Obsessive or Laid Back?
-
I have to watch myself closely or I'll be erasing intersection lines on the backside of fascia trim...though I suppose they would be visible in a view from the inside through a window looking up :`)
-
I recognize the syndrome. It also plagues me with CAD applications.
On the other hand, if I leave the sloppy bits, it usually is certain that I will shortly have to make some modifications to my original design, that the small errors make a hell to carry out.
Anssi
-
I think I am Both.
The first one sort of goes with the territory, and the second one comes with experience. I must admit that sometimes I get carried away cleaning up messes. Some of the Architects I work with hesitate to have me model something for them because they know I will find everywhere their drawings aren't coordinated. I hate getting partial models to work from any more - I only want to receive clean 2d (coordinated) autocad files to work from, or better yet hand sketches.
Bytor
-
I'm just a hobbyist putting the odd model up on 3DW now and then. Generally just play about with SU though. For my last model of Stamford Bridge http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=afe2980d2dcec9b4583012841e4379c7 I found myself spending so much time on the model that it was stupid. I then just decided not to finish it properly, but pretty much bodged it and chucked it on 3DW to get it over with.
The obsessive part of me wants to work on it some more to sort out the rough parts, but the laid back part of me is fine to just leave it as it is.
-
I am definitely an obsessive one.
well, it changes, when I approach a deadline and have to get some nice pictures as quick as possible. then my accuracy suffers gravely. but afterwards, normally on frieday afternoons, I am cleaning up everything, structuring the layers anew, purging unused components and colours, properly naming scenes, layers, colours, components (and - if I get really obsessed - hundrets of groups
).I think on long term it is absolutely necessary to be a bit obsessive (accurate). otherwise you will spend at least as much time dealing with problems that arise from an imprecise model
-
@plot-paris said:
I think on long term it is absolutely necessary to be a bit obsessive (accurate). otherwise you will spend at least as much time dealing with problems that arise from an imprecise model
That depends on what you use the model for. If you import it into a CAD application then I agree, if you just use the model as a communication tool then no, I don't agree. However it is good practise to model as accurately as possible.
-
When I start modeling something I still never know how much detailed that work will be. If I model in a sloppy way and in the meanwhile start going into the details I may end up with a model that needs much more work than if I do it precisely from the beginning. If all measurements are accurate and modeling is correct, my job will be way easier at the end.
My biggest project (that medieval reconstruction of my town) taught me some really good lessons on the must to be as organbised and accurate with complex models as possible.
-
I'm certainly on the obsessive side of the scale. I too will find myself cleaning up unneeded lines from the back of the fascia trims drip edge. I just like detail and enjoy seeing it.
One thing about it that I've realized is I've always kept the 'profiles' display feature turned off. In contrast, a guy I work with has always had them on. He rarely adds any details -- his focus in modelling is limited to massing the design out. My thought is those profiles very much effect how you perceive your model. If he adds too much detail the profiles punish him with blobs. If he keeps it really simple the profiles reward him. For me with them off, I'm rewarded (by the model looking better) when I add more & more detail. I think we get affected by such things. Our way of seeing the virtual model infront of us is affected by how we've developed our way of working. Each of us experiences a different virtual 'reality' when we look at a model. (I've had clients who can't visualize anything when looking at a model but that's another story).
The other thing about my SketchUpping is I rarely 'finish' a model. I use them for design development and rarely have needed them for any kind of formal presentation. For our uses the models rarely need to be perfect -- just good enough to communicate most of the ideas or to work out a particular challenge. I use SU as a tool in a process where the model itself is rarely the goal. I don't know if that makes any sense?
Regards, Ross
-
Interesting theory about the profiles, Ross. I also keep them off - only turn them on when there is some glitch I have to detect (lines on a surface do not create separate faces for instance and I need to detect the "culprit" lines).
As for finishing (or perfection), well, I have never finished a single model myself. I could still add any details to them - although the projects they were made for are over. I just had to hand in the "result" at a certain stage of modeling due to those dreaded deadlines.
-
Mr. S, your assuming we create models with lines that don't match up to begin with.
I guess I fall into the compulsive category. My schooling and the fact that I've spent a considerable part of my career on construction documents have made me detail-oriented (and I much rather get things worked out on paper before construction starts!). Plus, I spend too much time (in my opinion) correcting others' work, and that has made me cognizant of getting it right to begin with. These factors have carried over into my SU work.
I will add though that I'm aware I sometimes carry my mania for detail too far (no one will notice at the displayed scale that that molding is off!); but usually I go into the details for the challenge.
-
I find im really fastidious about getting clean models, i always find that if i dont bother keeping the model clean i'll always end up going back to clean it up later, as i need to change something.
p.s. (sorry if that doesnt make a lot of sense, im a bit tired and not thinking very straight
) -
Am I OCD?
Yeah you know me.I had a friend ask me in a pinch yesterday to cut arched windows in a circular tower because she could not figure it out. She was on a time crunch so I stepped in.
Not only did I cut the windows in the wall I also cleaned every stray line, made her main building, drive through and the entrance tower components. I also made sure the windows cut openings and were linked. Then I wrote a small essay on tips and tricks for her. And I wonder why I don't have time to learn Podium.
The good thing is she is getting me a gift cert. to Home Depot... new drill here I come
-
As Quality Controller for FF I actually get paid to be obsessive. I can't decide whether that's a good or a bad thing.
When I occasionally find myself spending the best part of an hour tidying up some model bound for the free Exchange, because its author hasn't bothered reading our tips on modelling and presentation, I'm inclined to think it's a bit of both....good for the customers, bad for my marriage.More seriously, I'd say it's a matter of how you channel that obsession. If it's a question of getting rid of stray geometry and optimising the model as far as you can possibly take it...that has to be a good thing...and will probably pay dividends if you need to edit it later, as others have already pointed out.
If on the other hand it's a matter of adding detail (hence model weight) in areas you just know will never be seen...or at least will never bee seen from any distance close enough to matter...that's definitely a bad thing.For instance, I habitually model low poly figures with a simple triangle for an eye. From any distance compatible with the low-poly nature of the figure, this works just fine. It's actually the way I and fellow artists would draw an abreviated version of a face. It's actually hard-wired into our brains to recognise a face from very few visual clues....see below.
However, I have seen freebies of mine used in other models where the person has remodelled the eyes, giving them the full teatment...whites, iris and cornea. Not only does this add substantially to the overall number of faces, but by the time you get close enough to the model's face to notice, it just looks plain weird...huge boggle eyes, like they have some sort of thyroid disorder. It's a step backwards on both counts.
-
@alan fraser said:
However, I have seen freebies of mine used in other models where the person has remodelled the eyes, giving them the full teatment...whites, iris and cornea. Not only does this add substantially to the overall number of faces, but by the time you get close enough to the model's face to notice, it just looks plain weird...huge boggle eyes, like they have some sort of thyroid disorder. It's a step backwards on both counts.
...Unless you use a render engine off course.
To go a little photoreal, a certain level of detail is a benefit. -
Photoreal is something different. I'm not talking higher poly in general, which would obviously be of benefit getting close up in a photoreal render; I'm talking about inappropriate detail in inappropriate places. For instance, in the attached pic, this figure would work reasonably well in a photoreal render, providing it was kept at the intended distance...despite the fact that he has triangular eyes. Modelling a full eyeball with lids on this figure would not make it more photoreal. By the time you got close enough to see them, it would be quite obvious from the rest of the modelling on the head and collar region that it was a low poly figure.
Similarly, with more mechanical stuff, it's not much use modelling the locknuts on a bike saddle in huge detail if you haven't added a sufficient number of segments to the wheels to stop them looking clunky. I'm not against high-poly modelling, but you need to exercise a degree of judgement as to where it is necessary and where not.
-
and thats exactly where my weaknesses are.
I have allways to fight with finding the right level of detail and sticking to it in every bit of the model.
what is the best way to do that anyway?is it better to just model the objects of interest in detail (for example some different options of a rain water pipe) and keep the rest of the model simple?
or (and thats what I am allways trying to achieve - trying, not succeeding
) is it the better way to set a border of detail that you shouldn't undercut, for example objects smaller than 10 cm? -
I'm obsessive, no doubt. But there's a good reason for that: I'm pretty much as sloppy and chaotic as they come. Therefore, if I want to get anything done that doesn't look like a 4 year old produced it, I have to mantain a certain level of discipline.
-
Hi folks.
I am on the obsessive side since I am always telling myself that sometime I might want to add to an existing model and I would prefer to be assured that everything is nice and precise. Otherwise, I would take the risk of drawing something on an inaccurate position and then propagate the error and have to camouflage even more bad geometries.
Just ideas.
Advertisement