Barley Twist Spirals
-
I don't know. I've never worked it that hard. Did you try moving the slider a little?
-
@dave r said:
I don't know. I've never worked it that hard. Did you try moving the slider a little?
Slider??
-
-
check this, and Dave is right, you don't need so much segments in your vertical curves.
You must consider the purpose of creating the model:make a render
creating shape for produtcs
create a catalog of your products for architects....Stay low poly as far as you can, go see to the gallery and you will see impressives models with low poly.
ho ho cross post
-
That did it
Thanks -
@dave r said:
Peter, yes, you can get the intersect but there'll be no faces created, in this case, to terminate the twist geometry.
Take a look at the example.
In the foreground there are two components. I opened the cylinder for editing and performed Intersect Faces>With Model. The faces were intersected and edges were created at the intersection but notice there are no faces in the resulting notch.
In the background, the box is in the same context as the cylinder. After intersection and deleting the waste, there are faces created in the notch.
That's clear Dave. But in this case the faces we want are already formed. By the intersection performed, we don't want faces formed, we just want to create cut along the intersection. Worked fine as in my example.
-
Ta Daaaaaa
I want to say a big thank you to all that helped. I think I finally got it. As it turned out the intersecting was the most difficult for me to get. With the screw plugin there is really not much to it doing the barley twist.
I hadn't learned about resizing to get larger faces before - big plus there. I had to read and re-read Dave and Peter and Gilles post to finally get the intersection part. Thanks all!!
-
Hey! That turned out nice. Good work.
-
Yeah, that's a nice one! Thanks for starting this thread too!
-
@pbacot said:
Yeah, that's a nice one! Thanks for starting this thread too!
+1
Good job, any chance you attach the model?
Just curiosity.
-
-
Thanks for posting that. I see a few issues with it but I expect it'll work for your needs.
There are some missing faces and some unneeded hidden edges.
-
@dave r said:
Thanks for posting that. I see a few issues with it but I expect it'll work for your needs.
There are some missing faces and some unneeded hidden edges.
I just spotted the missing faces and fixed them but what do you mean by unneeded hidden edges. How to avoid them? I scaled up 100 times. Makes me think I should have scaled up more?
-
The unneeded edges I was referring to can be seen if you turn on Hidden Geometry (View menu)
Also more missing faces at the bottom.
If you used components instead of groups you would reduce much of the work needed to draw this. That applies to other things, too.
-
@dave r said:
The unneeded edges I was referring to can be seen if you turn on Hidden Geometry (View menu)
Also more missing faces at the bottom.
[attachment=1:zqm4jyv1]<!-- ia1 -->unneeded.png<!-- ia1 -->[/attachment:zqm4jyv1]
[attachment=0:zqm4jyv1]<!-- ia0 -->unneeded2.png<!-- ia0 -->[/attachment:zqm4jyv1]If you used components instead of groups you would reduce much of the work needed to draw this. That applies to other things, too.
Are you saying that using groups instead of components is the reason for the unneeded edges?
-
No. But when you use groups instead of components and need to edit them, you have to touch every copy of them to make the changes. If you use components you only need to edit to modify all copies. If you look at the twist I posted you'll see it is made of three identical parts. Each is a component so modifications to one will propagate to the others.
You could split the barley twist into smaller identical units to make construction and editing easier and faster. It'll also result in a lower file size.
-
@dave r said:
No. But when you use groups instead of components and need to edit them, you have to touch every copy of them to make the changes. If you use components you only need to edit to modify all copies. If you look at the twist I posted you'll see it is made of three identical parts. Each is a component so modifications to one will propagate to the others.
You could split the barley twist into smaller identical units to make construction and editing easier and faster. It'll also result in a lower file size.
For a two start twist, my workflow was to create a one turn twist, group, hide the edges that would join the copies, copy and rotate 180 degrees, copy those two twist and array upwards. It seems since I have hidden the adjoining lines at first this shouldn't be a problem. (But in fact, I see that the finish model shows even rendered where those hidden lines are.)
I understand the concept of using components and the advantage in terms of editing one propagates to all. My thinking was to edit the group first then copy and avoid "make unique" for the bottom and top since the top and bottom have to be uniquely edited? Is my thinking right here? Am I missing something else? -
My preference would be to make a component from the git go and make the copies. Make Unique is a trivial thing when it comes to that. For a model such as yours, starting with components makes it easier to see how the whole thing is developing as you edit. If something isn't going the way you expect, the earlier you figure that out, the easier it is to back up and fix it.
i started to write more about using components instead of groups but I won't get on my soapbox about that now.
I'll just say I have never once in more than 9 years of using SketchUp found a situation where a group made more sense than a component. -
Here is your model with some corrections and the use of components,note it is 650Kb instead of 1950.
-
@dave r said:
My preference would be to make a component from the git go and make the copies. Make Unique is a trivial thing when it comes to that. For a model such as yours, starting with components makes it easier to see how the whole thing is developing as you edit. If something isn't going the way you expect, the earlier you figure that out, the easier it is to back up and fix it.
i started to write more about using components instead of groups but I won't get on my soapbox about that now.
I'll just say I have never once in more than 9 years of using SketchUp found a situation where a group made more sense than a component.Got it, will do
Thanks
Advertisement