, no.. However couple older Layout plug-ins that we made in the last 5 years like MatteBySurface were added as gift..

creativecontrol
08-03-2007, 01:55 PM
1. In Layer create ojects, select one, Ctrl+Shift+RMB->File->Polygons->Detail->SpBooleaUunion;
2. Select both object common points, press M-> Fixed->enter Your nearest point number->Ok, (must appear popup message how meny points elimenated).
3. Ctrl+Shift+RMB->File->Polygons->Bevel Polygons->(choose->Edges->Preset insets and Rounding Polygons)

Hey thanks, I didn't know you could do it quite like that. Cool!

CMT
08-03-2007, 02:16 PM
sensie,

are you correcting me? you're repeating what i said about what nurbs stands for....

and by the way, the "b" in b-spline means "basis".

and easy spline does NOT have nurbs. you're basically saying that but the way you say it makes it sound like you're contradicting my assertion that easyspline does in fact not have nurbs.

cuz as we all know, b-spline patches are NOT the same as NURBS patches.

jin

From what I read, all he just said is that EasySpline can use 3 different types of splines which can be used together. Nothing about it using nurbs.

Rhino for Mac, huh? I just might have to check that out.....

sean hargreaves
08-03-2007, 02:18 PM
Just so everyone knows, I started this thread and although the modelling suggestions have been great, I wish the plug-ins could run on a Mac.

Sensei
08-03-2007, 02:20 PM
cuz as we all know, b-spline patches are NOT the same as NURBS patches.

But NURBS can be B-Spline if you don't touch control point weights.. B-Spline has them all set to 0.0.. And BTW I made changes that they have weights already..

Sensei
08-03-2007, 02:22 PM
Just so everyone knows, I started this thread and although the modelling suggestions have been great, I wish the plug-ins could run on a Mac.

Actually EasySpline works on Mac fine.. :)

Stooch
08-03-2007, 02:59 PM
:2guns: Software manufacturers living in stoneage! I hate you!

maybe they hate you too?

jin choung
08-03-2007, 04:09 PM
the actual mathematics are pretty hard core... there's a LOT to those surfaces.

rational, for instance, refers to their ability to describe perfect conics.

also, it's not nurbs until they are paramaterized, have u,v coordinates for every point on the smooth surface, can therefore be trimmed and take projected curves, have different DEGREES, etc.

i assume easy spline can't do those things?

and for a BASIC primer on the gist of nurbs:

http://www.rhino3d.com/nurbs.htm

jin

zapper1998
08-03-2007, 05:15 PM
Nurbs brings back memories for me. :)

Honestly I'm surprised more people aren't aware of it.

http://www.moi3d.com

It's sort of the Rhino "lite" with decent polygon export features.
Exports .obj .lwo and .3ds and you can adjust parameters for all quads, quads and tris, ngons, as well as mesh density. For hard surface stuff like this it's more than sufficient.

I had to play around a bit to figure out how to make this shape, since I barely use this stuff anymore, let alone this particular program, and, honestly, it wasn't as intuitive as I'd hoped, but now that I know how, it would be easy to repeat, far easier than creating from scratch with polygons for sure.

Basically I made two cylinders in the right positions.
Trimmed them with each other and deleted all the "extraneous" end cap surfaces.
Moved them into exact position with each other.
Joined them together.
Then Filleted the edge, which has not only "size" options but "shape" options like circular, tangency, etc.

See my attached image.
The program is free right now, as it is in beta, but I think it's close to a 1.0 release, no idea what the pricing will be, but if it's relatively inexpensive, like Silo or Hexagon pricing, I'll strongly consider it.

ABC

Looks cool wiil tinker with it....TK

Ztreem
08-05-2007, 06:45 AM
I'll just say that for modelling this kind of things NURBS just rule over polygon/SDS. I just wish that Newtek could implement NURBS in Lightwave so we could combine the best of two worlds, like they can in Maya, 3DSMax and XSI and alot of cheaper software as well. Even Truespace have NURBS and SDS together, it's a shame that Lihgtwave has not.

intssed
08-05-2007, 10:39 AM
I'll just say that for modelling this kind of things NURBS just rule over polygon/SDS. I just wish that Newtek could implement NURBS in Lightwave so we could combine the best of two worlds, like they can in Maya, 3DSMax and XSI and alot of cheaper software as well. Even Truespace have NURBS and SDS together, it's a shame that Lihgtwave has not.

Ztreem
08-05-2007, 11:43 AM

Reading that thread only makes me sad. People just don't think when they are saying that NURBS is dead and unusefull. I can tell that they only model characters and not products, because everyone that models products should know that NURBS is alot better suited for the task then SDS. :twak:

intssed
08-05-2007, 11:57 AM
Maya and 3DSMax e.t.c. have Subdivision surfaces?

Ztreem
08-05-2007, 12:14 PM
Maya and 3DSMax e.t.c. have Subdivision surfaces?

Yep, Maya and 3DSMAX have both SDS and NURBS... Seems like if you have to use NURBS as I do, you have to use another software then LightWave which is sad, because I love using LightWave and would love to continue with that.

I would love to take my Rhino models into lightwave without converting it to millions of polygons and then get alot of unwanted artifacts, just because Lightwave doesn't support NURBS. I also want the ability to use NURBS for some of the props for my characters and at the same time have the character as SDS. Best of both worlds...

Maybe I'll just switch to Maya as everybody else, I don't want to but sometimes when using Lightwave it feels like the old Amiga days. you want to keep using it but you realise that it's impossible because nobody supports it anymore. The 9.x cycle will tell if Lightwave is worth keeping or if it's time to move on.

jin choung
08-05-2007, 01:20 PM
well we have nurbs CURVES in lw via lwcad2. i'm hoping that we might eventually get nurbs surfaces through that channel.

jin

Ztreem
08-05-2007, 01:54 PM
well we have nurbs CURVES in lw via lwcad2. i'm hoping that we might eventually get nurbs surfaces through that channel.

jin

We can hope, I would buy it on a second if it supported NURBS surfaces, but it has to support it for rendering as well.

Sensei
08-05-2007, 02:17 PM
We can hope, I would buy it on a second if it supported NURBS surfaces, but it has to support it for rendering as well.

Without freezing? It would have to be volumetric..

Ztreem
08-05-2007, 02:28 PM
That's why I want native support for NURBS instead of third Party. I should only freeze it at render, like all other apps that support NURBS.

jin choung
08-05-2007, 03:53 PM
meh,

actually, i can totally do without rendering the nurbs surface.

the only advantage it buys you is that it tesselates at render time automatically instead of being a discrete step for the modeler.

for me, if it allows a nurbs construction paradigm inside of modeler, i am sooooooo there.

and all the major apps that support nurbs (including rhino) tesselates to polys for render anyway.

there is only one app that i know of that directly rasterizes the nurbs surface (and i forgot the name of it... it's a minor modeling app) and there's no huge advantage to that and have potential drawbacks.

jin

Ztreem
08-05-2007, 05:34 PM
meh,

actually, i can totally do without rendering the nurbs surface.

the only advantage it buys you is that it tesselates at render time automatically instead of being a discrete step for the modeler.

for me, if it allows a nurbs construction paradigm inside of modeler, i am sooooooo there.

and all the major apps that support nurbs (including rhino) tesselates to polys for render anyway.

there is only one app that i know of that directly rasterizes the nurbs surface (and i forgot the name of it... it's a minor modeling app) and there's no huge advantage to that and have potential drawbacks.

jin

What I meant was that I want to be able to animate my NURBS surfaces in Layout without freezing it to millions of polys, I prefer that it tesselates at render time only. This way you can have lighter geometry while animating and higher geometry while rendering. I want what all other apps have, I don't want any drawbacks. LightWave has already too much of those.

jin choung
08-05-2007, 08:42 PM
actually,

STILL meh. usually, if i have a model that needs to DEFORM, i SURE AS HECK am not going to do it in NURBS! i sure as heck am not going to do a character in nurbs!

most - IF NOT ALL - useful nurbs tasks are hard surface, industrial design shapes... that don't deform.

and if that's the case, i can animate using a proxy and just swap in the hires version for the render.

big whup. if nurbs is for construction in modeler only, i can sooooooo live with that.

i understand your desire for a full nurbs implementation in lw without drawbacks. i could totally back that.

but i gotta say, from where i stand, it doesn't look like you're gonna get it.

that's not a blip on newtek's radar.

and we'll be lucky if we get modeler surfaces by way of lwcad (3? 4? 5?)...

jin

jin choung
08-05-2007, 08:45 PM
oh, and i would MUCH rather have a very well thought out modeler implementation like from lwcad than a halfa\$\$ed version throughout.

nurbs is super technical and if they don't have their hearts set on doing it really well, it is just LIKELY it's going to be done badly.

and again, newtek has never been about nurbs. and i'm fine with that. not ideal but i'd rather have even absence than halfa\$\$3d (*cough* saslite *cough*)

jin

Ztreem
08-06-2007, 02:57 AM
I agree, I don't want a halfa\$\$ed version of NURBS, but that goes for every feature they add, I don't want any halfa\$\$ features in LW. Still most of the features we get is halfa\$\$ed features, just to name a few CC's, Skelegons, Vizier and the list goes on forever. There is no such thing as perfect software I know, but a little more love from Newtek wouldn't be wrong.

As for modelling and animating I'm only after hard surface modeling and animating without deformation(most of the time). Characters is better suited for SDS and displacement painting.
As an industrial designer I feel that there's alot of hard surface modeling that takes too much time to resolve with SDS and sometime it's the other way around. I would love to have a hybrid modeler so I can do some surfaces in NURBS and other in SDS. With T-splines for Rhino I can import polygon models of quads and convert them into T-splines and get a nice hybrid model. The big problem is that I'm stuck iin Rhino and I want to render and animate in LW. I'll continue to freeze my object into poly's as long as I stay in LW land. It's just sad that LW can't offer what others do, even low-end 3D packages have NURBS support.(Blender, TrueSpace)

intssed
08-06-2007, 08:38 AM
well we have nurbs CURVES in lw via lwcad2. i'm hoping that we might eventually get nurbs surfaces through that channel.

jin
If lwcad2 is something like nurbs it is good. Sometimes I use its.

THREEL
12-19-2007, 11:20 PM
Guys, I'll be impressed if you can figure this out without a plethora of steps to solve it:

In the three attached images I have two objects joining one another. But what I want to end up with is a 'flange' that joins them. That is, a part that 'joins' the two pieces. So, in essence, the smaller shape flares out into the larger one, so I don't have the 90 degree join. Its a nightmare. Are there any modelling gurus out there that can walk me through the process? My three manuals are useless in this sense. Much appreciated! :thumbsup:

Hi Sean,

Here's a couple of samples of what I made. I've included a render showing different flange sizes and the steps required to make these samples. Now it seems like a few steps to construct these, but once you get the technique down, it doesn't take very long to build at all.

If you like what you see and you want me to go into more detail, just ask. I'll be happy to share this info with you.

tHREEL, but you can call me AL.

trang
03-20-2008, 08:23 PM
If you like what you see and you want me to go into more detail, just ask. I'll be happy to share this info with you.

yes i would like to know how you did those pipes with flanges please. could you post a zip tutorial or something like that?

lesterfoster
03-22-2008, 05:41 AM

This is a screen shot of something that I am working on at the moment. It shows three inlets about 1.5 inches and all inlets are going to the outlet that is about 2.5 inches.

I used EasySPLINE to make it.

THREEL
03-23-2008, 10:28 PM
yes i would like to know how you did those pipes with flanges please. could you post a zip tutorial or something like that?

Sorry it took me this long to get back with you, trang. We were out of town for the last couple of days. Today, I have a couple of sick kids. So, needless to say, today was a day of rest and tending to the kids.

I put almost every step of this project in a new layer, just in case I made a mistake and to see the progress.

Here's a run down of how I created my pipe joint model:

1. Create a disc with 8 sides & 2 segments.
2. Give this a surface of your choice.
3. Delete the top & bottom polys.
4. Copy & Paste the Disc in another layer.
5. Rotate the disc copy 90 deg.
6. Move horizontal Disc, so that an end of it lines up with the center of the vertical disc.
7. Copy the vertical disc to a couple of different layers.
8. Smooth Shift (Shifht+f) one of these layers out to the desired thickness.
9. Flip (f) the other disc.
10. Bring these to layers together into one layer and merge points.
I usually deselect the keep one point polygons option.
11. Do the same thing to the horizontal disc.
12. Delete the 8 polys at the very end of the horizontal pipe section.
13. Now, you have your 2 pipe sections.
14. Copy these sections individually to a few layers to have enough geometry to work with.
15. Select the outer polys of the vertical pipe and hide the interior polys.
16. Do the same thing to the horizontal pipe.
17. With the Vertical outer pipe in the foreground (FG) layer & the Horizontal outer pipe in the background (BG) layer, run Boolean (Shift+B) & pick the Union option. This will give you the out part of the pipe jolnt.
18. Do a Hide Invert on each layer to show the inner polys of each pipe section.
19. Place the Vertical in the FG & the Horizontal in the BG.
20. Run Boolean & Union again.
21. Unhide everthing in the FG layer.
22. Run Merge Points (m). Now, you should have a pipe joint.
23. To control the Fillet on the flange just pick a couple of adjacent polys on the Horizontal outer pipe & run Bandsaw Pro.
24. Make sure you do the same to the inner Horizontal pipe or it will be visible from the outer side.
25. To control the pipe ends thickness run Bandsaw Pro around the pipe ends.

I think that pretty much covers it. I know it sounds like a lot of steps, but once you get use to this construction method, your speed of actually modeling it this way should improve dramatically.

Don't forget to check out other modelers ideas in this thread as this community has helped me out tremendously on becoming a better, hopefully, modeler. :thumbsup:

Good luck on your :lwicon: future, & I hope this helps!

tHREEL, but you can call me AL.

PS--I just realized you can give the Vertical pipe thickness, before you copy it to another layer & rotate it. That'll save you a couple of steps right there.

archijam
03-24-2008, 12:56 AM
aaah rhino. its niiice. i hear alot of lw/modo people talk smack about maya modeler. like its the worst ever. and its funny but you can do alot of these things AND subds all in one place. it makes sense now why people talk so low about the application in terms of modeling, they are only using it for subd instead of combining nurb and subd and poly workflows together. nice little bonus to nurbs is the fact that the uvs are already taken care of.

Not all nurbs are the same. Jin talked about non-destructive changes, I can tell you now that when using nurbs for a 3-axis mill job, maya makes a s**tload more mess of it than Rhino. I have lost whole days on getting 3 pieces of simply nurbs geometry (defomed or booleaned planes) to iges properly. Never had such problems with Rhino.

j.

JeffrySG
03-24-2008, 01:03 PM
Not sure if it helps, but William and I both created some video tutorials on creating pipe joints. Might be worth a look.