Putting it all togther. building the model.
-
hi guys. im building a model of a speaker. ive one component which is a cabinet, the second component which is the first ring of the speaker. and now im starting on the second ring, which is going to be the third component. my question is, i was watching aidan chopras video (Creating eaves for buildings with pitched roofs) explaining the component/group paste in place method.
so now that i have my two components, should i take all my single components and combine them into a master group/component and keep adding and bundling them together as i build my speaker? or instead of making all single components into a master group/master component, should i build my model in single components/groups piecing them together, and building them in a single piece by piece lego style project, and keeping all components/groups separate?
-
It all depends on how you're going to use and develop the model really.
The advantage of groups is mainly so you can move and manipulate a bunch of things as if they were 1 thing. If that's useful to you then group them.
Components, so far as I can tell have precisely the same advantage as groups and work pretty much the same way. The added benefit is that if you have a bunch of an object, you can make 1 of those a component and copy that component around to all the others. Then if you change one it changes the others. This also saves on file space (but doesn't mean that your 'rendering' is any faster).
W/ both of these you can also use Outliner (Windows -> Outliner) which could help in organization and easy modeling if you get real detailed.
-Brodie
-
ah ok. i thought there was some real advantage or reason why a modeler would want to build a model in component/group pieces verses making each piece a group/component and then adding onto the model as the build it.
-
If you have only got 1 instance of something, then there's no advantage in making it a component rather than a group. Components come into their own when there are multiple instances of them.
Generally speaking, the fewer groups and components the cpu has to open, the more efficient the model will be on screen....even though this might result in a slightly larger file size.
Quite often, I make groups to prevent geometry sticking together during construction...while manoeuvering one section up against another etc. However, if that geometry, when complete, forms part of a single section of the model which doesn't need any further editing, I'll probably then explode the constituent groups and regroup them into a single group or component. In that way I avoid having too many levels of unnecessary sub-groups. -
@alan fraser said:
If you have only got 1 instance of something, then there's no advantage in making it a component rather than a group. Components come into their own when there are multiple instances of them.
Generally speaking, the fewer groups and components the cpu has to open, the more efficient the model will be on screen....even though this might result in a slightly larger file size.
Quite often, I make groups to prevent geometry sticking together during construction...while manoeuvering one section up against another etc. However, if that geometry, when complete, forms part of a single section of the model which doesn't need any further editing, I'll probably then explode the constituent groups and regroup them into a single group or component. In that way I avoid having too many levels of unnecessary sub-groups.that explained a lot
-
hi Tekkybot,
I think it really depends on what you prefer. I am definitely one who creates too many groups than sensible.
as Alan said, you mainly use groups to seperate geometry (prevent it from sticking together) and for easier selection. I normally try to group geometry like in real life - if I have two pieces of wood, these will be two seperate groups. a nail keeping them together will be a seperate group again...
of course grouping allways has it's atvantages and disadvantages.
let me explain how I would proceed in a model with the above example:
-
the house is a seperate group of course, like that I am not in danger of selecting any bits of it, when trying to highlight the table
-
the table is a component (because it is likely that I will reuse the table in the model lateron...)
-
the table top is a seperate group and the table legs are components (remember: repetition of the same element - components keep the file size down)
-
the vase on the table is a component (again: I may want to reuse this one in the model)
-
I put the table and the vase into a group. why? because if I now move it, the vase will stay on top of the table. this group is definitely arguable, because it is not too much effort to select vase + table manually and the model may become a bit confusing.
with such a structured model it is very easy to select only the parts, that I really want to change. the danger of selecting geometry behind the object of interest is small.
but what if I want to stretch the table a bit?
first I have to enter the table/vase group. then I have to double-click the table component. then I can move the two table legs. and finally I have to enter the table top group to alter its proportions.
if I hadn't put the table top in a seperate group, I could have selected and moved both desk top and legs at the same time.in such situations you have to choose, whether you want a extremely structured model of a more practical one. Alan's approach of reducing the number of groups will be more practical. my approach of seperating everything gives you peace of mind
unfortunately a global selection function does not exist. I suggested it once , but not many people seem to share my wish for such a tool.so my advice. better greate one group more than necessary and explode it again later, when you are sure you don't need it.
-
Advertisement