/3/ - 3DCG

[3D modeling test No.554588]

very curious to see how many of you can actually create this shape.

[Anonymous No.554589]

very curious to hear why you think anybody cares whether you know we can create that shape or not.

[Anonymous No.554591]

Sort of, but I think I did it in a really obtuse way.

How'd you do it?

[Anonymous No.554592]

>>554589

because 3 of my friends who are 3D artists (hobbyists) couldn't fire out how to make it, so i thought id see how many people actually know how to do it. am i under arrest, officer?

[Anonymous No.554593]

literally just booleans

[Anonymous No.554594]

[Anonymous No.554598]

is this a retard test?

[Anonymous No.554599]

[Anonymous No.554600]

>>554588
>>554589
>>554591
>>554593
>>554594
>>554598

Clean up those bevels you amateur fucks

[Anonymous No.554601]

>>554599

[Anonymous No.554602]

>>554600
this is an excellent meme sir

[Anonymous No.554603]

80% of you idiots failed the test,

>>554601
Ngons bro

[Anonymous No.554604]

>>554601

haha get fucked, you cant make the shape and ignore edgeflow

[Anonymous No.554605]

>>554601
seeing this i want to the rest of your guyses wireframes, i bet non of you got it right, seeing as its all fucked looking.

[Anonymous No.554606]

>>554603
what test? your friends wanted to make a hammer and they couldn't so you bragged about it.
big deal senpai

[Anonymous No.554607]

>>554603

notice me senpai

[Anonymous No.554608]

Ha, amateurs

[Anonymous No.554609]

>>554601
>>554599

[Anonymous No.554610]

>>554592
They cant create a circle and a square and loft them, then extrude the square border? Must be retarded.

[Anonymous No.554611]

>>554603
>>554604
fixed it. your right.

[Anonymous No.554612]

>>554609

better, still wrong, still an ngon

[Anonymous No.554613]

>>554609
now you have triangles and it dosnt smooth right, still wrong

[Anonymous No.554614]

>>554608

nice hard edges senpai

[Anonymous No.554615]

>>554608
should have more topology but should also add creases too

[Anonymous No.554616]

god you guys are bad at this

[Anonymous No.554617]

>>554612
ngons are okay, as long as they don't affect anything.

>>554613
no tris idiot. smooths just fine.

[Anonymous No.554618]

>>554614
Oh no

>>554615
But that would be actually doing work...

[Anonymous No.554619]

>>554618
op's wire probably looks like shit

[Anonymous No.554620]

>>554617
>ngons are okay, as long as they don't affect anything.

lol fuckng idiot

also, you still did it wrong, keep trying

[Anonymous No.554621]

I could probably sell this on Renderotica.

[Anonymous No.554623]

>>554620
it's not 1999 any more. n gons are fine.

okay i fixed it. as you can see, the circular part is longer now.

[Anonymous No.554624]

>>554623
Unless you want to subdivide, in which case edges can form in unexpected paths.

But if that doesn't happen then there's no reason to change it.

[Anonymous No.554625]

>>554624
exactly. the cap on the circle sub divides just fine.

[Anonymous No.554626]

There's nothing wrong with fucking n-gons in the base mesh if you're going to subdivide. Subidivision turns everything into quads anyway.

That being siad, here's an all quads version.

[Anonymous No.554628]

>>554626

its so much prettier though. its not like its more work to make a nice quad mesh and you will never have issues.

[Anonymous No.554629]

>>554626
so that's how you do it.

was wondering why i couldn't get a sharp edge where the two forms meet.

[Anonymous No.554630]

>>554628
it's prettier because his edge flow is correct.

not because the fucking cap on the the cylinder is all quads.

[Anonymous No.554631]

>>554630

was being sarcastic but sure

[Anonymous No.554632]

>>554626
>Subidivision turns everything into quads anyway.
The issue isn't simply having quads, it's having quads with proper edge flow. You can't be sure how it's going to dissect an ngon, other than it's going to be ugly as well as problematic if you decide to add to the mesh later on, making it a bad practice to adopt. A bad practice with an exceptionally easy fix by the way.

Also, you've posted what might be the only situation in which subdivision doesn't turn everything into quads: triangle fans.

So if you don't want pic related, you'll have to spend one second of your time and use grid fill.

[Anonymous No.554634]

>>554612
any retard can merge those verts to a point, or quadrulate that face. It's a flat surface; having an ngon there is fine. Your autism is showing anon. I know you think you're hot shit for creating this shape, but you aren't.

[Anonymous No.554635]

>>554588
Well, how do I make it in C4D?

[Anonymous No.554636]

>>554588

Your move senpai

[Anonymous No.554637]

it took like 20-30 min to figure it out...first i tried to use curves and bevel objects but that didn't work...then i did subdivision surface modifier and bevel and that did. i couldn't remember how to use creases though that seems the best way

[Anonymous No.554638]

>>554588

[Anonymous No.554640]

There it is

[Anonymous No.554642]

[Anonymous No.554643]

>>554632
Don't listen to this retard. Ngons are perfectly acceptable on flat surfaces and work well in this area. It's a way of saving time and not having to worry about topology when it doesn't really matter at the highpoly stage. The only valid argument this anon has is that ngons do not work well on curved surfaces and animated polys. Other than that an ngon will be fine, and the end result is ultimately what matters. Nothing is wrong with having well craft topology, however in the real world no one really gives a shit about ngons and won't care if your highpoly contains them, as long as they don't hinder the final result. If you take nothing away from this except one tip, utilize ngons on flat surfaces that won't be animated and you'll be fine.

[Anonymous No.554644]

>>554588
This is a joke, right?

[Anonymous No.554645]

I basically just bridged a cube and a cylinder and then cleaned it up. was there a better way to do this?

[Anonymous No.554647]

>>554632
Obviously n-gons are gonna cause problems on curved surfaces. But on perfectly flat faces? Nobody gives a shit.

[Anonymous No.554649]

>>554645

[Anonymous No.554651]

>>554649
that makes sense and is a good deal cleaner than what I went through. Thank you.

[Anonymous No.554652]

>>554649

[Anonymous No.554653]

>>554652
Interesting idea but I'll pass. Is RoundedEdge working better in Modo now though? I remember seeing its technique being the furthest along with Maya after it.

[Anonymous No.554654]

>>554632
>Also, you've posted what might be the only situation in which subdivision doesn't turn everything into quads: triangle fans.

What are you talking about? My mesh is all quads before and after subdivision.

Also, Catmull Clark subdivision will always result in an all quad mesh. Those triangular artifacts in the subdivided mesh aren't due to the presence of actual triangles, but because some of the resulting quads are stretched to hell and back.

[Anonymous No.554655]

>mUH ALL QUADS MUH TOPOLOGY MUH NGONS UUUUHHH

autistic for the sake of being autistic.
Topology for non-deforming hard surfaces does not matter.
see: literally every game model with floating geometry.

[Anonymous No.554689]

>>554655
you can do it both ways, no one gives a shit.

but you should explore all the tools

[Anonymous No.554690]

blender has a circle function making it easy.

[Anonymous No.554698]

>>554655
Did you completely miss this? >>554632 Maybe for surfaces with no subdivision you can get away with whatever topology but why not spare yourself the potential problems and do it right?

[Anonymous No.554700]

>>554698
Why do it right when I can spout memes all day and refuse to improve my skill set?

[Anonymous No.554701]

>>554700
beats me man, do whatever feels right

[Anonymous No.554704]

>>554698
within reason, obviously.

as long as it looks good, who fucking cares.
you shouldn't fix your topology just because your autism compels you to needlessly make everything a quad. You should fix your topology when you need to fix your fucking topology because it's causing issues.

[Anonymous No.554709]

>>554704
just let the autists do there thing man, there's no convincing them.

[Anonymous No.554741]

this is some easy baby shit lmao

[Anonymous No.554793]

[Anonymous No.554795]

>>554698
Did you completely miss that the post you're referring to is full of shit? As pointed out by >>554654 , whoever wrote it has no idea of how subdivision works.

[Anonymous No.554807]

I'll bite.

Quite literally as simple as making a cube, inset one of the faces, extrude it, set the smoothing group of the extruded sides the same as the original face they're extruded from and turbosmooth with smoothing groups on.

[Anonymous No.554808]

>>554588
really makes you think

[Anonymous No.554822]

>>554793
Just what i'd expect from a Blenderfag.

[Anonymous No.554882]

>>554635
C4Dfag checking in. Here you go.

[Anonymous No.554896]

>>554652
Gooch shader is weird.

>>554653
He's just creasing subD's.
And yes, RES is way easier to work with in Modo, especially for baking it down on lopoly's. I can't imagine how shitty it is for Maya users.

[Anonymous No.554900]

>>554896
I know what he's doing, but he's doing it wrong. I utilize OpenSub in 3DS all the time, however he's messing it up.

[Anonymous No.554906]

>>554588
rhino3d. my autism quota for the day has been met

[Anonymous No.554907]

>>554906
careful not to cut yourself on those sharp edges

[Anonymous No.554931]

>>554907
>anon forgot to press the bevel button
>better make some autistic, snide comment and pretend he's failed MyTest

[Anonymous No.554937]

>>554931
careful not to cut yourself on that edge

[Anonymous No.554991]

>>554808
tfw no one comments on your work

[Anonymous No.554999]

>>554588
Poly modelling this shit results in a one million poly object.
Surface path model is less alike to the original, but it renders with only 20.000 poly.
I´m not wasting my time optimizing this, but i think the polished final object would have around 40.000 poly or less, with round edges and everything.

[Anonymous No.555000]

good enough

[Anonymous No.555004]

[Anonymous No.555028]

[Anonymous No.555039]

>>555028
Using Zbrush to solve this shape is like cheating.

[Anonymous No.555041]

>>554999
There is no way it should take a million polys. you must be doing some ridiculous method.

[Anonymous No.555047]

>>555041
It's called high poly.

[Anonymous No.555051]

>>554588

[Anonymous No.555055]

>>555047
See >>554999
>Poly modelling this shit results in a one million poly object.

Where does 'high poly' come into it? it doesn't have to be high poly; that's the point made by >>555041

[Anonymous No.555056]

>>555051
MODS

[Anonymous No.555060]

[Anonymous No.555065]

>>555039
Why is this a fucking cheating?
or you just don't know shit anout zbrush and think I sculpted it... which is dumb when you are doing shape like this
and I did same fucking steps in maya

[Anonymous No.555066]

>>555065
>>555039
here is maya version

[Anonymous No.555068]

>>554588
so what so hard about this?
you can solve edge bevels any way you want, but bridging 2 shapes together is just 1 button press process
fucking literally 1 button

[Anonymous No.555073]

>>555068
You did it wrong.

[Anonymous No.555076]

>>555073
No it's just erect.

[Anonymous No.555086]

>>555073
>identical topology
>You did it wrong
KYS

[Anonymous No.555105]

Do i get extra special-snowflake-autism-points for doing it in Houdini?

[Anonymous No.555122]

>>555076
Yes, it is a very horny box.

>>555086
It's definitely not identical topology. You fucked up super hard and did not emulate his topology correctly. You are missing correct edges around the curves from the circle to the box. You just don't have an eye for this shit breh.

[Anonymous No.555130]

[Anonymous No.555136]

>>555004
This is painful

[Anonymous No.555137]

>>555130
i fucking hate dogs

[Anonymous No.555179]

>>555068
>he does it by bridging
you're not autistic enough, you've failed the test.

[Anonymous No.555192]

>>555065
>Doing it wrong even in Zbrush
Your shape is completely round in the corners.
They´re slightly round, almost sharp in OP image.
You lost.

[Anonymous No.555198]

how do i make this a circle?

[Anonymous No.555230]

This is fucking great. It's astonishing how many people failed this relatively simple task. We need more threads like this.

[Anonymous No.555232]

>>555198
W->Loop Tools->Circle

[Anonymous No.555233]

i pooped and then farded

[Anonymous No.555240]

did i do it good?

[Anonymous No.555242]

>>555240
You need edges going to the corners. Wait, what the fuck is going on with that cylinder?

[Anonymous No.555250]

>Not making it fuckable
Why did you even learn 3D?

[Anonymous No.555251]

this thread is just emberssing.

some fuckwad is bragging about making an ugly fucking box instead of actual complex shapes.
get real /3/

[Anonymous No.555254]

>>555251
if it was complex no one would do it

[Anonymous No.555259]

>>555251
way to completely miss the point.

[Anonymous No.555261]

OP is KC tyre and it was on KC yesterday

[Anonymous No.555262]

wasn t that hard

[Anonymous No.555268]

>>555261
what is kc?

[Anonymous No.555273]

>>555261
It's still up

[Anonymous No.555280]

>>554588
Too ez anon.

[Anonymous No.555291]

>>555242
you tell me

[Anonymous No.555310]

>>554808
COMMENT ON MY WORK. I HAVE THE BEST MODEL IN THIS THREAD. ASK ME HOW I DID IT. CMON /3/.

[Anonymous No.555313]

>>555310
That is because this entire thread is bait.

But 4 u, it not bad. I'll bite.
How did you do it

[Anonymous No.555322]

>>555313
cube, inset, extrude, loop cuts horizontally and vertically on the extruded part, select the faces, 'to sphere', subdivide 2-3 times. loop cut to define the edges, use mean crease on the original cube's edges, then touch up the part connecting to the cube using loop cuts and scaling. I'm a beginner but I let my autism run wild on this one.

[Anonymous No.555332]

>>555291
jfc
My guess is that you dynameshed together a cylinder and cube in Zbrush, and then you proceeded to use the Zremesher, correct?

Zremesher has done nothing but give me spiral topology of the times I've used it. It's a little cunt.

[Anonymous No.555333]

>>555332
topology does.not.matta

[Anonymous No.555339]

>>555332
nah. i just made the shape and then retopologized. i thought more people would respond to my shitpost, but i guess not.

[Anonymous No.555348]

>>555339
> i thought more people would respond to my shitpost, but i guess not.

jeeeez people are fucking desperate

[Anonymous No.555349]

And they're all quads.

[Anonymous No.555356]

>>555348
it's a slow board, i get bored sometimes

[Anonymous No.555357]

>>555066
>plane handles

[Anonymous No.555361]

>>554603
>>554620
>>554623
>>554632
>>554655

Ngons break certain tools in maya.
In some situations, you may want to do that.

[Anonymous No.555497]

[Anonymous No.555502]

Like this, right?

[Anonymous No.555518]

>>554588

you serious? you didn't even specify a program or a method. that's easy as hell to sculpt.

[Anonymous No.555531]

>>555502
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODS!

[Anonymous No.555532]

Reminder that this thread was made by an /agdg/ shitposter from /vg/. He's a Blender newfag and wanted to show off.

[Anonymous No.555538]

>>555532
kek, you think op is "showing off"?

he was obviously making a point about how most of /3/ is pathetic and can't handle mundane modeling tasks, and this thread proved him completely right.

[Anonymous No.555559]

>>555538
to be fair if they kept on attempting to work out solutions to basic modelling problems they'd get quite proficient given a year or so

[Anonymous No.555563]

>>555538
Most of the people posting models in this thread made the shape, but OP is autistically pedantic and thinks people have failed because they haven't obeyed his undefined arbitrary restrictions on topology.
Then again, anybody bothering to take OPs 'test' because they think it's even remotely challenging is probably doomed to fail.

[Anonymous No.555568]

>>555563
I think that's a little unfair, good topology is good practice and a lot of people in the thread clearly hadn't compared their shape to the reference because they were very different looking, which is also an important skill.

[Anonymous No.555569]

>>555563
spergy debates over topology happen in every /3/ thread. just ignore them.

what made this challenge interesting is how a whole bunch of the people DIDN'T get the shape right. the assignment wasn't "connect a circle to a square," but that's how a lot of people interpreted it, and they ended up with a transition that looked very different from OP.

a couple of the ones that were waaay off were probably (hopefully) trolling, but plenty of people were like "heh, simple" and slapped something together and uploaded without looking at the OP's example closely enough to realize that their method did not yield matching results.

Attention to detail matters if you're trying to make shit look realistic, and a bunch of people in this thread blew it.

[Anonymous No.555570]

>>555559
sure, I agree. I don't fault the real beginners here for fucking this up and needing pointers, because it's slightly trickier than it looks.

the ones I'm scoffing at are the smug posters who thought they knew what they we're doing, but got it wrong and posted their results anyway believing they nailed it.

[Anonymous No.555571]

>>555569
yeah this is the main issue

[Anonymous No.555587]

>>555569
For one, I HIGHLY doubt half this thread is serious. See >>555502. Or just being "creatively funny" >>555497.

But you're blatantly wrong about how people took OP's post and just got it wrong. OP WASN'T specific. At all. All he said was, and I quote "make this shape". And down to the fundamentals that a image recreated virtually makes it 2D, nearly all of the models here are correctly done. If the point was "make it 100% accurate to the original" then people did fuck up. But OP never made that clear. Period.

TL;DR: This is just a bait thread so don't be so critical of how people do this task. It's honestly interesting how people go about this and bring out a result, whether how accurate it is.

[Anonymous No.555589]

>>555569
fuck off retard.

this isn't about who makes the most gorgeous piece of shit. it was a nice little challenge and now its over.
i made a challenge for people to model an rpg-7 and only 2-3 people actually did it. you know why? because people are fucking lazy. so they rather make a cube that have a dick coming out of it than actual practical model.
don't try to get philosophical on how a piece of shit should be made.

[Anonymous No.555595]

>>555589
I never saw your challenge, but even if I had I wouldn't participate because I'm not an autistic /k/ weirdo who obsesses over military bullshit.

[Anonymous No.555596]

>>555587
>OP says "Create this shape! :)"
>provides very clear sample image
>a bunch of /3/ hacks reply with poorly crafted models that don't match the sample
>people point out the differences
>"OP WASN'T SPECIFIC REEEEEEEE"

[Anonymous No.555602]

>>555596
You should learn how to read. Create /= replicate.
If OP wasn't trying to bait, he'd actually mention from the start "remake this shape the correct way". Which makes it personal gain than, since we don't even know "the correct way" when it could be just his opinion on how to do it projecting as fact.

[Anonymous No.555606]

>>555602
why are you this buttfrustrated over the fact that you failed an anonymous challenge to make a box with a round protrusion?

you can always go back and redo your model and make it the right way this time and try posting it again if you need vindication and validation so badly. don't worry, your secret is safe with me.

[Anonymous No.555607]

>>555595
not about military bullshit. you clearly didn't read my post

[Anonymous No.555608]

>>555606
I haven't made a model post, I just join the thread only a hour ago. I'm just saying what the other anon said wasn't justified to determine the state of the thread's credibility. I've seen threads like this in /ic/ too btw, it's the same shit; bait.

I'm just pointing out there was nothing stated by OP that the image MUST be recreated identically (to the same practices that went into making OP's pic), "just make the shape" (very vague.).

[Anonymous No.555610]

>>555497
I like this. A lot.

[Anonymous No.555632]

>>555569
This is 100% correct. Most people who posted here got the shape wrong. It was literally recreate this shape, and most /3/ users failed. OP wasn't being arrogant, it was just a recreation test - and the majority of /3/ failed. Those who recreate funny and purposely messed up tributes are fine, and never gave a fuck in the first place. But the ones who are bitching that this isn't true are the ones who failed the test and it's hilarious.

[Anonymous No.555647]

>>555610
thanks

[Anonymous No.555661]

>>555589
> so they rather make a cube that have a dick coming out of it than actual practical model

Hey now,
leave my dickcube alone. He's a shy guy.

No one cared about your rpg challenge because this isn't Reddit, we're not here to make everyone feel good and get better, we just exist.
That, and it's more or less just an extruded and textured cylinder. I'm pretty sure that's what people said as well.

People do challenges here, just not yours.
I remember people doing the spray bottle one and chair, fuck, a lot of people did them.
Don't even get me started on the duks :^)

[Anonymous No.555678]

>>555607
what are you talking about? are you so autistic that you don't consider a goddamn grenade launcher to be "military bullshit"?

maybe you consider an RPG to be a "practical model" but not all of us have lives that revolve around war simulation video games and collecting assault weapons. Your challenge didn't fail because people are lazy, it failed because it's a stupid idea targeting neckbeard weirdos.

[Anonymous No.555683]

>>554588
Hi, i'm new to /3/
How do i make a box in blender?
:^(

[Anonymous No.555698]

so

how do you do it?

[Anonymous No.555711]

>>555661
>>555678
>model a victorian chair
THIS ISN'T THE 19TH CENTURY GET AHEAD WITH THE TIMES NERD HAHAHA :)))
>model a power drill
WOW SO BORING. CAN I MODEL DICKS INSTEAD :DDD?
>model an rpg-7
REDDIT REDDIT PANTS ON FIRE! Xddd OMG PEW PEW PEW /K/ ON FULL DMG CONTROL TEHHEEE

you are unbelievably lazy, slap yourself for me you spastic little fucks

[Anonymous No.555712]

>>555711
>slap yourself for me
too lazy

[Anonymous No.555761]

I cant into mesh

[Anonymous No.555762]

>>555712

this is a fresh comment to say i did a laugh. ha

[Anonymous No.555819]

>>555683
open the program

done

[Anonymous No.555845]

>>555322
>all those extra steps
>that destructive workflow
>"best"

The best (Blender) method was posted by >>554608 >>554615 and >>554689 (not sure if all the same person but whatever) using Modifiers

That way if OP, or a client, says "no no you need to increase the bevel on the cube part!" or "I want the union where the cylinder meets the cube to be consummate! CONSUMMATE!" then you can adjust it easily and then revert it when they inevitably say they liked it the first way better

[Anonymous No.555855]

>>555711
>lazy

Shitposting is a full time job fuckface.

[Anonymous No.555863]

[Anonymous No.555887]

>>555711
>issue a boring challenge straight out of some 3d modeling blog
>no one fucking cares
>stumble upon a meme challenge of extreme aesthete
>tor frick probably posted in this thread

That's how it works, fag.

[Anonymous No.555912]

>>555855
>shitposting is a fulltime job
>HEHE IRONY IS MY MASK AND LOGIC IS MY ARCH ENEMY >:))

[Anonymous No.555913]

Read half the autism in this thread - I don't get what's difficult about this shape. I also don't get why people resort to boolean'ing something so simple

[Anonymous No.555944]

>>555913
Ooo does that mean Google? Omg .. . . .

[Anonymous No.555951]

>>555678
>open carry bubba'd SKS

Don't worry friend, the guys in your picture aren't accepted in the gun community either

[Anonymous No.555953]

>>555887
Apply boob physics to this.

[Anonymous No.555960]

[Anonymous No.555961]

>>555913
God, something about the smooth bevels and high reflectivity and warm lighting makes this so appealing. I want to lick it.

[Anonymous No.555963]

>>554626
All quads is a beautiful thing

[Anonymous No.556036]

>>555961

its very lickable. the high spec/gloss allows you to see if you got any bad shading/pinching. i always work like that

[Anonymous No.556084]

>>555960
I had a kek. Thanks anon.

[Anonymous No.556104]

>>555711
Creating all three things you mentioned take time. A retarded duck, windex bottle, and autismcube take little to no time. I'm not spending my own time creating things I don't give a shit about, especially since I have my own work to do. Threads like this stick out because they're simple, fast, easy. The inverse here is that on Polycount the sense of community is much deeper, and as such the challenges work because of the mentality. Not to mention so many beginning/intermediate artists post there for the sole reason to be critiqued and to get better. Prizes, professional critiques, the enjoyment of a knowledgable community are all things that make the real challenges work on Polycount. You get decent critiscm, memes, Blender shitposting, and the occasional on /3/ - Your challenges does not work here.

[Anonymous No.556154]

>>555960

[Anonymous No.556156]

>>554588
nani?

[Anonymous No.556272]

all quads

[Anonymous No.556280]

>>555960

[Anonymous No.556284]

>>556104
i would take your comment seriously if the challenge had any substance or purpose. but its just some odd shape.
i know its a meme community but being a memer does not equate acting like a 5yr old

[Mr Anonymous No.556285]

this was my best attempt

[Anonymous No.556288]

Was this supposed to be a challenge?

[Anonymous No.556289]

>>556288
yes, and you fucked up

[Mr Anonymous No.556290]

>>556288
oh, good point

[Anonymous No.556291]

>>556289
How?

[Anonymous No.556293]

>>556288
Another version, same idea. Easy shit. All depends on how round the bevel is supposed to be.

[Anonymous No.556295]

[Anonymous No.556303]

>>556289
Now I see what you wanted.

[Anonymous No.556427]

>>556295
Let that fucking cylinder out man.
It's gonna suffocate in that rubber prison.

[Anonymous No.556494]

>>556427
nope

[Anonymous No.556504]

>>556494
This pleases my autism

[Anonymous No.556519]

For a second I thought I'd give it a shot, might be tricky.

Well.. 5 minutes later.

[Anonymous No.556521]

>>556519
welp, I actually learned something here.
Using the bevel modifier is a lot better than beveling it manually.

See, even a novice can do it.

[Anonymous No.556533]

>>556494
>tfw you're so deprived of oxygen you become a 4 dimensional being

[Anonymous No.556551]

>>554588

[Anonymous No.556561]

>>556551

[Anonymous No.556592]

>>556561
fuckin saved

[Anonymous No.556597]

>>556284
This "challenge" has purpose as it's highlighting /3/s incompetence. Aside from the joke and meme cubecylinders, many, many people failed here. What is good here however, is that many beginner-intermediate users have learned more about topology, as witnessed by the corrections being made from various anons. Again, your challenges were asking for something that requires some time to do. /3/ is not really the place for organized scheduled challenges of grenade launchers, chairs, and drills. Like I said I think you're just angry because /3/ rejected your threads and now you see a very successful one here of a simplistic cubecylinder and you're annoyed by the 4chan mentality.

Go to Polycount if it bugs you so much.

[Anonymous No.556601]

>all this arguing
how about this, op makes a post pointing out each post that failed, pointing out each post that succeeded, and pointing out the correct method to create that shape.

show us that topology op!

[Anonymous No.556605]

>>556561
god, I fucking love this thread

[Anonymous No.556622]

>>556561
first /3/ OC meme ?

[Anonymous No.556624]

>>556597
i should point out, all 3d takes time. if you don't take time to make good models then this is what you are going to make.
so what you are saying basically is that people aren't willing to put time into 3d which is understandable. not offended by this criticism at all. i pretty much nailed this shape the first time since i practice things that are more complex. if you feel like having a noobtrap challenge that its main purpose is to berate people over dumb shit, be my guest

[Anonymous No.556626]

>>556624
I didn't make this thread, I never make threads on /3/ in the first place. I myself also created this shape without a thought as it's very simplistic. However like I said before, the priorities and decisions of /3/ are not the same as you could find on Polycount, and as such it's understandable /3/ would choose to make meme ducks and boxcylinders over creating niche models that don't goad their interest. I'm glad you haven't taken offense, was just trying to point out why this is happening.

[Anonymous No.556663]

>>556622
not even close

[Anonymous No.556739]

>>555863
Kek

[Anonymous No.556741]

>>556663
yeah its the first /3/ OC meme alright

[Anonymous No.556761]

>>555960
You beat me to it

[Anonymous No.556766]

>>556494
YOU MONSTER

[Anonymous No.556767]

>>556295
Not my proudest fap.

[mugenjohncel No.556803]

...my attempt using Sketchup

[Anonymous No.556809]

>>556303
Mmm yess this soothes my topology autism

[Anonymous No.556833]

>>556809
the unnecessary loop in the middle of the box inflames my autism

[Anonymous No.556967]

I'm too lazy to try it, and I'm sure there are better ways since I've only started to learn 3D stuff (in Maya), but I would try overlapping a torus shape with a rectangle, then using the 'difference' tool to eliminate the torus, and see where that would get me.

[Anonymous No.557064]

>>556967
It would probably get you to shit topology

[Anonymous No.557116]

>>556967
>booleans for this
lmao

[Anonymous No.557227]

why would i want to

[Anonymous No.557249]

j

[Anonymous No.557250]

Just use nurbs for the cylinder part, you goofballs. Curves have way more control for doing shapes like these.

[Anonymous No.557290]

>>554588
How'd you get the bevels on the cube so sharp?

[Anonymous No.557291]

>>557290
Nevermind I literally just had to click a box.

[Anonymous No.557297]

>>556622
This started here.
And there was that anime model from 2010 or whatever where the topology matched the reference planes perfectly and looked like a horrible monster in perspective.
And wip enviroment.

[Anonymous No.557319]

>>557297
And the DORF

[Anonymous No.557327]

>>554608
>>554615
>>555845
>>554689
Blender friends, what is this purple line thing? Something new to learn?

[Anonymous No.557377]

>>557327
It's creasing for subdivision. My blender knowledge is rusty since I moved to maya a long time ago, but the way you do it is select verts(?) or edges and hold shift+e and drag. The purple lines store a value between 0 and 1 that tells the first subdiv modifier how much smooth subdivision or hard subdivision there should be for that part of the mesh. It won't give you the same effect as beveling but it can be quite useful for hard surfacing smooth flowing shapes at a low to medium level of detail. Hope that helps.

[Anonymous No.557382]

>>557327
Ctrl E -> 'Edge Bevel Weight'

It's a setting used by the Bevel Modifier

The other one you might see that's green (I think, I don't use the default theme) is Crease which controls how much the Subdivision Surface Modifier works

Very useful for say creating a bevel but with a smoothed transition into another shape

[Anonymous No.557496]

>>554621
As a butt plug for Victoria.

[Anonymous No.558529]

>>554643
What a fucking retard, if you worked for me and i saw an ngon i would fire you and then find and beat the shit out of you anyway

[Anonymous No.558583]

>>554637

Congratulation, you spent all that time proving you might only be slightly retard

[Anonymous No.558584]

what's the easiest way of attaching a 8 sided cirle to a face in maya?
Currently i make the cube, then a 8 sided cylinder.
Delete the sides and top of cylinder
delete the face on cube i want to attach it to.
Split edges on cube so i get 8 sides and bridge cube to cylinder.

Is there a faster and easier way?

[Anonymous No.558585]

>>558529
why u mad bro?
Got raped by a pack of Ngons?

[Anonymous No.558586]

>>555004

I want to believe this was intentional

[Anonymous No.558587]

>>555130

Why does this plug socket have eyes and ears? Is it NSA?

[Anonymous No.558588]

>>555240

I PRESENT TO YOU THE ONE AND ONLY HYPNOCUBE

also known was the spiralsquare

[Anonymous No.558642]

>>554588
Something like this OP?

[Anonymous No.558743]

>>558584
You could use the bridge tool, select both edgeloops-shift+right click- bridge

You could also snap the vertices of the cylinder onto the corresponding verts on the cube, hold down v when moving, then merge the verts into one, select both-shift+right click-merge vertices.

Also make sure to always set your segments to 2 when bevelling, this stops tris appearing in the corners and is better practice

[Anonymous No.558750]

>>555502
I'd suck it. All the way to the vertices.

[Anonymous No.558751]

>>554621
Shit man,what'd you use to do that?

[Anonymous No.558754]

>>555863
love how one of them flies in the camera

[Anonymous No.558759]

>>558642
>trying this hard

[Anonymous No.558790]

>>558759
It took like 30 seconds to make a square, a circle, extrude, boolean, and fillet edge.

[Anonymous No.558803]

>>554588
I learned a lot in this thread as a noob.

Where can I find tutorials and details on good habits to form when you're starting off? I just feel like I'm painting by the numbers without attention to fundamentals.

I've been good at something before in my life, so I know how to learn but all the free tuts online seem to be catering to basic how to use blender or jump right into 'make this thing i'm making but I dont explain how I habitually decided to make it this way'

[Anonymous No.558808]

any tutorial for that shape?

[Anonymous No.558820]

>>558790
How much longer did it take you to record and convert the video file to .webm?

[Anonymous No.558828]

>>558820
Icecream screen recorder does it automatically, it's free if you make vids less than 10 minutes.

Literally open program, click record, hit stop when it's done, and post it online.

[Anonymous No.558866]

>>558754
took me a whole minute finding the right camera angle ',:^)

[Anonymous No.559467]

Uhhhhh

[Anonymous No.559468]

>>554588
preety easy here is the mine
made by blender tutorials 666

[Anonymous No.559499]

Yeah I thought I knew how to use maya pretty well but I am struggling with this.

Thanks /3/

[Anonymous No.559504]

I don't know what I'm doing.

[Anonymous No.559515]

>>554588

How would you make something like this in CAD programs like CATIA/Creo/NX? I see how you could do it with surfaces and "sweep" function, but then you end up with hard edges between the surfaces and idk how to smooth it out because too n00b.

[Anonymous No.559631]

>>559515
see
>>558642

It was made in mastercam with extrude (cube and cylinder) then fillet edge. You could sweep or revolve an outline and boolean add with a cube after if you wanted to do it differently.

[Anonymous No.559632]

>>554793
>that picture
Thanks for the laugh m8

[Anonymous No.559635]

>>559631
>>559515
>>558642
>implying I have anything better to do on Friday night

[Anonymous No.559636]

>>559635
There's probably quicker/easier ways in solidworks, solidedge and other dedicated CAD programs

[Anonymous No.559726]

>>559631
>>559636

Interesting, thanks. I think this boolean add of solids was what I was missing when I tried to do it in Catia, because you can't normally fillet like you did in that program.

Thanks man.

[Anonymous No.559727]

>>559726
No problem, you could also make a cube and extrude boss the cylinder part. An extruded boss portion would be part of the solid so you wouldn't need to boolean. You'd then be able to fillet without issue.

[Anonymous No.559744]

you can do this in a minute. I used a low sided cylinder to start so its blobby, you'd just up the base to get OP's pic.

make a cylinder divisible by 4
extrude a segment out and scale outwards
extrude another segment, this is end of box
select cylinder sides / 4, make planar until box
chamfer the edge loop from cylinder face to box.
done

[Anonymous No.559746]

>248 replies

[Anonymous No.559747]

>>559744
>extrude a segment out and scale outwards

thanks for posting bad advice after superior and easier solutions have been posted a dozen times.
You're shit.

[Anonymous No.559749]

>>559747
if it works how is it bad? u mad?

[Anonymous No.559756]

[Anonymous No.559758]

>>559744
Why did you make the edges so round? It doesn't match the sample at all. Are you trolling?

[Anonymous No.559761]

>>559758
Can you read?

[Anonymous No.559763]

>>559756

[Anonymous No.559927]

If anybody still wonders how to do this challenge, check out this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1MsQRpcIVs&index=16&list=PLxt9ZAGPLIpeB8TcHrpzxvEI4Ve3SfZBC

Literally where the OP got the idea for this thread.

[Anonymous No.559935]

>>559636
I am sorry. .. but wtf is going on in this gif?

Srsly I could have this thing built in blender, uv unwrapped, and material applied plus rendered before this frigging gif ended.

Sorry. .. but man that loss like a headache to deal with.

[Anonymous No.559947]

>>559935

Mastercam is engineering program that also helps at the same time with making proper toolpaths to you can actually create the thing on CNC machine or even normal lathe. It probably also can easily export everything to technical drawing with all the dimensions and tolerances and shit.

With your 3D model you can at most make a pretty .gif out of it.

[Anonymous No.559967]

>>559947
No. That was a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.560006]

>>559947
>Mastercam is engineering program that also helps at the same time with making proper toolpaths to you can actually create the thing on CNC machine or even normal lathe
True up to "normal". Mastercam creates toolpaths that are then used to create G-Code that tell a CNC (lathe, mill, combination, etc) machine what to do.

>export to technical drawing with dimensions and tolerances
Hell no. You can dimension a drawing/part in Mastercam but it's not really meant to do that. It's not meant to make a model or technical drawing, but it can be used to do it if you have to. Solidworks, Soldedge, Pro-E are better at making solids or technical drawings and then tolerancing and dimensioning.

>>559967
Exactly. I was dicking around, didn't you read the post saying "what else should I do with my friday night?"

Here's a webm of what Mastercam is actually supposed to do.

[Anonymous No.560007]

>>560006
Now the webm is a part I'm working on, stuff isn't ready yet, but here's a part I made a bit ago. Footage isn't sped up, but I had to go a bit slow because I was cutting hard steel on borrowed tooling. Can't make too much of a mess.

[Anonymous No.560259]

I can't make it

[Anonymous No.560260]

what do I do from here

[Anonymous No.560378]

>>555136
>>558586
Its what happens when you convert nurbs to meshes in rhino. Thankfully you can have topology from hell and models can still be cnc'd or 3d printed as long as they are watertight. Case in point is horrific looking thing which i cnc'd into a block of foam with no problems.

[Anonymous No.560379]

>>558751
scratch

[Anonymous No.560386]

>>560260
ctrl+1
ctrl+r after

[Anonymous No.560387]

amateur shit desu

[Anonymous No.560395]

>>560260

See this:
>>559927

[Anonymous No.560447]

>>560378
is tsplines still a thing in rhino

[Anonymous No.560453]

>>560006
I don't think you understand 'waste of time'.
You're doing it wrong, you're wasting time.

[Anonymous No.560456]

>>560453
Get mastercam, and do it right to show me.

[Anonymous No.560477]

>>559927
thanks man. But I wonder if there is an easier way to this in MAX. Don't ask me though!

[Anonymous No.560478]

>>560477
Yeah, I'm still a noob and by following this video I had a lot more polygons and edges everywhere.

I'd like to know how to do it like this:

>>560387

[Anonymous No.560558]

>>559467
That's actually pretty rad

[Anonymous No.560559]

>>560456
>mastercam
first problem found

[Anonymous No.560561]

>>560559
>wahh you're doing it wrong
>yeah I know it's mastercam it's not meant to do that
>see mastercam is you problem!

How short was your bus exactly?

[Anonymous No.560562]

>>560478
Literally explained by multiple people inside the thread.

[Anonymous No.560565]

>>560561
>mastercam is you problem
I know my bus wasn't as long as the convoluted process you were trying.

[Anonymous No.560567]

>>560565
But that's what I was going for to waste some time, how is this so hard to understand?

[Anonymous No.560581]

>>560567
'bout as hard as you understanding 'nope'

[Anonymous No.561624]

>>560447
yup, its still going. They've added grasshopper support which is pretty nice.

[Anonymous No.561675]

>>555291
damn how did you get that kind of retopology

[Anonymous No.562253]

>>559467

A wormhole to the vapourwave dimension?

[Anonymous No.562646]

>>554882
What the fuck, are you working on a tablet? Why are the tabs so big?

[Anonymous No.563215]

>>555502
>>555531
Just for fun

[Anonymous No.563221]

>>562646
Nah, I moved shit around to make the screen shot smaller and clearer, although to be honest I normally just use the pleb-tier default layouts (normally startup, sometimes I switch to the others depending on what I'm working) with only one viewport.

[Anonymous No.563233]

Who wore it better

[Anonymous No.564684]

>>563233
blue

[Anonymous No.564702]

>>554588
I call it the succc

[Anonymous No.565098]

That was easy

[Anonymous No.565104]

>>565098
> making a .webm
> sculpting this
> posting ina month old thread

[Anonymous No.565105]

>>565098
>getting my monys worth.webm

[Anonymous No.565166]

>>554592
They probably got tricked into thinking its more complicated than it looks
I want to see you fags do it but low poly

[Anonymous No.565279]

what do you think

[Anonymous No.565298]

>>565279
c'est magnifique

[Anonymous No.565351]

>>565098
that is some pro level sculpting

[Anonymous No.565742]

>>559947
you can actually create gcode and 3D print or CNC just about any 3D model, it doesn't matter too much what software it was made with or what it looks like.

[Anonymous No.565743]

>>565279
looks nice, but those edges on the round shrinkwrapped shape are much less pronounced/visible in the original.

also, here's my attempt, blender + cc subdiv surface in a couple of minutes

[Anonymous No.565759]

[Anonymous No.565768]

[Anonymous No.565775]

>>565768
now do it with meatballs

[Anonymous No.565778]

>>565775
meatballs? metaballs?

[Anonymous No.565779]

>>565778
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DErfdjvAZZA

[Anonymous No.565886]

i don't know why i wasted my time on this, i guess i must be autistic

[Anonymous No.565933]

>>565886
It's not autistic to take a challenge, even if it's offered by an autist.

[Anonymous No.566174]

:)

[Anonymous No.566175]

I'm not a robot

[Anonymous No.566456]

[Anonymous No.566534]

just gonna post a series of failed attempts

don't mind me

[Anonymous No.566535]

>>566534

1

[Anonymous No.566536]

>>566534

2

[Anonymous No.566537]

>>566534

3

[Anonymous No.566538]

>>566534

4

[Anonymous No.566539]

>>566534

5 (metaballs)

[Anonymous No.566540]

>>566534

6

[Anonymous No.566541]

>>566534

7

[Anonymous No.567520]

[Anonymous No.567521]

[Anonymous No.567924]

>>554588
I've been learning blender for only a couple days now. Did I do it right?

[Anonymous No.568143]