Soft modeling (organic)
-
Well I am sorry it was a bit painful. I was a few years wondering about this stuff without a clue until I was forced into the solid modeling world. For me/us it is about "what you see is not what you get". Although surface models look great it is what you cannot see that is the problem. It is not an easy subject for me but it has become necessary to understand the differences. As you can understand it is not possible to fix something if you cannot see it. For me the whole exercise has been a revelation in my model building career.
-
NOt at all. Im just a dummy when it comes to this stuff.
I do model quite a bit of Drapery as per Solo's technique and then when I have to make it different I use Freescale and/or FFD to reshape the same component. Lots of fun!
The beauty of this particular design is of course all mine.
-
Hebrides, in what way are the meshes inaccurate? I was under the impression every edge was just a vector, and so by joining vectors you made faces. I cant see any inaccuracy in this, although apparently im missing something.
-
oooh! my head hurts now.
feel like I've just taken the red matrix pill and the real hole ridden nasty model behind the SU illusion facade has just been revealed.
-
Solo, I highly enjoyed your plant collection and admire these soft models you are developing, but I look forward even more to your tutorials so I can model my own custom designs. Having that ability would be more valuable to me than purchasing a package of someone else's designs. Plants and trees, on the other hand, are a must!
Thanks again for all your great work
-
I guess I tried a little to hard to explain. This discussion started with, what should I offer as a pack. Since you seem like a serious person and capable of creating some very amazing work it would be to my advantage to have you create, as you say "decent looking models" at the seemingly impossible size I suggest.
You asked how that would be possible and without giving away the proprietary farm I suggested an approach that might be enlightening.- Find yourself a solid modeler
- Create a simple object in Sketchup
- Import it into the solid modeler
- Try to have it verified by the modeler as being solid
It all sounds so obscure. Probably because it hasn't been explored.
Remus you would need to see it to believe it as well. I can't answer your question. I wasn't able to explain in the first place or you wouldn't need to ask. It has been my observation that if you build your models using techniques that satisfy solid model verification, they will perform better in Sketchup and in any other model application environment. They are also easier to convert accurately into other model formatts. I suggest this is worth exploring.
-
hebrides, which solid modeling software would you suggest?
-
-
Hopefully a free one that can open a .stl and verify that it is a solid. I have tried this with other common formats including dfx/drw but the conversion from .skp is such a leaky mess it is not easy to repair. The solid modeler will complain forever about non-primitive elements and intersecting geometry, lines not sharing an even number of faces, The solid modelers will list the primitives and let you inspect/repair/delete/ so that if your import is clean enough you need only to satisfy a few complaints and you have a solid. In a way the solid modeler is teaching you how to connect things so that it can interpret easier. It helps point you to the places in your model where sketchups math doesn't fit well in a solid model scenario. So you go back to the original su model and you insect these areas. Your inability to verify your model as solid may turn out to be the tool that you used to create the shape. Although the tool is effecient in SU, it is just not going to be identified easily by the solid engine. So I am suggesting, with some practice, your models will perform better in SU even though there doesn't appear to be any differences from the original visible mesh or the file size. This is the behaviour I am experiencing. I am building most models that go into production to emulate solid now. Everything works better.
Sorry, forgot: There are tools available if you look, that will convert a .skp to a .stl. The guys in the 3d printing business have them. I suggest this is the best intermediary conversion format I have found to experiment this way. I have to leave finding the solid modeler to you. The one I am currently using is not a matter of choice. It just happens to be in use where I work. It is not free
-
I'm sorry...I have not used a free solid modeler so I can't point you to one. But any CAD capable software makes solids. I would expect there are some free ones.
-
@hebrides said:
I guess I tried a little to hard to explain. This discussion started with, what should I offer as a pack. Since you seem like a serious person and capable of creating some very amazing work it would be to my advantage to have you create, as you say "decent looking models" at the seemingly impossible size I suggest.
You asked how that would be possible and without giving away the proprietary farm I suggested an approach that might be enlightening.- Find yourself a solid modeler
- Create a simple object in Sketchup
- Import it into the solid modeler
- Try to have it verified by the modeler as being solid
It all sounds so obscure. Probably because it hasn't been explored.
Remus you would need to see it to believe it as well. I can't answer your question. I wasn't able to explain in the first place or you wouldn't need to ask. It has been my observation that if you build your models using techniques that satisfy solid model verification, they will perform better in Sketchup and in any other model application environment. They are also easier to convert accurately into other model formatts. I suggest this is worth exploring.
I take it that the problems stems from SU's problems with generating faces that's smaller than 1mm leaving tiny gaps which is very hard to spot by eye and impossible to close unless you scale it up by 100 then down again?
-
i think its more to do with SUs inability to create watertight meshes, as these are what would be needed or a solid modeller.
Hebrides, surely importing poly objects in to a solid modeller is a very inefficient way of doing things, as your going to have way more faces than you need in your solid modeller.
-
Surely the time it takes to create anything more complicated than a box with the line tool is huge, though.
Is there really that much of a performance increase to warrant spending hours building the model in the first place?
-
@unknownuser said:
i think its more to do with SUs inability to create watertight meshes, as these are what would be needed or a solid modeller.
I'm saying SU can create watertight models. I am building them and they are more efficient in SU.
@unknownuser said:
Hebrides, surely importing poly objects in to a solid modeller is a very inefficient way of doing things, as your going to have way more faces than you need in your solid modeller.
Of course but, doing what? It happens to be the best method I have found for determining how good the SU mesh really is. It is the most efficient way to improve an SU model that is already well made.
-
It depends on how the models are deployed. It is painful as a modeling process but gratifying in the end to have models that can easily be used for many purposes in and outside sketchup. In the end it does make a big difference within Sketchup in both model navigation and appearance. They also behave better in a renderer as they are watertight. As a side to this you are forced to work at a slower and more considered approach to everything and it is true, "haste makes waste".
I think solo may feel I have trampled his post so I will leave it with you to ponder.
-
i love the way you presented a peek on how you model organic shapes.. love it solo/
Advertisement