Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.Daz 3D is part of
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
13K for a model with that detail isn't all that much - could you give a solid wire view and an explanation of your methods which would help us possibly give you a more efficient method?
I see you often refer to using level 3 SubD - I feel that is a bit excessive - with good modelling techniques, you shouldn't need to go higher than level 1, possibly 2 at the most - maybe that is the problem. Bear in mind that each level quadrupels the polys.
Very nice moel, though:)
Thanks Roygee, what I do is to model a segment of the texture thinking in the SubD smoothing step, then I do duplicate the amount necessary to get the size desired of the tire, I had to add a couple of loops to do smoother the texture.
And when I talk about the SubD to 3 I am referring to the smooth tool, I never hit the convert button this way I never increase the polygon number, is this correct? I do use only the SubD to get the rounded parts on the models:
The last picture was with no SubD smoothing and the following is by applying it, notice how the number of polygon are never increased only get smoother:
Regards!
Otto
Thats true, until you get to the rendering.
Then the render engine will have to honnor the subdivision and the render time will increase.
An other way to build a shape like this is, instead of using one mesh, you can use several overlapping meshes. That can reduce the polycount.
This is not my model. It part of a carmodel I had to buy.I normaly enjoy creating everything myself, but this one I had to have in a hurry....
Yes, that smoothing is a rendertime effect - it actually increases the poly count at render. No problem if it's just the one tyre, but when you add to that three more, plus the car and everything else, it becomes significant. With something that well constructed, I doubt whether there will be that much apparent difference if you only did one level of smoothing.
You didn't say how you got it to bend in a circle - I'm assuming you used a modifier? Have you tried using the replicate function under the edit menu? It gives three options, linear, array and circle.
What I would do is model one half of the profile, do an array replication in a circle on the X axis, then duplicate with symmetry on the Y axis. These functions are pretty fiddly in Carrara because you don't see the result until you commit - so you have to do it on a guess. If the result is not to your liking, you undo and try again, but still more efficient than copying and bending.
Statistics in Carrara are wrong (they count polys on cages only, sub level 0), if Modeling Level of subdivisions is set to 3, there is more polys there then 12k.
OpenGL has to deal with them though, try to put that nuber on 3 on 50000 polys model and Carrara will slow down significantly ...
Rendering Level is the one which happens (what it's name implies) on Render time.
When you model in Carrara try to make sure that your model looks good with your textures applied in both, 0 and desired sub-D level, sometimes if not modeled properly textures will (despite UV-s being subdivided as well) stretch and we do not want that
Also if you export the model to obj for any reason, they will become real polys (approx 830,000 by a simple x4 x4 x4), and it may even triangulate on top of that if you've used n-gons.
And, unless this is a hero prop, you're putting all that detail into something that's likely to be in the background and largely hidden. If that tyre was on a truck, I'd bet you'd be hard pressed to notice the sub-d in a render, at least more than one level.
Exactly, I usually do the basic shape and UV map and apply good threads texture and use it for displacement (which is not that good in Carrara, but it does the job) rather then model all that detail ...
As a modeling practice, yes, it is a nice model to practice on, but, IMO it's a bit impractical if you gonna model the whole car
I've only had time this morning to skim through the thread but I just want to say how good it is to see things made or being made in Carrara. Thanks to all for showing such impressive work. My own modelling efforts so far have been in Hexagon but I try the vertex or spline rooms in Carrara every so often.
I would spend a long time commenting on posts from days ago so instead I just will say, well done and thanks for the inspiration. I love seeing the industrial / mechanical works - I don't know why, though!
Last year I started making a military vehicle in Hexagon, which I haven't yet returned to. It led me to buy the odd scale-modelling magazine. Seeing plastic model kits being built step-by-step is a great reference for ideas. I only ever do things 'by eye'. Life is too short for measurements!
I hope this thread grows and remains because a massive part of Carrara's identity, for me, is the all-round nature of the program. It's much more than a stage for pre-made items (but I happily use it that way also).
The works shown in this thread are brilliant.
I agree with Tango Alpha anf FifthElement.
Displacement . all that detail on a much lower mesh, makes more sense in a product,. but purely for the modelleing work i applaud your efforts Otto :)
Marcus severus Wrote:
Life is too short for measurements!
Great quote :)
Hi 3DAge,
I'm glad you like the quote.
But I have to say, as a self-made man, there are exceptions to every rule - alas!
EDIT - that wasn't meant to be crude in any way - I was thinking of a cartoon I saw once where a man had three arms and legs sticking out everywhere and his wife was saying: 'my husband is a self-made man'.
To a drowning man, life is too short without measurements if the rope you throw doesn't reach . . . ;)
Thanks guys, I am in the process to learn that's why I am posting here all my progress work. I had the idea that the polygons never be increased if I did not choose the convert option, but now I will take care much more about the SubD to 3, I thought that getting models with low-poly remained the same at the time of smoothing. In my personal experience the rendering time never has increased so significative, but I am aware of take care of the model size.
I didn't tried to make the entire car only a tire as a excersise and see how can I get a more complex model. But taken your advices I seriously will consider other modeling methods.
Sorry I didn't mention that I thought it was a common practice, yes I used the modify option and blended all the geometry to 360 grades I will take a look to the replicate option, in the past I did use it to make a grass texture never thinking in that function to make a textured tire.
Thanks!
Well if that statistics are wrong in Carrara then also are wrong in Maya, I did a test in a simple model and works the same with complex ones, and geometry are neve increased at the time to SubD in Maya, take a look to the following samples:
And here with SubD applied (also with 3 level of smoothing)
And have to say that AlphaTango is correct, I have exported some models made in Maya subdivided to other modeling programs and what I get is a dense mesh.
Still learning.
I have to learn the displacement option, at this time what I wanted to do is to get the more ability skills in the modeling process, and I was also trying to avoid the crease edge options maken hard surfaces or angular ones, I was trying to apply the modeling rules learned in Maya. But considering that the polygon number is something that we need to take care of I will to learn much more in other methods.
I will try to upload more mini-tutos, I have seen that are very useful as a modeling guides.
I love also the mechanical parts, I do use them quite often in my job, so I am behind of all the options to make efficient and well done models showing what I have in mind or my jobs demand.
Thanks friend, I am making indeed an effort to make detailed models, and as I have said before, its my first time modeling entirely in Carrara and there are tons of things that I have to learn, so I am very thankfull for all your input.
Love Carrara and these forums aswell.
If you like Carraras vertex Modeling Get HEX! You have no idea how more advacned andgreat it is over Carrara
Here is screenshot from my modeler (Silo) and it shows entire count as it really is (those faces are also called Iso faces and they are there regardless if Maya or Carrara does not show them in their count)
HEX DOES TO!
hex is great. In addition to being a good stand-alone modeler, it can save in native Carrara format. my old Carrara 5 handbook has sections on using hex and integrating with Carrara. The only thing I would caution is that hex is a vertex modeler. That is great as far as it goes, but it is easy to forget that sometimes it is easier to use a different modeler or method for an object that is not being delivered to a 3rd party for an unknown use. If the camera only sees one side of a building, Hollywood will often only build that one wall, not the whole building. For a quick object to fill out a scene, it is often much easier to use Carrara (even the spline modeler, formula modeler,...) and projection mapping may work perfectly fine for that purpose. No need to professionally uvmap a wall that the camera never sees (or even build that wall).
Unless he drowns while you're estimating the distance and measuring the rope! ;-P
Remember, as the great Chinese philosopher Confusion once said, "patience is a virtue best learned quickly."
If you think Hex is great, try Blender - mind-bogglingly fantastic. Yet there are some functions in Hex which are superior to Blender.
I use HEX almost for all my modeling then save as a carrara file and go from there. It is hugely better and more understandable than Carraras vertex modler.
Sorry I didn't want to sound rude at all, its just that I am kind of shoked, as I thought that the best modeling practice was gettin rounded figures by using the SubD, as I was working before with Maya all the tutorials I have followed are saying the same, "you can get rounded shapes by subdividing hexagons and preferrable octagons" and I always taked care of the polygon number, that's why always left the polygon counter visible at my working screen.
Thanks!
As I've stated before a very nive program I tried before and I am actually working on is Maya, I feel much more comfortable with Maya than Blender, but over those two I'm still with Carrara.
To me was a new world discovered that you could model so professional in Carrara as in Maya, with other advantages I found on the process to work with Carrara.
Now our friend GarbanzoLasVegas is suggesting Hexagon, sounds very temptative as far I can see it has some of the features like the Z-Brush, anyone else is recommend it?
Regards
Otto
Hexagon, in it's day, was very advanced, but development was neglected, so now it is a very good, but basic modeller. It is nothing like Z-Brush, but has some very basic sculpting tools - far more so than Carrara. For the rest, it's pretty much up to user preference. The standard modelling tools are present in both - although Hexagon has a lot more than Carrara; some work better in one app and others work better in the other.
The way they work is why I prefer Hexagon over Carrara. For instance, very simple actions, such as bend deformers in the VM - in Hexagon, as in all other normal modelling apps, it is interactive, visual and on the fly. In Carrara, you have to specify angle, axis etc. and commit. If the result is not what you want, you have to undo and try again. Many other functions in the Carrara VM have the same method. To me, it seems more of a CAD method than artistic.
If you are looking for something like Z-Brush, try the free Sculptris.
Thanks Roygee, what sounds attractive to me is precisally that, the way that you can distord the geometry like in Z-Brush, will give it a try later when my organic shapes demand that kind of job.
And yes, I find myself the Carrara modeling as a CAD method, very accurated the which is an advantage at the time to model mechanical parts.
Otto
This is why it's different strokes for different folks,. whatever works for you, works for you.
I learned my basic modelling in 3D Studio,.before it became 3D-Max,. and continued using 3D-max until I found the Daz forums and Cararra,. I bought that because it was so low priced, with great features
the "rooms" concept threw me for a while,. since max is all in one,...but being able to load human figures and animate them quickly was a big benefit
I have Hexagon,. but rarely use it. although I did build my free Pharaoh's chariot in hex, my first freebie model.
I also use Z-brush and 3D Coat, which are both phenominal programs with great modelling, sculpting and painting / texturing features.
I used sculptris to make the base for my little "Kreatcher" model,. also free on ShareCG
http://www.sharecg.com/3dage