Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.Daz 3D is part of
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
I had to try this for myself, and sure enough, I got the same result.
But get this! Now when I try to go back and add thickness to a 5x5x5 foot cube, the inner cube's normals now face outward as well! In fact, any dimensions and/or shapes that I have tried so far all result in the inner shape's normals facing outward, and I can no longer duplicate the initial result of the normals facing inward as they did in the first test (even after quitting and restarting Carrara!).
I would seem that the initial "success" with the 5x5x5 cube was a fluke.
However, If you use "Reverse Polygons Normal" immediately after adding thickness, only the inner polygons will be selected, and only they will be reversed. This seems to be a rather unique situation where only selected polygons are affected by the Reverse Polygons Normal function. I think it has something to do with the inner and outer facets not being connected.
That being said, it's hard for me to envision a situation where you would want to add a "hidden" thickness that would never be seen in a render. If you make just one hole in an otherwise completely enclosed shape, adding thickness will create the "normals" correctly, since the inside and outside are now connected.
Weird stuff.
Phil, No changing the cube size had nothing to do with it. I just tried the 5x5x5 1 segment cube... added a thickness of -.25 in and ended up with both cube's normals facing the same direction. Please pardon me for confusing the issue. I had thought it was simply caused by entering -.nn in or even -nn in... just tried -12 in with same results. Onward I plundered enter -.nn and -nn ft and still ending up with the same results. My last try was on a 5x5x5, 5 segment cube with very strange results but still normals facing the same direction... having more segments resulted with an inner cubelike structure in which all the corner side edges are reaching out towards the original cube, A huge Mess... thats the only way I can describe it... makes me think I've gone completely crazy... and a bit dizzy, see pic 1. I also tried 3 and 2 segment cubes with the same, well similar, results.
I then though about the single segment cube... and all makes sense... I think. I'm using Add Thickness but actually making a duplicate of it which is scaled down, in my case... of course the inner cube should have Normals facing the same way. I wonder now why anyone would cube within a closed cube.
de3an, I'm glad you tried it on other shapes... figured they would react the same. I imagine that instead of a fluke I probably reversed the normals... not being able to see the inner cube I likely thought nothing was selected... I should have selected Wireframe view which would of course shown the inner cube selected.
Exactly the conclusion I came to... why. Even if I had wanted a solid round glass ball with thickess all I'd need to do is to create a temporary hole by removing 1 poly... add thickness and then fill in the inner and outer polys which would have normals facing their correct directions.
Indeed!
How do you manipulate the symmetry plane? It keeps going all over the place and I'd like the center the darn thing on my actual stuff.
Use the x y z tools in the right panel. In the pic I have it set to Y. So anything done on one side of plane will be done one opposite side. Selected polys etc will be pinkish looking with bright red for points and lines... while ones affected on other side of plane will be dark red/marron.
[Edit] You can also use the very bottom selection in Model menu to Set the Symmetry plane on a specific polymesh, object even if it is in a different location than another polymesh. I've not experimented much with 2 objects but just tried and they appear to work with either the same or different symmetry for each... even when they are in a different location.
Thanks for asking... I thought it only worked on a single object... learn something everyday.
THANK you. That's been bugging me for quite some time.
I managed to carry on with a little bit more of my 'exercise in futility'.
Only a couple of fuel tanks (to be re-done - my references were misleading), a steering wheel and some bits of the exhaust system. I've been doing the bendy bits the hard way and need to read the manual to learn to use Hexagon's line tools properly. Carrara's spline modeller would be perfect for some of the parts but this is a Hexagon project.
I guess I should bring the very old Hexagon thread for this back to life and continue with it there. But I hope you don't mind seeing this here - these are rendered in Carrara.
Impressive detail and great modelling!
Thank you once again, Phil, for your comment. You can be assured that the model has many flaws. I'm not at the stage where I can see beforehand how to go about building many of these parts and sometimes I try a few times before settling for what you see. The steering wheel took ages today (because there is no Torus primitive) and then I somehow managed to lose all my work. Generally Hexagon behaves very well for me but something went wrong somewhere on this occasion. I have an idea but this isn't the time.
I also took the model a few days ago into Silo which I bought but have hardly ever opened. I think it's a superb program also but I soon crashed it. I'm pretty sure that this is the way with this generation of modelling programs (if that is a way I can refer to them). When the user is unsure of what to do, clicks here and there, tries again, clicks undo then clicks some more the program gets confused and dies.
With Hexagon I sometimes just know that I need to save before doing the next bit and I'm only repeatedly using a small subset of the program's many tools. When I try using new tools I'm liable to get it wrong and have a crash.
Anyway, sorry to go on and on ... but I took a very quick shot at the spline room in Carrara and would commend it to myself (!) and anyone else who hasn't used it much. The attached picture is rubbish of course!
The spline room can be very powerful for certain types of model. By the way, it has a torus preset in it should you want to go that route, and you can convert that to a vertex model once you have got the dimensions you want (maybe not the most elegant vertex model though...)
PS, Phil
Even when waffling on and on I do realise that you have forgotten more about 3d than I have learned! And that's true for so many others here.
Kind of you to say so, but we are all still learning together!
Another PS before bed!
I'm sure you know what I meant but in case I was misunderstood by anyone, I was saying that so many others are also proficient enough to have forgotten more than I have learned!
For exhaust pipes I'd likely, would, chech out Path Sweep tool in vertex modeler... even the Bridge tool would work ok also. Spline modeler is cool and very capable but I'd not want to have to covert it to vertex later... my opinion.
Very kewl looking model you have.
Before doing anything not effected by Symmetry save as new incremental file to fall back on. Not too long ago I broke symmetry.... the xyz green panes were no longer in the middle of my object and set Symmetry to object appeared to work until clicking on one poly no longer selected an opposing poly.
Very cool!
I have a whole bunch of unfinished projects I've done some really fun modeling on. It's a bummer when they're all still deemed to be Top Secret :( as most of my modeling projects are - which is why I show very little in here except for a few simple examples.
I really need to start a "Just for Fun" modeling project so I can get in on the fun.
Oh whoa... was that time? Did you see that? Was that time that just flew by? Argh! I keep running out of it, and failing to catch it as it passes by :(
When I was in High School, our Super intendant got tired of hearing teachers and/or staff saying that they haven't got around to it yet or, as soon as I get around to it. So he bought every teacher and every staff member a round coaster that said :"Tuit" on it! LOL
"...and now you have a round tuit!"
Sorry for the rant.
Marcus... that is a really cool mesh, wonderful project you've got going on!
Latest on the wellcar. Need to redo the walkplates (holes should be smaller), add couplers, and add fine detail.
Fantastic!
That looks amazing
Great work, TabascoJack. That's the clean look I would like to achieve. You must have worked fast also.
@ Dartanbeck, thanks for the comments - there was no rant. It would be great to see what you've alluded to when the time comes. We're in for a treat - or feast rather, judging by what you do show us of your work.
@ WgdJohn, thanks also for the advice. I'm not competent in Carrara's modeller because it just happened that Hexagon 'clicked' for me first out of the various things I dabbled with. But I'm pretty sure that the same tool exists in Hexagon. I spent ages yesterday with it and other line tools to make plug leads. These are essentially long flexible tubes. When I have them curve in one plane, they're fine but when I have them flow down and sideways they lose their tube profile and go flat. Sometimes they inflate into a fine vase but not what I'm trying to get at all.
Either I will forego plug leads or will try the Carrara tools. But the temptation to add more detail is becoming frustrating. I will try to get this finished by next week and be done with it. There are many new things to try making. I just wanted, for once, to see how far I could get towards the level of detail I find in models I've bought. Such models not only have great detail, they have a clean, effortless look about them.
@TabascoJack - wonderful work, so detailed. I'm guessing that this must reflect an area of interest for you.
Marcus - the vertex room in Carrara is noticably like Hexagon! I think there are certain tools that are different but you should feel quite at home. With Carrara's Path Sweep tool, there are several different sweep modes, selectable in the right hand panel, which give different looks to the resulting mesh, and I am sure that Hexagon will have something similar. You need to select the one which rotates the cross section with the direction of the sweep, that should give you your hose unflattened.
I use Path Sweep for all my hoses.
(and cable runs etc) It's worth taking extra time to make sure your path looks right from all angles, and make a couple of copies of your sweep object, since it gets eaten in the sweep (I'm generally reluctant to cmd-Z something, since 90% of Carrara crashes in my experience come from doing one too many cmd-Zs). Oh and save regularly. No, even more regularly.
Easy vertex torus: Start with a cylinder. Make its diameter the inner diameter of your ring, and its height the height of your ring. Depending on the mesh density you want, 18 sides is probably okay. One segment. Knock out the two ends. Add thickness to reach the outer diameter. Smooth as needed (2+ levels). Job done.
Cool tip!
Say, have you folks seen Vyusur's cool video modeling this wing back?
She shows some really great techniques - very quickly... but the point is made. Just back up and replay for a little more clarity in any specific operation.
I notice that, just like mmoir demonstrates in his Modeling Tutorials, while using SubD modeling, she adds geometry to necessary edges rather than just using "Crease Edges" - which I have compltely switched to once Mike taught me that. It's just a better way to do it. More control and likely a lot better compatibility across applications.
While she doesn't demonstrate building the shaders, they are fantastic!
Agree with everything you say there!
Thanks, TangoAlpha and PhilW for the advice.
I tried out the Path Sweep in Carrara in an otherwise empty scene and found it worked perfectly. But back in Hexagon it was all hit and miss - I think it was due to being unable to select what I wanted because the lines and circles were surrounded by objects and I was trying to work up close. At the time I just couldn't understand why I couldn't select the curves or circles but the program was probably selecting something else. In the end I made the cables by extruding the edges.
I can show the results but these pictures show what I mean by the model not being clean. Some items are subdivided, others not. Some have champhered edges, others haven't. Also I still place things down (such as the rocker cover bolts) by eye - I need to check out what tools will let me space things evenly.
My excuse is that I really didn't plan on making a model engine. I initially just wanted something that would pass for one if I decided to make the engine hatch of the vehicle openable or if a render was to show the underside. But I got carried away. Any mechanic would probably have critical comments to make!
Apart from some engine mounts and a bit of the exhaust to complete, I'm counting the engine as finished.
Here are a couple of images:
I think you are your own worst critic - to everyone else, this just looks terrific!
+1
.