/blender/

[Anonymous No.664179]

last thread hit the bump limit >>659820
show us what your'e working on
post questions here

[Anonymous No.664235]

I just finished my first "render" after 35 hours of hard work and the guidance of my master, Andrew Price. I couldn't add the sprinkles on the plate because they would spawn under it as well and the weight painting didn't help. This bad boy took 90 minutes to render, it's a shame that I had to underscale it because 4channel wouldn't let me upload it. Rate it.

[Anonymous No.664252]

noob to blender here, what's the best way to go about making this sword's blade? what tools should I use?

[Anonymous No.664256]

>>664252
I also want to know this. Also what plugin has the length? That shit is dope.

[Anonymous No.664257]

Currently trying blender coming from 3ds max,why the fuck is that shit not even all the way around.
reeee

[Anonymous No.664261]

>>664252
follow basic tutorials, you will get the idea on how to make anything

[Anonymous No.664264]

>>664256
I think measurement stuff is built in, or at least shipped with Blender

[Anonymous No.664271]

>>664261
alright, looked up some info and made the shape using verts, filled the object and everything is fine and dandy until I try and apply a subdivision surface. any idea what i'm doing wrong?

[Anonymous No.664277]

>>664271
it's one huge n-gon.

2.79: alt-p -> poke faces
2.8: search -> poke faces or triangulate faces

[Anonymous No.664280]

>>664277
:(

[Anonymous No.664281]

>>664280
ctrl-n recalculate normals and try again

[Anonymous No.664282]

>>664281
same issue

[Anonymous No.664286]

>>664271
Topology. You have to cut up your piece into something that looks a little like pic related. Make it a bunch of quads and it'll subdivide nicely around curved surfaces like that. Use [I] to inset a face and then push it out to your liking.
>>664277
Are you kidding me? Triangles don't subdivide well, especially as a triangle fan.

[Anonymous No.664287]

>>664282
If you cut it with the knife tool you can subdivide offending areas by hand. I think we're doing it wrong, famalam.

[Anonymous No.664289]

>>664286
neither does that travesty you just posted

[Anonymous No.664291]

>>664286
tried that, same issue

[Anonymous No.664294]

>>664286
>>664291
Cleaned up, my example. Note that at the sharp edges it's still a quad, the two vertices are just really close to each other.

>>664289
>the most goddamn crude line drawing in the world
>that's not gonna work
Uh, yeah.

[Anonymous No.664297]

>>664294
add.: if you want to do the flat part, repeat the same process just following the inner curve. Make sure the two have the same number of vertices, then do bridge edge loops (LoopTools function, addon's built into Blender).
Bevel the edges ever so slightly afterwards so subsurf doesn't make the thing one huge amorphous blob.

[Anonymous No.664298]

>>664294
;(

[Anonymous No.664300]

>>664298
You have multiple triangles. Try to avoid them when doing subd modelling. Rule of thumb: Quads only. There are exceptions, but they mostly don't apply here.
Secondly, don't solidify it whatsoever. Keep it as a plane. Make sure that plane subdivides nicely, then move on to giving it another dimension. Follow what I posted in >>664297. Remember to delete the faces of the edge section just leaving the outer wire before you bridge your edge loops to the flat section. Internal faces don't play nicely. Apply the same concept when filling out the faces of the flat section, all quads, no triangles.
And your normals are still flipped. Press W, Flip Normals. Otherwise, T panel, Shading / UVs, Normals: Recalculate / Flip Direction.

[Anonymous No.664309]

Took a 64x64 grid and deleted 50% of the vertices to outline, then manually moved like 700 to trace the profile.

0/10

[Anonymous No.664310]

>>664309
Naw dude. Dude naw.
Start with a smol cube on the right of the blade, then keep extruding to the left in small steps to make the blade.

[Anonymous No.664319]

>>664310
I'm bad at this game sensei.

[Anonymous No.664332]

is there a tutorial on how to properly do this?

[Anonymous No.664335]

>>664319
your'e not bad, you just lack experience.

watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eBjcJSuFqw

and this if you got the balls
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcCXM5zCuc0

[Anonymous No.664370]

>download blender 2.8
>try it
>looks good
>just black screen

[Anonymous No.664371]

>>664370
anyone?

[Anonymous No.664373]

>>664370
>>664371
First of all it's important to know that 2.8 now requires a GPU that supports opengl 3.2 (I think it's 3.2, not sure). Though that would most likely just cause Blender to fail to open if you don't meet that requirement.

If you do have a modern GPU, try loading factory settings (in the file menu). If the problem persists make a bug report here:

https://developer.blender.org/

[Anonymous No.664375]

>>664373
i have opengl 4.3.

[Anonymous No.664376]

>>664373
blender doesn't care.

https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/128673/viewport-in-blender-2-8-is-all-black-no-problems-with-2-79b

[Anonymous No.664377]

anyway. why is this board so slow?

[Anonymous No.664378]

>>664377
Well, 4chan's a niche site as far as things go, and 3D's a niche hobby/career too, so you put a niche in a niche and you get a really slow place.

[Anonymous No.664381]

>>664294
thank you so much for the help anon, looks great

[Anonymous No.664387]

>>664179
Trying to make it as photo-realistic as possible, it's meant to go for a real estate advertisement I'm making for university.

[Anonymous No.664390]

>>664387
Good luck selling a stucco couch gayboi.

[Anonymous No.664391]

>>664390
It's polystyrene foam, fagget.

[Anonymous No.664396]

>>664387
Total noob here:

The light seems a bit harsh, especially considering it's going through those curtains. It also isn't bouncing nearly enough. I feel like the room should be like 70% brightly lit.

[Anonymous No.664399]

>>664396
Can you specify what you mean by harsh?

>I feel like the room should be like 70% brightly lit
Do you mean that the room in general should be brighter or that the light should be illuminating 70% of the room?

I also have my doubts about the light, I'm currently fixing it and rendering from different angles.

>>664390
It's cotton, I scaled the UVs since it looked better at the time, I'm also considering letting it have it's natural, real scale. I could later do a close-up of the couch so that one could see the beautiful material that is this cotton.

[Anonymous No.664401]

>>664399
>I'm also considering letting it have it's natural, real scale
Do it. If you are going for photorealism, you want it to be as close as possible to nature. In a photo, you wouldn't ordinarily see the material texture from such a distance. In a render of this type you shouldn't, either.

[Anonymous No.664404]

>>664399
On the light hitting the floor you can see very sharp angles, going through those curtains I think it should be much more diffused. Think a clear lightbulb as compared to a coated lightbulb (called soft usually, where the ID is coated with a fine white powder.)

I think whatever lamp you're using is mostly just too close, but I don't know how you'd go about enhancing the bounce without having to redo all the shaders.

[Anonymous No.664407]

>>664404
In that image I'm using an HDRI image and a Sun light, I can get softer shadows by increasing the size of the sun but I have no idea how to get softer ones with the HDRI.

It's my first time hearing about adjusting the bounce, would you have a tutorial or point me somewhere? Currently I'm using an area light covering the entire back wall, it's color is an HDRI image of an interior.

[Anonymous No.664410]

>>664401
You're right, I was hyped about the materials.

I feel like the outer curtains aren't photorealistic enough, it's probably the way they fold, I should adjust that too.

[Anonymous No.664411]

>>664407
>Currently I'm using an area light covering the entire back wall, it's color is an HDRI image of an interior.
Now with this, the floor doesn't have enough reflections, I'll fix it so that the wood looks better.

Does the area light have a power falloff? Or is it like the sun that illuminates every surface it touches with the same strength? I'm leaning to blame the area light.

[Anonymous No.664454]

>>664179
is there any way to import a live camera feed? I was hoping to try real time video compositing or 3d motion capture for live streams but maybe im just too naive to know thats impossible. even the lowest quality would be fine.

[Anonymous No.664477]

How do I turn these triangles into quadrangles?

[Anonymous No.664479]

>>664477
Knife like so and then delete the stray edge to reface. There's probably a better way but I don't know it.

[Anonymous No.664480]

>>664477
is that the blender guru tutorial?
also try the remesh modifier

[Anonymous No.664510]

>>664479
The knife thing dindu well because it causes some other problems with the geometry above. Top is the original geometry from above. Then in mid you can see that the knifing in the bottom magically joins the edge that already existed (I used the snap with C to draw it in a straight line though), and in bottom you can see the knifing from above; it formed a weird pattern even though I drew it as a straight line.
>>664480
>is that the blender guru tutorial?
Yes.
>also try the remesh modifier
I will look into it.

[Starfleet No.664523]

We want the technology on the set to have a more gritty feel. Upon searching the NASA archives for their Mission Control consoles from the Apollo era we find the look we are going for.

Luckily we found a diagram of the stations and projected one onto a UV for layout purposes. We will model the hardware based on these references.

At ease. It took us all night to get our bridge model set up for the retrofit. Our next task is to build the hardware, switches and toggles in a way that makes the equipment arrays look compartmentalized.

Emphasizing human ingenuity within the set itself.

This has been your Starfleet update.

[Anonymous No.664525]

>>664510
The triangle is on the bottom of a non-deforming mesh. It literally could not matter less to have it there.

[Anonymous No.664527]

Made this mesh from a curve, but now there are no edge loops. Is there a way to make them or do I need to create them manually?

[Anonymous No.664528]

>>664527
It's not worth continuing. Cut your losses, start over. Either box model it or sculpt it.

[Anonymous No.664529]

>>664527
you fucked up big time. when you work with curves/splines like that you need to have very few verts since you can use bezier to make smoother lines. why in gods name do you have so many verts tho?

[Anonymous No.664530]

>>664528
I wouldn't say there are losses, it's just an extruded curve made in 10 mins. Are you saying I used a wrong technique for this sort of work?

[Anonymous No.664532]

>>664529
I dunno, it just how it converted from curve to mesh.

[Anonymous No.664534]

>>664387

[Anonymous No.664540]

>>664532
yup i know where you fucked up. you had the preview resultion high, giving you all those segments when you convert to poly. basically its just a permanent subdivsion. do that bezier agian. but this time keep the preview to 1. add a subdivision but dont apply it. just model with the lower poly one.

[Anonymous No.664541]

>>664540
Huh, interesting. Thanks!

[Anonymous No.664542]

Is there an easy trick to create the "perfect" pole target for an IK chain, so the rig doesn't fuck up and pop out of its rest pose when entering pose mode?
Eyeballing the pole angle makes me want to vomit, so I'd like to avoid that if possible.

[Anonymous No.664547]

Anyone can explain me why it gives me that orange box when I try to do the difference between that fucking cylinder and the shape under it and sometimes it doesn't?
Made a mug earlier and had the same thing happening, I had to restart Blender so it could work but I need to understand.

[Anonymous No.664550]

>>664547
works fine for me. i used the modifier tho, blender addons suck.

[Anonymous No.664554]

>>664550
It doesn't do it all the time. Like right now, I just decreased that cylinder's height and it worked (before it was a longer one that was going trough that sphere all the way down).
I don't know, I'll just keep going.

[Anonymous No.664556]

>>664554
why even use boolean operations in blender? blender is weak in that area.

[Anonymous No.664559]

>>664556
I'm following a course and the part I reached is on booleans.
But I don't know, I'm having trouble with Blender's interface in the first place and that's my main problem for now.
Like that tab that appears in the bottome left corner of the window when you add a mesh to the scene. How do you get it back when it's gone because you translated something?
It might be because I never done any 3D modeling and that I care only for animation but that shit is confusing as fuck.

[Anonymous No.664561]

>>664527
what a fucking mess
>>664559
you can only change it once. its not supposed to be changed if you already changed it

[Anonymous No.664564]

>>664559
>Like that tab that appears in the bottome left corner of the window when you add a mesh to the scene. How do you get it back when it's gone because you translated something?
If you want that sort of functionality, sorry, Blender is not for you. It's available (with differing degrees of reliability) in, at least, 3ds Max, Maya, and Houdini.

[Anonymous No.664566]

>>664564
so he should download a 20gb software because he forgot to adjust the number of edges on a primitive?

[Anonymous No.664567]

>>664566
He should use the tools that better fit his needs.

[Anonymous No.664569]

>>664564
>>664561
I don't think you understood what I meant. How is that possible that a tab just disappears and that you're supposed to nail the raidus, size and everything related to tab of your mesh.
I meant pic related.

[Anonymous No.664575]

>>664569
Consider if you made modifications after you'd started modelling, it just wouldn't work in a lot of cases. Other than the actual geometry sudivisions you can accomplish just about anything you're hoping to in edit mode.

[Anonymous No.664577]

>>664575
No seriously I don't get why it wouldn't work. But I kind of believe that it might cause problems, I just don't see why.
I'll just continue learning maybe I'll understand later.
Thanks.

[Anonymous No.664578]

>>664577
Do a fucked up weird boolean real quick and throw a subsurf on it, the way it calculates where to divide gets all fucked up, to a smaller extent the N-gons on a cylinder top will fold in to do the same shit without edge loops and an inset.

Principally you'd be doing the same thing altering the geometry like that. For primative modeling it'd be fine, but for anything beyond that it'd just fuck things up.

[Anonymous No.664579]

>download the newest 2.8 beta version
>still get black viewport

here are my specs.

[Anonymous No.664581]

>>664235
It looks beautiful. Nice job!

[Anonymous No.664583]

>>664579
>106 °C
I hope that's just a defective sensor

[Anonymous No.664585]

>>664569
Yeah, I know you're referring to that, hence what I said earlier. That's a peculiarity of Blender; if you want to make changes to a primitive after you do anything else, you cannot go back to that panel. In other software, you have either nodes or a stack which you can change at any time, and those modifications propagate down the chain. Granted, sometimes it doesn't work well, but the functionality is there, and it's useful early during the creation of a model.

[Anonymous No.664586]

>>664579
>Intel HD Graphics

Try getting a GPU.

[Anonymous No.664591]

>>664569
you will modify that plane 1000 times, what does it matter what kind of settings it starts with?

the only settings you should change is the edgecount on a cylinder.

[Anonymous No.664658]

>>664559
you literally can not get that option back. it only exists just after you add the mesh. and if you need to add more edges to your cylinder or whatever you can do it manually by using edge select mode and then selecting around and using the subdivide command in the specials menu (w key)

[Anonymous No.664751]

https://blenderartists.org/t/i-received-a-death-threat-today/1110392

Holy shit, look how big of a baby the mods at blenderartists are. What a total faggot...

Blender is for people with a victim mentality. They think Autodesk is bad because it's a *gasp* corporation. In fact, they think all ownership is wrong. That's why it's so popular in socialist countries and reddit.

[Anonymous No.664752]

>>664751
Why are you bringing up a post from blenderartists from a year ago and bitching about it here?

And what gives you the right to talk shit while doing this crap?

[Anonymous No.664760]

>>664752
the level of autism and depravity on this board is incredible

[Anonymous No.664763]

>>664760
It's a board with a whole general devoted to Blender. What else would you expect, honestly.

[Anonymous No.664765]

Is it possible to render using an HDR for lighting but with a solid color as background? I know you can export it with transparent background and then add a background in photoshop or whatever, but is it possible to do it all in one step? Also, how would you guys go about making a pure black material using cycles?

[Anonymous No.664768]

>>664765
>Is it possible to render using an HDR for lighting but with a solid color as background?
that negates the whole idea of hdr, its image-based lightning.
your model absorb light and reflection from the background, pure black does not.

[Anonymous No.664770]

>>664765
>Is it possible to render using an HDR for lighting but with a solid color as background?
Yes. It depends on the render engine, but usually, the environment shader has an option to disable the visibility of the background. This way, the HDRI lights the scene, but it doesn't appear on the background -- it stays black.

>Also, how would you guys go about making a pure black material using cycles?
I don't know exactly about Cycles, but look for an equivalent to a reflectivity setting, and set it to 0. Another option might be to make it purely emissive as black.

[Anonymous No.664782]

This is driving me nuts. Every time I try to parent the box object to those 3 vertex, the box jumps to a new place. Trying to move it back doesn't help much because the movement axis mess up for some reason.

What am I doing wrong? What can I do to ensure the box stays in place after vertex parenting?

[Anonymous No.664783]

>>664782
It should give you some options when you parent the objects with ctrl+p. Try keep transform or one of the options. If it does not help maybe try ctrl+a on the box before you parent it to apply location, rotation and scale.

[Anonymous No.664785]

>>664370
Holy fuck look at all this screen clutter. It makes me want to cry. Instead of fixing real issues they fuck up the gui.

[Anonymous No.664791]

>>664785
It works fine and any part your don't want can be disabled in the Overlays options. They're just making it more accessible to new people with visible buttons and gizmos.

[Anonymous No.664796]

>>664765
You can put a background node into the lower part of the mix node if you want to see something.

The transparent option in the film panel on the right is how you get a transparent background.

[Anonymous No.664797]

>>664783
It didn't work, but thanks mate. Eventually after messing with origins and other stuff I got it to work just the way I wanted and then decided to undo it to see if I could recreate it and learn the steps with no luck.

Also the "Keep transform" checkbox doesnt seem to work properly. Shit breaks after pressing it once.

[Anonymous No.664849]

im playing around with texture painting and it is doing this weird semi mirroring effect. i have the symmetry boxes turned off. it seems like some sort of artifact of the uv sphere. can anyone give any insight?

[Anonymous No.664850]

>>664849
Check your UV map.

[Anonymous No.664856]

>>664850
thanks. yeah it looks like its mirroring the body but not the "caps". still no idea how to solve it though

[Anonymous No.664866]

>>664850
thanks again, after manually unwrapping the problem went away. I guess the default uv map accidentally just uses the same data for both sides or something.

[Anonymous No.664868]

>>664797
I think you can use an empty object as an intermediate in some very dumb (clever?) way.

[Anonymous No.664872]

>>664782
It's due to their origins. Take a look at the dots in your image, the red dot and the orange dot. They're both oriented relative to global (0,0,0), but when you parent the orange dot to the red dot, the position of the orange box moves to be relative to that of the red dot, no longer the global 0s.
To simplify it, let's remove two dimensions. We start at 0. Orange is 2 spaces away from start and Red is 3 spaces away from start. When you ask Orange to parent to Red, Orange is now 2 spaces away from *Red*. This means orange is now *5* (or 1, depending on how you look at it) spaces away from start.
You can solve this in Blender by making both object origins identical. Ctrl+Shift+Alt+C will set new origins. They can be anywhere, as long as they're the same.

[Anonymous No.664884]

>spent another 3 hours today trying to model shit to no avail
where do i go after the donut tutorial i'm at a loss of what to do to improve

[Anonymous No.664947]

>>664884
To the anvil tutorial retard. To every other tutorial on the Internet.

[Anonymous No.664953]

I don't know how to ask this so I'll need to write a big explanation first, sorry.

I know of two methods to "duplicate" UV unwraps for certain parts of meshes:
1) Unwrap a parr and then duplicate it (through mirroring, shift+d, etc). The duplicates will share unwraping.
2) If you didn't unwrap before duplication, you can also unwrap them all and then manually match the vertices of the unwraps (takes a lot of time).

My case. I have modeled a building. It uses many wood beams of different sizes. I'd like the beams to share the same UV and texture. Question: is there a way to make them easily share UV map (same texture for all beams) without having to manually set each vertex?

[Anonymous No.664967]

I'm a beginner, trying to get into modeling after trying and giving up many years ago.

How do I get over my anxiety on keeping my models symmetrical, or is it bad to begin with?
For example, I'm currently modeling something based on a sphere/cylinder, and I notice that the shape is subtly squashed on one axis and not easily fixable with a scale, and it's making me uncomfortable.
Somewhat related, are there any resources related to cleaning up models?

[Anonymous No.664971]

>>664967
are you using a mirror modifier?

[Anonymous No.664973]

>>664971
I did not, because it looked a bit daunting when I first saw it, I also wanted to work on something from the ground up first.
Not sure if it will help much at this point anyway.

[Anonymous No.664988]

>>664967
You need psychotherapy and medication, not more 3d tutorials.

[Anonymous No.664990]

In cycles, how can I make an object that shades based on the distance to whatever’s behind it?
I don’t need scattering and stuff for my water, just a fade to blue.

[Anonymous No.664995]

>>664973
3d tools are meant to help you, not test you.

as a long time blender user, id rather not model a screw from 0 and use the screw modifier instead. if it helps you just use it

[Anonymous No.664996]

>>664990
you will need to program this.

[Anonymous No.664997]

>>664990
>I don’t need scattering and stuff for my water, just a fade to blue.
Use absorption towards blue.

[Anonymous No.665005]

>>664997
Absorption only works for solid objects though, I was just wanting a single face that assumes an infinite object depth behind it.

[Anonymous No.665013]

>>665005
Wouldn't it work to just make a box? After a certain depth, it will turn to pure black/blue. Or that's how I understand absorption to work, at least.

[Anonymous No.665017]

>>664868
As dumb as that sounds, it worked. Thanks anon!

[Anonymous No.665027]

>>664872
Thanks for the expIanation. I tried something similar to what you are suggesting, but it didn't work. I simplified the parenting to two cubes without translation and same result. I even tried setting the origin to the middle of all the vertex and it twisted the cube anyway.

Finally I tried to do the same operation in 2.79 and then it worked as intended. Even when messing with the origins the child didn't jump. This must be a bug in the beta.

[Anonymous No.665060]

>>664953
Have you tried using "transfer UV maps"? You can find it with the spacebar search menu.You could also try the data transfer modifier.

[Anonymous No.665062]

>Codequest 2019 MAYBE about sculpting tools

BETTER MAKE THIS HAPPEN

[Anonymous No.665082]

>>665060
I'll check that out, thanks.

[Anonymous No.665083]

>>665060
>>665082
Yep, that works perfectly, thanks a lot.

[Anonymous No.665097]

i figured out what that bevel weight shit is for, pretty cool.

[Anonymous No.665102]

>>664953
The easiest way around something like this is to plan in advance. In other words, create one of those wood beams, unwrap it nicely, then duplicate it all over the place. It's a lot less hassle than trying to unwrap and manage duplicates after the fact.

[Anonymous No.665103]

Why did only half of the boolean work?

[Anonymous No.665104]

>>665103
Looks like your normals are completely fucked in the first place. Remember, your model should look mostly grey with some blue, but not mostly blue with some black*. Enter edit mode and on your T panel, go to Shading / UV, recalculate normals.
* - unless you've modified your OpenGL lighting setup in User Preferences
A reminder for working with booleans in Blender is to make sure the bounding boxes for the both objects are distinctly different. It looks like they are in your case, but bear in mind for the future.
Add.: If you plan on subsurfing your final result, well, look up some tutorials on subd topology on curved surfaces if not you're going to have a topological nightmare on your hands.

[Anonymous No.665106]

>>665104
Yeah, i recalculated normals outside and tried again, but got the same result.
It did cut the shapes tho, and i can remove faces manually.

[Anonymous No.665107]

>>665106
Ah, I see why now. You have clipping intersections. Seeing as how the opposite side doesn't have them (and note how the cuts there were perfect), you should properly center the object you're using to cut the shapes. You should probably also scale the object down a little just to be safe.

[Anonymous No.665108]

>>665107
Ahah, yeah, noticed it too. Thanks for the tips!

[Anonymous No.665110]

>>664953
i know you solved this problem but far as buildings go.
if most of your building blocks are identical. you can model,unwrap,array. this is the best way to make something like a road or a building

[Anonymous No.665118]

Any tutorials/tips for making eevee more closely approximate the look of cycles? Of course it's not going to be exactly the same, but it seems by default lighting differences are huge. I want to just use eevee as a playblast to make sure things are looking ok, then to go ahead and use cycles, but as it stands, particularly with the lighting, this method would end up with scenes that are way too dark. Just cranking up the light seems a blind way to go about it, and if I'm using cycles to check the lighting then I may as well not use eevee.

[Anonymous No.665120]

>>664235
models are fine.

Lighting isn't very good. It looks like a LED panel next to the donuts. Think about the room and where the lighting would come from. Consider using a HDRI for lighting. Use Filmic Blender.

Materials aren't very good. Have a look at a plate. Does it reflect the light like that? Same for your cup, it looks oddly metallic. Consider using the Principled BSDF shader, it makes it harder to make shitty materials and is pbr by default. Your table looks like a printed piece of paper, consider using at least a specular map.

Scene is fine, but would benefit from some context that implies what is going on around or before the picture. Add some random newspapers and fallen-off sprinkles or something.

[Anonymous No.665122]

Soooo, the parts that were affected by boolean lost their edge loops, I can't create any.
Is it normal, or...?

[Anonymous No.665123]

>>664752
>And what gives you the right to talk shit while doing this crap?
Free speech. And it's on topic. If you prefer censorship, go back to BA and stay there.

[Anonymous No.665124]

>>665122
it can create massive ngons that make it seem like its missing edges.
but that's what boolean is, you have to retopo this section

[Anonymous No.665125]

>>664884
The CGCookie introduction to Blender. Ignore Andrew Price.

[Anonymous No.665126]

>>665118
dude its still in beta, we don't even have documentation yet

[Anonymous No.665130]

>>665124
YOU CANT MAKE ME
*sigh*
Okay...

[Anonymous No.665138]

>>665120
>Your table looks like a printed piece of paper, consider using at least a specular map.
>doesn't notice the very obvious bumps in the table, surely created with a map
This is the kind of idiot browsing this board. Don't believe anything he said.

[Anonymous No.665154]

>>665138
I can definitely see the bumps in the wood texture, more noticeable in the shadow of the plate. I know nothing of the other software he mentioned though. They may be very good or just a crouch for retards, but regardless, it's not the kind of thing you should get into when you're just starting.

[Anonymous No.665173]

First (shitty) attempt at an orange peel wall texture for an interior render. Gonna play with it some more later.

[Anonymous No.665179]

>>665118
It's not that difficult to make them match, Cycles uses nodes for lamps, EEVEE doesn't, just change one of the properties to match the other.

Oh, and don't use mesh or area lights, EEVEE can only do light sources from a point, so stick to point, spotlight, and sun lamps.

[Anonymous No.665188]

Anybody else ever notice how some of the most prominent members (semi-celebs) of the Blender community don't have portfolios and there is little evidence they know how to use the software creatively? The best you'll see is an arch viz render that borrows heavily from publicly available models and shaders. But all of them seem to think they know enough to create tutorials and even a few charge for it. I can't stand Blendlets.

[Anonymous No.665193]

>>665188
Yeah, I would imagine almost all of them prioritize their content creation like recording/editing videos, maintaining a website, selling themselves, etc. over improving as more than beginner 3d artists.

For Blender in particular, as a beginner it's easy to just absorb as much learning material from all directions, but as you start to know more about what you are doing there is a noticeable lack of more advanced information. Feels bad.

[Anonymous No.665194]

>>665193
>as you start to know more about what you are doing there is a noticeable lack of more advanced information
That's because that is the point where most people jump to higher-end software. Even if you plan on going back to Blender later (a lot of skills are transferable in both directions), there's simply much, much more learning material at the intermediate and advanced level for professional software.

[Anonymous No.665198]

>>665188
that's because there are several layers of content creators on the community.

1. tutors- those people will usually display their artwork as part of their examples. for example, andrew price is mostly posting his own tutorial result which are highly suspicious. but that's what you get with andrew price and blender guru. same applies to darine lile and other big celeb tutors like gleb.

2.actual artists that skipped over to selling and teaching- you have people like Reynante Martinez that is responsible for the cycles material vault. or Pierrick Picaut that made the tutorial for the fantasy cliff tower.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAeghTiHmyc
3.actual artists that might give commentary or do speed modeling video- in this list i can put max puliero and rico cilliers as people that mainly do art but sometimes give their own perspective on things.

>>665194
>there's simply much, much more learning material at the intermediate and advanced level for professional software.

that's true. but for the past 5 years there has been alot more expert tutorials for blender, something that wasn't acceptable before.

pic unrelated, something silly i made ages ago

[Anonymous No.665199]

Guys, I need some halp.

I use bezier curves with bevel objects to make hair strands. When I add alpha to them to get the tips nicely faded out, the front is perfect but the backside seems to have black artefacting in it so I guess it's a normals problem.

Is there a way to make all sides transparent without converting the whole thing into standard mesh? I kinda want to keep it editable, hence I want to keep the beziers intact.

[Anonymous No.665200]

>>665199
provide pics plozz

[Anonymous No.665202]

>>665200
There's not a lot going on to show, actually. This is the backside I'm talking about. The opposite side is perfectly smooth and transparent without the black part.

[Starfleet No.665204]

>>665202
It looks like you might have a color ramp plugged in wrong.

[Anonymous No.665209]

>>665204
Checked everything again and doesn't seem like it. As I said, that black area only appears when I view it from that side. If I can't find a solution, I'll convert the beziers to mesh but yeah, would be a bummer since otherwise it works really nicely.

[Anonymous No.665213]

>>665209
> that black area only appears when I view it from that side

but what happens when you render it?

[Anonymous No.665214]

>>665213
Screenshot was low samples (20) cycles preview but actually rendered at 500 or more doesn't solve it neither. Pretty much looks the same as in the preview

[Starfleet No.665216]

>>665209
This is the tutorial that taught us how to shade bezier curves. It teaches transparency on the ends of the curve.

https://youtu.be/t2XjdzzWCqI

[Anonymous No.665218]

>>665216
That's the one I followed but as you can see, in his case the hair endings are only visible from the front with his hair style and the back either not visible or hidden. I wonder if his hair also has those dark parts when he'd have some free floating hair, visible from all sides.

[Starfleet No.665220]

>>665218
Looking at the shader derived from the same tutorial there does not appear to be the issue you are having...

[Starfleet No.665226]

>>665218
My best guess would be that you have a hair curve in which its direction starts at the bottom and goes up while the remaining curves start from the top and go down. That may explain it.

[Starfleet No.665227]

>>665218
Each curve has a flip direction option. You might have triggered one by mistake.

[Anonymous No.665249]

Can someone tell me what in THE FUCK Blender is doing here?

[Starfleet No.665250]

>>665249
Dynotopo is active and I bet your resolution setting did it. You can thank me later.

[Anonymous No.665251]

>>665249
Dyntopo is active and your resolution is too low.

[Anonymous No.665252]

>>665250
Yeah Dynotopo is supposed to be on?
I'm trying to do this thing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lj643VmTsg
but when I turn on absolute detail and start sculpting it turns to shit. So...wtf?

[Anonymous No.665253]

>>665249
>>665252
works fine for me?

[Anonymous No.665254]

>>665253
Probably cause you're using 2.79

[Anonymous No.665255]

>>665254
so then revert?

[Anonymous No.665256]

>>665255
No. I'm specifically trying to get used to 2.8 cause it has so many little improvements that make everything easier. Beside, when I use it on a cube (like you probably did), it seems to work fine. For the icosphere I have to use resolution 60 to get it to work similarly, so why the fuck does the guy in the video say 6? Is it the developers fucking up in the meantime?

[Starfleet No.665257]

>>665256
2.8 is so good visualizing the model in the work space.

[Anonymous No.665258]

>>665256
IIRC they flipped the meaning of resolution in 2.8 for who knows. I guess it's more intuitive, larger number = higher resolution rather than smaller = higher than in <2.79.

[Anonymous No.665259]

>>665258
So why does the guy in the video still say (and type) 6 and it works? Did they change it in the time since the tutorial?

[Anonymous No.665260]

>>665258
>>665256
>>665259
huh? it works fine for me still.

[Anonymous No.665261]

>>665260
Good for you then. I have no idea what's going on with mine.

[Anonymous No.665262]

>>665261
you fucked up somewhere on your end. i literally just installed 2.8, added a icosphere and turned on dynatopo.

[Anonymous No.665263]

>>665262
Yeah I'm pretty sure I didn't cause I did the exact same thing. And going by youtube comments I'm not the only one with this problem.

[Anonymous No.665265]

>>665263
Noticing now that if I do dynatopo on a plain, I need to up the resolution to 200 to get the same effect as the 60 on the sphere. What the hell is up with this program?

[Starfleet No.665267]

Starfleet out.

[Anonymous No.665269]

>>665265
Redownloaded from the website since apparently there's now a newer version...dynatopo still needs 60 as input, but now it works on the plain with the same setting.

[Anonymous No.665270]

>>665267
Using that caller during an emergency must be fun.

[Anonymous No.665271]

>>665269
Welp, or not, as the case may be. Can a file be corrupted? I suppose it must be. Fuck this, I'm going to bed.

[Anonymous No.665272]

>>665269
>dynatopo still needs 60 as input
>>665265
>I need to up the resolution to 200 to get the same effect as the 60 on the sphere
im on 3 and it still works fine?

[Anonymous No.665273]

>>665272
Mate I don't fucking care. GOOD FOR YOU, THAT DOESN'T HELP ME A BIT.

[Anonymous No.665274]

>>665273
you should because its on your end youre fucking up, not the program, m8.

[Anonymous No.665275]

>>665274
THAT STILL DOESN'T HELP ME

[Anonymous No.665277]

>>665273
Try applying scale (Ctrl+A) before sculpting.

[Anonymous No.665278]

>>665275
yes it does lmao, youre just too fucking stupid to deduct shit. learn how to use your fucking brain.
if its working fine for me you have several options

1 reinstall the software
2 reset user preferences considering you have your ui's color changed to white for god knows why

and if its still doesnt work at that point then the problem extends to your OS, not the program.

[Anonymous No.665308]

>>665278
there is a trend of people that use tools without watching tutorials on how to operate them

[Anonymous No.665311]

>>665308
brainlets watch vids tho. vids just relay(sometimes they make up their own shit) what they picked up from the manual/index. you would waste more time looking at a vid than just lookin it up on the index.

[Anonymous No.665341]

>>665311
it gives you a sequence on how to perform certain tasks.

[Anonymous No.665354]

>>665311
Videos demonstrate practical use cases for features, tools, and settings.

Also binging tutorials at 1.5-2x speed is easy.

[Anonymous No.665355]

>>665341
>>665354
i can assure thats not how that works.

[Anonymous No.665365]

>>665278
>haha I don't have any problems so obviously you're stupid
This is on the same level of obnoxiousness as looking for a solution to some problem and the only answer being an entry on some forum that reads
>sent you a pm

[Anonymous No.665367]

>>665277
Hm, afraid that didn't work. Made resolution 3 pretty fine detail though.
Did some further testing. If I leave the sphere just as it is without scaling it up, the resolution picker tells me it's 3, so 6 gives the desired results.
If I scale it up by 10 though, the resolution is now 30, so apparently that scales along now? Don't know if that was always like that.

[Anonymous No.665376]

I want to model and rig and animate a character. Then I'd like to use those animations for other characters I create. I think you can use reuse animations. My question is: is there anything I need to do before I rig and animate the first character to make sure the animations will work with future characters? Some pain I can relieve from my future self by taking some step now. Or can I just go ahead, and transfer them later on without much issue?

[Anonymous No.665393]

>>665376
>My question is: is there anything I need to do before I rig and animate the first character to make sure the animations will work with future characters? Some pain I can relieve from my future self by taking some step now.
It's more of a jump than a step, but once you do it you'll never look back. Switch to Maya.

[Anonymous No.665401]

2 min model and render Wallpaper to test the Eevee rendering engine.

[Anonymous No.665402]

>>665376
I was starting to type out a detailed response before realizing it would be wasted. How about you go learn about all the steps first, get to your rigged character, and then once you understand how it all works, you can ask this question again. Trust me, if you're trying to share animations like the way you described you'll be rebuilding your rig many times, so just consider the first one a throwaway.

[Anonymous No.665403]

on this thing, but cant get to put the textures right.

[Anonymous No.665404]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA FUCKKKKKKK

2.80 is so fucking TEMPTING but sculpting is so much slower on it and still lacking a couple important addons that aren't updated yet. Tested the most recent release and it really comes along nicely.
Switching back and forth between 2.79 and 2.80 is shit but fuck is it tempting.

[Anonymous No.665406]

>>665404
Also, it seems like CPU rendering got improved a fuckton on cycles.
I tested 2.80 and suddenly my third gen i7 is almost as fast as my two 750Ti rendering together.

[Anonymous No.665427]

>>665402
Well, I already have the model. There are many tutorials on how to rig and animate, but I've done quick scrolling through them to see if they tackle the issue and they see to focus on jusg that character. My worry is I'll do that character and then I'll have to repeat the process if I want to transfer animations.

I wouldn't ask for a long response, but could you point me in the direction of a course or tutorial where they teach how to build for re-usability? Would be most appreciated

[Anonymous No.665428]

>>665355
>guy who doesn't watch vids and instead reads the manual can't model for shit
>people who watch vids don't have the lame problems he does
>therefore watching videos is useless
Uninstall the program mate. Not only are you dumb, your attitude and your willingness to change it are wrong too. Just give up and uninstall it, you'll never amount to anything anyway.

[Anonymous No.665431]

Question. In the anvil tutorial Andrew introduces the concept of a flow that connects all faces in a 'grid', they all have a column and a row, and these connect forming a cycle. I can see how this matters because as long as this property is met for all faces, all of them are quadrangular, therefore artifacts don't pop up on the texture and shit. But let's say that I can make a mesh where everything is still quadrangular, but the flow of the rows and columns is interrupted in many places. Would this be bad? Why? Does it take more power to render?

[Anonymous No.665435]

>>665431
its just bad habits vs. good habits.

basically when you subdivide an object you want that perfect uniformity and quads that are in the same size and structure.

ps. guys please give the anvil/dognut tutorials a rest. try different things from different creators

[Anonymous No.665438]

>>665435
>ps. guys please give the anvil/dognut tutorials a rest. try different things from different creators
Relevant
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUf9VltV4Cc

[Anonymous No.665448]

>>664782
Why on earth would you ever want to parent a box to some vertices?? In the same object, even?
What are you trying to achieve here?

[Anonymous No.665449]

>>665062
Sculpting is fine - What we need is proper texturing tools.
Fuck, I'd be so happy if Blender got basic layer blending and generators in a simple menu, like in SP.

[Anonymous No.665450]

>>665404
Sculpting is much faster and smoother in 2.8, what the fuck are you talking about?
It's pretty much the ONLY good thing about 2.8, apart from a nicer viewport.

[Anonymous No.665474]

>>665450
2.79

[Anonymous No.665475]

>>665474
>>665450
and 2.80.
both around 750k and I'm not the only one who has mentioned that, the forums are full of questions about sculpting optimization

[Anonymous No.665477]

>>665474
>>665475
That's very strange.
I was sculpting this just yesterday, and it was getting a bit slow on 2.79, but when I switched to 2.8 it got buttery smooth.

[Anonymous No.665478]

>>665477
depends on many things. maybe your hardware is beefy enough to make use of the new underlying architecture. from what I've heard is that 2.80 overall is more streamlined for newer hardware while 2.79 can't use some performance tricks of new hardware.

[Anonymous No.665481]

>>665478
Ah, that could be it. I was using my desktop, and I have a 1080 and a 7700K in it. Perhaps it would be a different story if I used my laptop.

[Anonymous No.665485]

>>665481
most likely! I guess at this point it isn't that noticeable with good hardware if you stay at reasonable resolutions and project sizes but if you have mid range 2014 stuff you really notice it at small projects.
on the other hand edit more is a lot faster in 2.8 on my machine so it makes it kinda difficult for me to switch yet. both have almost even pros and cons at this point but since 2.80 keeps improving it's just a short time problem. also, really hope the codequest is about sculpting this year!

[Anonymous No.665488]

>>665485
But there's not much more to do about sculpting in Blender, other than optimize for lower end computers?
I would much, much rather have real texturing tools in Blender, now that SP is being eaten up by Adobe.

[Anonymous No.665491]

>>665488
>But there's not much more to do about sculpting in Blender, other than optimize for lower end computers?
Oh there is a fuckload of interesting shit that can be done.
If Blender actually achieves getting CLOSE to what you can do in Zbrush, it would be a total gamechanger. There are plans to get blender to handle truckloads of millions of polies at some point. Also, rapid shape creation inside sculptmode in combination with booleans and so on.
But you're right, texturing tools might even be more important. It's kinda silly that you need a pay-addon so that you finally get PS-like layers per texture.

[Anonymous No.665492]

>>665491
>There are plans to get blender to handle truckloads of millions of polies at some point.
For that to happen you'd need a semi-2D engine like Zbrush has. Seems a bit far-fetched.

>Also, rapid shape creation inside sculptmode in combination with booleans and so on.
Already works fine in Blender afaik - just not inside sculpt mode.

>It's kinda silly that you need a pay-addon so that you finally get PS-like layers per texture.
Yeah. Blender already has all the fundament needed. You can blend materials, you can paint with brushes, you can separate channels and run edge detection stuff... but all has to be set up manually through nodes. Every single aspect of it, for every single layer. If that was just streamlined properly, I don't think I'd ever need Substance Painter again.

[Anonymous No.665494]

What I find strange is that the guy who proposed GIF related just vanished AND his Blender wiki account got wiped too!
https://blenderartists.org/t/gsoc-2017-silhouette-brush/690576
https://wiki.blender.org/wiki/User:Witt/GSoC2017/Development_Status
I mean if you're just busy you don't fucking delete your account and just vanish without saying anything. Wtf

[Anonymous No.665495]

>>665494
Just saw that the Wiki apparently got an overhaul so that older links are just broken. So I guess there's still hope after all!
https://developer.blender.org/p/Witt/

[Anonymous No.665523]

Any way to convert this selection to face, like in Maya?

Also is there any way to turn off back face culling while trying to select vertices behind the mesh while in solid view mode?
I'm currently constantly switching back and forth between wireframe and solid and it feels really clunky (I'm a dumbass and can't work very well in x-ray or wireframe mode)

[Starfleet No.665526]

>>665523
create face shortcut is F.

[Anonymous No.665530]

>>665526
>>665523
Sorry, convert to face as in convert my edge loop selection into a selection of adjacent faces, like this

[Starfleet No.665531]

>>665530
Ctrl (numpad +)

[Anonymous No.665532]

>>665531
nice!
thanks a bunch.

[Starfleet No.665569]

2 pots of coffee already today. Over a pack for sure. The radio is playing blocks of rock so I guess it's okay.

[Starfleet No.665580]

Gentleanons, it has been a good night although not much shows. Putting the detail into this one because we have hi-res references.

The panel layouts do repeat so I can reuse the geometry down the line. Fun, like knitting, but for a guy. Superbowl.... fuck that. I hope both teams lose.

This has been your Starfleet update ...

[Anonymous No.665659]

>>665252
>>665251
>>665250
So I found out about the whole "scaling your model in object mode scales the resolution too" thing, but if I scale in edit mode that makes a resolution 6 brush give super fine detail. So I have no idea what he does in the video that yields his results with what he claims he's using.

[Anonymous No.665660]

>>665659
how are you still having problems with this, jesus christ youre a bigger brainlet than i thought

[Anonymous No.665688]

>>665660
Fuck off if you don't have anything useful to contribute, you bacteria.

[Anonymous No.665691]

>>665265
DUDE THAT'S BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T SET THE RESOLUTION TO CONSTANT

[Anonymous No.665696]

for the last few days been working on Hide the Pain Helen

[Anonymous No.665703]

Downloaded the latest 2.8.
SHIFT + Z switches between wireframe and rendered now. Instead of solid and rendered.
How do I switch it back?

[Anonymous No.665705]

>>665703
Also, why doesn't anything show up in the node editor when I select a point light?

[Anonymous No.665708]

>>665703
I just tap Z to switch with the pie menu. It's pretty fast if you hold and quickly 'flick' the cursor in the direction of the option you want.

Got a question myself. How do I select bones in weight painting mode?

[Anonymous No.665709]

>>665448
The bigger box has soft body physics, if I try to parent using the regular method, the child will not follow the parent during simulation.

[Starfleet No.665879]

We have phase shifted our spacial matrix and ended up on this forum. By this forum I mean being in orbit and connecting to the planets Internet by way of a coffee shop in the Dirty South.

But before our ship goes over the horizon and we are forced to deal with China:

sup.

a little more geometry and we can run through the other panels more easily by means of duplicate.

Your fading. See you in 90 minutes.

[Anonymous No.665896]

So I'm working on a car model (more accurately, making changes on an old car model I have on my external HDD), and I'm currently working on the shift knob. I'm trying to do something of an engraved number pattern, and I don't know how to get it to work. Should I use a texture? Or do what I'm doing with pic related and use the knife tool to directly carve the pattern into the knob?

If the texture method, how should I go about it? With a bump map? A displacement map? A Normal Map?

If I do end up using the knife tool method, how do I remesh it so it doesn't look like the ugly mess the picture shows?

[Starfleet No.665900]

>>665896
You got a sphere: good. There will be two materials on it. The base color and the second is the base color with a .png image overlaid on top. I'm in Blender 2.8.

Unwrap the top half of your sphere from the top view looking down on the sphere. When unwrapping use Project from View Bounds. Now you got a UV layout you can put into your PShop to figure out your knob image. Save it as a .png with the UV layer turned off. Remember to use an alpha background instead of white. Go into PShop or other layered paint program. Do your image, save it as a png.

In Blender your shader material might look like the one at top.

I am using bump maps but I seem to be unable to bump it up sufficiently. Hope that helps.

Starfleet out.

[Anonymous No.665903]

>>665900
I've tried the bump method before, and I suffered the exact same "unable to bump the texture intensity up" issue.

[Starfleet No.665904]

>>665903
work on another part of the model. keep it fun. it will come to you.

[Anonymous No.665911]

Can any senpai tell me which materials are used on cars in this video? Noob desu, I downloaded a car model and playing with materials.

[Anonymous No.665918]

>>665911
What are you expecting from this? Cars usually just have the coating and IOR tweaked. Im assuming you're doing this in cycles right?

[Anonymous No.665920]

>>665911
Link the video anon, it'd be easier to make an educated guess if viewed in motion.

[Anonymous No.665924]

>>665900
>>665896
by the way you can just connect white/black texture to the displacement node and invert the bump if needed. its alot smoother than sculpting it

[Anonymous No.665935]

>>665896
Use a displacement map if you care about seeing the grooves in a profile view. Otherwise, use a bump map or a normal map -- the difference is that a bump map encodes elevation, and a normal map only angle.

If you use a displacement map, be sure to enable tessellation at render time or it won't work well.

[Anonymous No.665952]

>>665935
So how do I go about it? Use a texture to make the map that way? Or go ahead and murder the mesh itself and export the result as a map?

[Anonymous No.665955]

>>665900
Thats not how bump maps work lol. you cant have that image be both a color map and a bump map lmfao. Those two things are completely different, bump maps read specific rgb values.

[Anonymous No.665956]

>>665955
>>665900
also you cant map displacement maps(value bump maps) with PBR materials(principled). you have to exclusively use tangent spaced normals.

[Starfleet No.665957]

>>665956
Fascinating.

[Anonymous No.665958]

>>665952
this is how i do it. there are various methods.
notice how i get jpeg artifacts because its a jpeg image. so you might want to get a vector image or a high quality png

[Anonymous No.665959]

>>665956
Will displacement maps work if you apply them as a mesh modifier? I have no idea how things work

[Anonymous No.665960]

>>665956
you are somewhat right but also wrong.
you probably talk about the original bump maps and how they used.
in blender there is an option to use bump maps as height maps. as seen >>665958

[Anonymous No.665961]

>>665959
Ditto, which is why I asked the initial question to begin with.

>>665958
Like I stated before, I did try that. But it didn't get to the level of deepness that I wanted it to look. Even after adjusting the sliders in the Bump node.

[Anonymous No.665962]

>>665961
this is why you can add a math node and add power with numbers

[Anonymous No.665964]

>>665960
nobody does this anymore tho, using displacement maps for bumps. displacements maps are now mostly used for geometry and not normal mapping. this is why when you export bump maps from substance the height channel(displacement) and normal channel get thrown into one channel and the height map gets its own texture map, just in case you wanted to use it to displace geometry. Just to be clear both displacement maps and normal maps do the exact same thing(rgb=normal,value=displacement, but now are applied differently, so displacement should never ever come up with texturing.

also the reason the height map did't work for >>665900
is because you're using a transparent background, there needs to be black and white values to determine height with displacement maps.

But yeah i get it, the normal node lets you choose between height and normal. But again displacements are not normally used in texturing anymore.

[Starfleet No.665965]

>>665964
good correction on the .png. My train of thinking would be to trace a nurbs path.

But come ON!!! This is a gearshift! I mean ..... MYYYY GOOOOODDDDD!!!!

Okay, had to get that out. I'm better now.

[Anonymous No.665966]

>>665962
I'll try it and post results.

[Anonymous No.665969]

>>665952
Yeah, you use a linear texture, usually in the range [0.0, 1.0], with 0.5 being no displacement. Then you feed that to a shader which takes said map and a range of displacement, for example, 0.01 units. The displacement will be applied according to those. But it requires a mesh of high enough resolution, so the render engine will tessellate the mesh to an acceptable degree, and then apply the displacement. I believe there is support for this in the latest 2.7x Cycles. This may be relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cbcV1_rgZg

>>665958
This setting, although correct, is for bump mapping. It's a shading "trick", it doesn't create real geometry. It's usually enough for non-hero assets, but if OP wants to have close shots of the gearshift, a bump map probably will not be enough.

[Starfleet No.665970]

>>665896
Looks like you can shrink wrap a Text Object to a sphere. This Text origin is outside the sphere. I've tried converting to mesh and running a boolean but it's real dicey.

[Anonymous No.665971]

>>665709
Use a hook?

[Anonymous No.665972]

>>665955
That's wrong, faggot. A bumpmap is BW.
You're thinking of a normal map, which is a completely different thing.

[Anonymous No.665973]

>>665972
a bump map is both a normal and a displacement, I already explained this. a displacement is BW and a normal is RGB. in substance they both get exported into the same texture, so stfu.

[Anonymous No.665975]

>>665973
That's... just wrong, Anon. In several respects.
A displacement map is a BW map used for displacing geometry. A bump map is a BW map used for displacing light reflections. A Normal map also does that, but uses more color channels to also take into account 3D space and surface curvature.

[Anonymous No.665977]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXBHwaIzCrI

[Anonymous No.665980]

>>665975
No im not lmfao, bump maps are literally synonymous with displacement maps because they both use B&W to indicate depth. all the videos you will ever come across for bump maps are for DISPLACEMENT.

[Anonymous No.665981]

>>665980
they do the same job but displacement modifies the geometry, bump only does a light trick (assuming we are in 1999)

[Starfleet No.665983]

>>665977
This man deserves the honor. The software does level the playing field. Without his life's work I would still be on canvas with acrylics and oils. The world is a brighter place because of this man.

[Anonymous No.665986]

>>665981
No displacement and bump maps dont do the same job wtf? they both use black and white values and thats it, one displaces geometry the other one is fake geometry. normals do it better than bump maps, so i dont know why you keep bringing up the old terminology for bump map, since its pretty clear that when we talk about bump maps we refer to normals.

[Anonymous No.665989]

>>665986
A displacement map modifies geometry. A bump map modifies the way light is computed without altering the geometry, akin to the way a normal map works. There are also RGB displacement maps, which encode displacement along a vector. You can downgrade a displacement map, either of linear or vector type, to a bump map, and downgrade a bump map to a normal map. A normal map has less information than a bump map, so going in the opposite direction involves interpolation or artistic input. Going from a bump map to a linear displacement map is possible; not so from a bump map to a vector displacement map. Neither displacement, nor bump, nor normal maps ordinarily encode height information, so that value has to be additionally given to the render engine. An exception might be made for some displacement maps, if you take their encoded lengths as non-normalized units in your DCC of choice.

[Starfleet No.665992]

Starfleet signing out.

Well, truckers, stay on the right side of the line.
Catch you on the flip flop.

[Anonymous No.665993]

>>665969
Yeah, I've tried the bump map method again, and I'm still suffering what's happening in the picture.

Which is why I'm wondering how I'm able to do this without it looking like a huge mess.

>>665970
To further this, I've been using the knife tool for it on my knob, the result can be seen here (>>665896) as it was why I asked in the first place. The boolean wouldn't help because it'd just cut the holes, and not make it still look like the solid-looking object I want it to be.

I haven't tried the displacement method yet simply because I don't know how to go about it. I attempted it with the same kind of texture as in the picture, but it looks like crap and I really don't want to subdivide it too much, otherwise it'll be too huge a load when trying to open it.

[Anonymous No.665994]

I would suck Ton Roosendal's dick.

Blender has done so much for me. In the six or so years I've been using Blender now, I've learn to create so many things, it's given me a purpose in life and I've made a lot of money using Blender. I owe everything to him and the Blender community.

[Anonymous No.665995]

>>665993
whats the problem then? seems like your shift knob has a weird shape to it and the engraving is too spread out. remember that in subdivision your unwrap might look bigger than usual so try to minimize the size.

[Anonymous No.665996]

>>665993
(cont.)

So I tried displacement, and this is my result. How do I fix this?

[Anonymous No.665997]

>>665995
No, that's the look I'm trying to get here. And I did shrink the UVs before, and I got a similar result.

[Anonymous No.665999]

>>665997
you can't shrink the UV, just delete the current UV and unwrap it on less vertices's .

[Anonymous No.666000]

>>665989
>A normal map has less information than a bump map
Lol, no

[Anonymous No.666005]

>>666000
A normal map can be derived from a bump map. Clearly, if you know how the height of a surface varies, you can derive the normal at any point of that surface. The reverse is not true, as the normal map only has information about angle, and nothing about height.

[Anonymous No.666006]

>>666005
Woop de doo, what a fucking retard you are.

[Anonymous No.666008]

>>666006
Nice argument, m8.

[Anonymous No.666009]

>>665999
Been trying that, same issues keep happening.

[Anonymous No.666011]

>>666009
Also, side note: But using the adaptive displacement option keeps making my computer unresponsive for some reason. Any fixes other than to simply not use it until I get more memory?

[Anonymous No.666012]

>>666008
A normal map contains at least three color channels, you retard. It contains far more information than a simple bump map. A bump map uses a black to white gradient to define up or down - that's it. A normal map contains info about how light should be reflected from all directions in relation to the underlying geometry.
Bump maps are technology from 1972 - normal maps were first thought of in 1996.

[Anonymous No.666014]

I have a question concerning drivers. I want to drive the color of a node from one material with the color of a node from another material.

Referring to the picture, my goal is to get the purple highlighted color field, which is currently black, to become blue, effectively copying the blue color from the BlueMaterial.

But somehow I can't access the blue color from the other material. As you can see, the value is zero, but I'd expect it to copy the RGB values from the BlueMaterial.

How do I access the color data of a node material???

[Anonymous No.666015]

>>666014
Other solutions to copy colors from other materials are also much appreciated, maybe there is some node like 'copy color from another material' or something?

[Anonymous No.666018]

>>666014
>>666015
Okay guys, I got it to work using Node groups.
https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/16352/global-variable-node-across-multiple-materials

[Anonymous No.666021]

>>666011
i can only offer help to technical issues, if you want artistic advice just be more specific.

i tried the whole displacement thing myself just a few hours ago and it worked out fine.
mind you, i had some shading issues but overall i had no issue stamping symbols on a sphere.
like i said, you might have artifacting if you use a low quality image. it will translate every pixel

[Anonymous No.666046]

>>666021
But that was technical anon. You quoted one of my posts griping about technical issues.

But speaking of displacement, how do I get it so that it doesn't look like this nightmare? >>665996

[Anonymous No.666057]

>>666012
Let me try to phrase it differently. A bump or height map typically encodes a normalized displacement value along the normals of a surface; that is, how much it goes up or down at any given point. When you consider this for all points of that surface, you have a reconstructed 3D surface with (usually) different heights across different areas. So, with a height map, you can go from a simple to a detailed surface. Also, if you wanted to, you could recreate a normal map from this surface; this map would be more or less the same as if you, in the first place, had baked a normal map from the detailed to the simpler surface.

A normal map, however, only encodes vectors (where, say, R=x, G=y, B=z), with no information about height. So you have the normal vectors of a surface, but no information about how much it goes up and down, relative to a simpler surface, at any of its points. Where this difference is small and regular enough, using a normal map may suffice to fake detail. But if the differences in height between the simple and detailed surface are broad and irregular (meaning that there are noticeably different areas in terms of height), a normal map will fall short. You can still try to reconstruct a detailed surface from it, but this will result in a coarse approximation of a regular surface, just barely resembling the actual detailed surface that was used to create that normal map.

See the image attached. The surface is such that the normals of the left and right planar areas are practically the same. However, the right area is at half the height of the left one. While in the baked normal map you can't see the difference (the angles of both areas appear as the same shades of blue), in the baked height map it's evident: the right area appears at lower values. This image, I expect, will serve as a visual demonstration of how a height map carries more information than the corresponding normal map.

[Anonymous No.666062]

>>666046
i don't know what you consider a problem because problems are subjective. maybe spell it out and cross it in red?

[Anonymous No.666064]

>>666062
I can't because it's a rendering problem that eats up all my RAM.

[Anonymous No.666066]

>>666064
And the other issue I have (the shift knob itself) is already getting into a tangled mess that's turning more and more into a fight over what a bump map is.

I'm just waiting for someone to actually give me a clear answer as to what to actually do.

[Anonymous No.666069]

>>666066
do some areas of the render turn completely black? you can solve this by using the displacement instead of the bump node.
OR your UV map doesn't have a defined borders, maybe you scaled it down/up too much.

lower samples to 256 and activate denoiser, clamp direct to 1 clamp indirect to 3, disable caustics. you can also go to shading and change the background from sky to transparent to save RAM

[Anonymous No.666109]

Noobest of noobs here.
Made a simple gold bar.

Inb4 gif is glitched.

[Anonymous No.666115]

>>666066
Try this. Enable the experimental Cycles feature set, add a subdivision modifier using adaptive subdivision, set displacement to true in the material settings, and control the displacement strength with a multiplier over the displacement map.

It's been months since I last used Blender, so this may be inaccurate in some parts, but it's how I remember doing it. I assume things may have improved already with 2.8.

[Anonymous No.666123]

>>666069
No, it's in the 3D viewport when I switch it over to rendered view.

>>666115
I've tried that, but not in the way you've laid it out. I'll give it a shot.

[Anonymous No.666129]

>>666123
Okay yeah, it still wants to do this for some reason.

How do I go about changing that?

[Anonymous No.666130]

>>666129
what is this mushroom anon? what am i looking at? tell me whats the problem

[Anonymous No.666134]

>>666130
Have you been reading the thread up to now?

Because it seems like you haven't.

[Anonymous No.666136]

>>666129
Can you post your displacement map? I'm guessing the issue has to do with the neutral value being white instead of middle gray (0.5).

[Anonymous No.666137]

>>666134
Point is, I've been working on a car model and I'm having trouble modeling/texutring the gearshift knob. This is the result when I try using displacement and modeling is just as terrible.

Plus an argument by several other people over what a bump map is.

[Anonymous No.666138]

>>666136
Here

[Anonymous No.666139]

>>664579
2.8 still lacks proper support for a lot of hardware since they changed how the viewport works or some shit due to eevee. If it doesn't work in 2.79 it probably won't work in 2.8. If it does work in 2.79, then wait for it to release you retard. Or get a gpu for gpu tasks.

[Anonymous No.666140]

>>666138
Ok, that seems like the cause of the issue. Try this one. It's been multiplied by 0.5, so what was white in the original will be 0.5 in this one and thus won't displace any geometry. You'll still have to reduce the strength of the map, as pure black leads to negative maximum displacement, which with defaults settings would be 1 Blender unit.

[Anonymous No.666143]

>>666140
Trying it now, and I'm still seeing the same issues, the top of the knob expands like a mushroom cap.

[Anonymous No.666145]

>>666143
Can you post the material nodes and the UV map?

[Anonymous No.666154]

>>666145
I would, but I figured out my issue- I had two of the same material on the one object. 'Course now I'm back to it being nothing more than a glorified bump map.

It works fine now that I deleted the duplicate. But just for fun, here's the node setup and UVs.

[Anonymous No.666158]

>>666154
Cool, glad to see it solved.

[Anonymous No.666160]

>>666158
But now I'm back to square one regarding it now being a bump map plugged into the displacement slot and not going any further than the picture shows it.

Now how do I fix that so I can get a good groove into it?

[Anonymous No.666161]

>>666160
like this?

[Anonymous No.666163]

>>665449
sculpting is not fine
blender sculpting is extremely tiring, is missing many great features zbrush gets and cannot handle large amounts of polygons

[Anonymous No.666166]

>>666161
Kind of, if you're showing what my issue is.

I'm looking for a fix tho. And so far none of them seem to either be working, or devolve into flame wars over how bump and normal maps are two different things.

[Anonymous No.666167]

>>666166
>if you're showing what my issue
what is your issue?

[Anonymous No.666169]

>>666167
Trying to get a good grove into my mesh (as see here: >>666154) but not getting it to go much deeper than like, a barely a millimeter if that.

[Anonymous No.666171]

>>666169
Multiply the strength of the displacement. I saw in your node setup that you are using Add instead of Multiply.

With these settings >>666115 and this map >>666140, I get the pic attached. If I haven't forgotten anything, there's nothing else involved besides the settings shown already.

[Anonymous No.666172]

>>666171
I have it set on multiply and I'm still getting the same result regardless of how much I crank the intensity. So I don't know what the hell I'm doing wrong here.

[Anonymous No.666173]

>>666172
Forgot pic

[Anonymous No.666175]

>>666173
found these

https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/34902/how-can-i-adjust-cycles-material-displacement-amount

https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/116092/bump-mapping-vs-displacement-plus-displacement-nodes-in-cycles

good luck friend, hopefully you can find peace

[Anonymous No.666176]

>>666175
ok so i finally found the key word
its "true displacement"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cbcV1_rgZg

[Anonymous No.666178]

>>666176
>>666175
>>666173
ok this is pretty fucking cool
thank you anon, i wouldn't be able to do this without you

[Anonymous No.666490]

>>666163
>blender sculpting is extremely tiring
Wut, Blender sculpting isn't tiring at all. What's "tiring" about it?

>is missing many great features zbrush gets
They are different packages, so of course they don't have the exact same feature sets, but Blender can do pretty much anything Zbrush can do, one way or another.

>and cannot handle large amounts of polygons
It can handle many millions, so that's not true, but it's true that Zbrush can handle even more. That has to do with Zbrush' special viewport, which actually renders shit in 2D.

[Anonymous No.666751]

>>664252
lathe modifier

[Anonymous No.666754]

Blender, more like BLUNDER, amirite?

[Anonymous No.666887]

>>666109
>Noobest of noobs here.
Jokes on you, I'm such a scrub that I have nothing to show for it!

[Anonymous No.667482]

>>664235
I too have created my very first creation after watching Andrew Price's Doughnut beginner's guide tutorial for Blender. I think I nailed it.

[Anonymous No.667570]

Is there any way to do something like 3DS Max's 'Bevel Polygons' operation in blender as a modifier? It's like extrude but you can resize the polygons like inset. From what I can tell, Blender doesn't have any such option in it's editing tools.

For context, I have a row of polygons shrinkwrapped to the side of this model and when to make them stick out in a round curve. Solidify only makes the polygons go straight up.

Obviously I'll just do it manually now for time but it would be nice to know in future if it's possible.

[Anonymous No.667571]

>>667570
No idea what you're trying to do here.
Try to explain what your goal is?

[Anonymous No.667575]

>>667571
Sorry, I fudged the explanation. In Max, Bevel on polyons (faces) is like extrude but you have the option to resize the extruded faces.

I wanted to have Blender do something like that automatically, after the shrinkwrap modifer. Solidify can 'extrude' it but it has no option to make the extrusion smaller.

[Anonymous No.667577]

>>667575
Just like (E)xtrude and (S)cale...?

[Anonymous No.667578]

>>667577
It scales along the normal like inset but yeah. I want it to do that automatically as a modifier after the subd and shrinkwrap stuff though.

[Anonymous No.667579]

>>667578
Alt+S to scale along normals.
Displacement modifier for scaling would also work, I suppose.

[Anonymous No.667633]

>>667579
I guess it's just different principles or whatever between the programs. Max has a lot of operations as modifiers, so you could technically have a primitive with a stack of tweaks to shape it without ever needing to make it an editable mesh. Blender seems to be all about editable mesh from the start, since primitive settings have to be chosen from the get-go.

[Anonymous No.667984]

>>665138
he's right tho

[Anonymous No.668178]

>>664179
working on this.

still go a long way to go till im finished.

[Anonymous No.668827]

>>664235
>spectacular bro, nice work

[Anonymous No.668828]

>>664252
nice file name

[Anonymous No.668848]

Really been enjoying getting into 3d stuff lately, relaxing to work on. Feel like I need to commit more to one project, I get bored or distracted by another idea after 4-6 hours working on one thing usually.

[Anonymous No.668849]

Does anyone know of a way to keep the grid and axis lines in the render? I really like how it made this sort of look like 70s tech. I screenshotted my workspace screen to get this

[Anonymous No.668850]

>>668849
well, in eevee, your viewport is the same as the final render. just crank the samples up in your viewport and use screenshots