Jump to content

low-poly version of cylindrical object


Go to solution Solved by Cerbera,

Recommended Posts

Low poly models usually dont go hand in hand with subdivision generators. Low poly models can be mix of quads or triangles. Really depends where you wanna use use this model and for what?

If you would have some sort of reference of this model we might help you out, right now we have no clear picture of the object you wanna create.

Link to comment

That shape cannot be made that low poly. The very nature of it requires more polys than you have in your base mesh - because you have very little control of how the rounding happens with this few of them. Also as Igor says, this is a flawed workflow, as you shouldn't be using SDS in a low poly model anyway...

 

CBR

 

Link to comment

Thank you for your replies.

 

Guess I wasn't clear when I said "low poly". 🙂


I want to use SDS, I just want to experiment with the base mesh and optimise it to have the lowest poly count necessary.

 

But as you guys said, it can't be made that low poly.

 

Trying to understand balance and what's enough :)

original-base_mesh.png

low-poly-base_mesh.png

Link to comment

Well, you need to be more precise and tell us what exactly you want to accomplish with this particular model. Low poly means little to us. If you want to use SDS then its not low poly, if you want to use SDS then we need to know how this model should look like to guide you properly, because with SDS topology matters and some rules has to be followed. So my suggestion is to take a real world object and try to recrate it. Then, when you are stuck and not sure how to solve particular problem, you can show us and we can help you.

Link to comment
  • Cerbera changed the title to low-poly version of cylindrical object

If you are doing modelling practice then some additional advice for you...

 

1. This is about the correct amount of polys to make that shape nicely. Any lower, particularly radially, and you will be fighting SDS to retain the final shape you need.

 

image.png.c635aaa401b981a1cdbd0528c58bf36b.png

 

2. You are using chamfer bevels by the looks of it, which isn't perhaps ideal for use with SDS (though can work in some circumstances). That is what the solid mode of of the bevel tool is there for - always try that first when using subdivision as it is designed to imitate / replace the control loops that needs.

 

3. Avoid transitioning bevels to single points elsewhere in the mesh. I can see why you have done it, because you didn't want a crease in your circular base, but that doesn't make it give you a nice result ! Actually I would not recommend bevels OR control loops exclusively when you are trying to keep this low poly - do it with manually cut control loops + edge weighting  to help avoid the problems badly terminating control bevels can give you...

 

4. The inner geometry in your central 'capsule' section above is nice in terms of edge flow, but the inner loop is, strictly speaking, and operating with low polyness being a priority, unnecessary because that top part of the surface is fully planar.

 

Hope that helps guide you in the right direction...

 

CBR

Link to comment

Oh, found an additional problem - I think you used the wrong mitering mode in the bevel tool, because you have created triangles and ngons here, which are both cardinal sins if you're using subdivision on curvy surfaces.

 

image.png.203ab6208ca1849f37397680d8a47b3b.png

 

So all this has got to go...

 

CBR

Link to comment
  • Solution

OK, here's some additionals...

 

1. The complex pole on your base is OK, and I can see you have solved most of it to radial kite quads, but it is still a complex pole there, so a nicer solve to quads would be something like this...

 

image.png.f96b0170153df12acea82490de803c2b.png

 

2. Even your 'This is how it should look' model has creasing problems around the area where the capsule joins the cylinder, caused by the elongated kite quads and irregular topology there... Cinema's tolerant SDS tries to save you there, but ultimately can't, because there are not enough radial loops in the base shapes to establish your curvature under it, or to allow deviation from them without being compromised.

 

3. Here is what I would call the 'most ideal' SDS answer here, in so far as we accept that the nicest render result is going to come from not using SDS at all and doing this with Hard Surface techniques instead. But regardless, here is what is possible using edge weighting.

 

317830295_SDSedgeweightingvscontrols1.jpg.04d7d8c1c4705982b783b4dcf775aa10.jpg

 

But 2 disadvantages here - firstly this transition here... which is better than in your original, but still not perfection...

 

image.png.365a135e9f961776298319e03edff6af.png

 

...and secondly, we have had to step up to SDS L4 or even 5 to get that tight a crease using edge weighting, and of course that rather defeats the point of trying to make it low poly, as does SDS in general !!

 

So in summary, and putting aside that you are using this for SDS modelling practice, this form is best achieved without SDS at all, and it should be of equal value to you to know when to use SDS or not as it is to practice doing it !

 

Hope that helps...

 

CBR

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • LATEST ACTIVITIES

    1. 7

      CORE 4D Youtube channel

    2. 7

      Draw primitives on surface of existing objects?

    3. 0

      Nodes Modifier result isn't updated anymore

    4. 220

      Scene Nodes | Capsules file pit

    5. 3

      Flipped clones in multi-segments curve

×
×
  • Create New...

Copyright Core 4D © 2023 Powered by Invision Community