Tips

# 1 15-09-2011 , 03:15 PM

Subscriber
Join Date: Apr 2009

Posts: 22

I've been playing with hardsurface polygon modelling for a while now but I realised i've not really put that much thought into what techniques and things I use. I just tend to experiment with different things and then choose whatever I feel works/looks best.

I was just wondering if there were any major do's and don'ts when it comes to this kind of modelling? I don't want to pick up any bad habits that could possibly damage any chances for jobs etc in the future.

Quote

# 2 15-09-2011 , 06:06 PM

Technical Director
Join Date: Feb 2004

Posts: 2,988

A quick Google search brought these up:

https://www.polycount.com/forum/showthread.php?t=56014
and
Hard Surface Modeling: Tips and Tricks on Vimeo
and
https://www.3dtotal.com/tutorial/3d_s...surface_01.php

Hopefully they'll help you out.

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

Quote

# 3 15-09-2011 , 06:52 PM

Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2004

Location: Michigan, USA

Posts: 2,998

You will notice alot of the hard surface stuff you find is in max. Many of the Max techniques can be used in Maya but a lot do not translate to Maya very well, especially some of the stuff from the hard surface essentials from 3dtotal.

I followed a lot of the examples in there and although the results look fine in max, in Maya you get all kinds of artifacts and render problems and pinching. It seems turbo smooth is either smarter or more forgiving then smoothing in maya. That being said he offers some very sound techniques. You can get good hard surface models in Maya, but you have to work very hard and put a lot of thought into the way you model things.

The geometry in the vimeo video is an example of the kind of stuff that gets heavily criticized here because of all the messy geometry and edges that he terminate in ngons. So unless you have a thick skin I would avoid going down that path. Personally, I know where ngons cause problems and where they do not, so although I strive for all quads, I do not go nuts trying to run a metric butt ton of extra geometry all the hell over my model just to make everything quads! One way to kind of meet in the middle is to split the model into multiple parts so you can localize the geometry that needs a lot of support edges.

I have spent a lot of time studying hard surface modeling and I have yet to find any really outstanding tutorials on it using Maya. My background is in automotive surface modeling and structural analysis of parts and assemblies using applications like solid works, inventor, catia, alias studio, etc, which are all primarily parametric nurbs based modelers and the techniques they use are not easily translated to Maya, especially with the state of Maya's NURBS tool set (having remained virtually unchanged for more then ten years). Poly modeling unified complex hard surface shapes in Maya is, quite frankly, a bitch.

It seems the focus lately is on organics where most people are only interested in making blobby nurbs shapes and converting them a basic poly cages, then sending them to zbrush and subdividing a bazillion times and then sculpting like clay which is a workflow not well suited to hard surface modeling or to engineers that are used to working with precision and accurate drawings. I have seen a few decent looking hard surface zbrush models and I have also watched the tedious, very inaccurate, and almost painful workflow that I can only describe as trying to do brain surgery while wearing boxing gloves!

What is needed are tutorials that go over when to smooth and when not to smooth and how to optimize geometry when both smoothing and not smoothing. What I mean here is many times I see people saying "I intend to smooth this so I will use the minimum possibly geometry" and then after smoothing you get faceting at close camera distances and then have to subdivide even more driving the poly count way beyond what you would have had if you started with high resolution in the first place. So you have to know how close the camera is intended to get in order to resolve this (yes you can use the approximation node in mental ray). Then there is the issue of unifying many compound shapes into a complex unified part, how to consistently add edge bevels at junctions, while avoiding creases, pinching, render artifacts, and crappy or excessive geometry. I have yet to see any demonstrated consistent and REPEATABLE workflows for this problem. Then there is the issue of holes! Cutting holes, especially with sharp corners, into curved surfaces and then trying to smooth can be a big problem with no real consistent solution. Most of what I see is trial and error, touchy feely, stuff which is very unnatural to someone coming from a 3D CAD application background.

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." Sir Isaac Newton, 1675

Last edited by ctbram; 16-09-2011 at 12:02 AM.

Quote

# 4 15-09-2011 , 07:45 PM

Lead Modeler - Framestore
Join Date: Feb 2003

Location: UK

Posts: 6,287

Yeah I agree with Rick.

Max seems to be much more forgiving. Ive found that with trying to do a hard surface model in Maya a bit more thought needs to go into it - separate parts etc.

I recently finished a movie as Modelling supervisor, and we had alot of hard surface stuff to do, mainly vehicles and environments, and although Ive been doing Maya a while I still had to really think about how to approach the models. I ended up modelling hard surface objects with organic techniques, because the designs were complex. Im talking futuristic with a hint of distopian thrown in, so essentially a combo of the two types, hard and organic were needed. Some of the guys on the team had max backgrounds so it was a bit of a struggle for them because they were used to max's features, one of them compared everything to max and just trashed maya (so I moved him to texturing LOL) but seriously Maya does need a boost in areas.

Looking at the video there, yeah he's using Max, but from my point of view its a dirty model, regardless of the software. Max is really used in games, and the majority of that stuff is put out as tris. The realtime engines allow for the different mesh types so its not a problem. Working in VFX is different, for the most part its got to be quads, its a clean surface so therefore renders are easier, displacements work nicely and sims are faster. Topology is easier to manage when its quad based as well.

Although maya does have the soften edge normals option, you still need a good amount of geo in there to make a hard surface model look good, otherwise you'll get a game looking model everytime, with spikey edges. Its really swings and roundabouts - on the upside, it gets easier with experience.

Although this stuff is mainly organic, its worth a visit to see the techniques used....https://gotwires.blogspot.com/

Jay

Quote

# 5 15-09-2011 , 07:47 PM

Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2004

Location: Michigan, USA

Posts: 2,998

Yep what Jay said!

one of them compared everything to max and just trashed maya (so I moved him to texturing LOL)

Originally Posted by

Note to self, say nothing bad about maya while working for Jay. Texturing! ouch that is like being sent to the mines in Siberia. I love Maya Jay and I am Happy in my work! If I trash Maya can you just delegate me to running out and getting everyone coffee and donuts?

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." Sir Isaac Newton, 1675

Last edited by ctbram; 15-09-2011 at 08:22 PM.

Quote

# 6 15-09-2011 , 08:04 PM

Lead Modeler - Framestore
Join Date: Feb 2003

Location: UK

Posts: 6,287

forgot this link too, worth following if you have a google account....https://gotwires.blogspot.com/search/label/hard-surface

Jay

Quote

# 7 15-09-2011 , 08:44 PM

Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2004

Location: Michigan, USA

Posts: 2,998

Lots of good wires there it's just too bad that there are not a lot of people that share their work flows on how they create them.

I see a lot of modo stuff in there but not a lot of maya models. I have a pretty good handle on the work flow and tools that would have been used to create those modo models and unfortunately, Maya does not have anything comparable without using some expensive 3rd party addons.

Here is what I mean by lots of compound shapes combined into a single unified mesh. These are from Howard Lincoln a 22 year old 3D artist from London England. I think they are examples of some of the cleanest hard surface work from a non-CAD package that I have ever seen.

Attached Thumbnails

Click image for larger version

Name: progress05.jpg
Views: 666
Size: 197.2 KB
ID: 48625

Click image for larger version

Name: wires_engine.jpg
Views: 658
Size: 521.5 KB
ID: 48626

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." Sir Isaac Newton, 1675

Last edited by ctbram; 15-09-2011 at 11:18 PM.

Quote

# 8 19-09-2011 , 05:50 PM

Subscriber
Join Date: Apr 2009

Posts: 22

Thanks for the info.

I've only ever used Max once but I couldn't seem to get comfortable using it so i've always stuck to Maya. When it comes to modelling I have found that it's a lot easier to make the models in seperate parts. I think i've gotten used to it now. I don't even think about it when I create a new primitive to work from to add to something.

I made this a few weeks ago and used a hell of a lot of seperate parts. Would something like that be a lot easier in Max, using just a few seperate meshes? I didn't really notice how awkward it was to use seperate objects.

Would you recommend I get dug into Max again and learn how to make more solid mesh models?

Attached Thumbnails

Click image for larger version

Name: 13.jpeg
Views: 627
Size: 290.3 KB
ID: 48662

Quote

# 9 19-09-2011 , 11:32 PM

Lifetime Member
Join Date: Feb 2010

Location: Australia

Posts: 4,255

I really dont see anything wrong with seperate parts. As Jay pointed out too it depends on what the model is being used for I think. I dont care about tri's or ngons as I hide them where I can and my models will never be used in any industry...but if you want to work in movies etc you will need the quad rule.

I sometimes cheat where two components join and 'flare' the ends so they 'appear' welded. Or in some cases I will model in sperate parts then join at least some of them...UV time will be the killer especially if you have wired textures that need to be seamless...all those parts would be fun...NOT.

Bah...send me to texturing...........I need the experience! UV mapping is getting easier but the damn seams with different objects and textures is a pain!

Bloody nice model too mate by the way!

cheers bullet

bullet1968

"A Darkness at Sethanon", a book I aspire to model some of the charcters and scenes

Quote

# 10 20-09-2011 , 04:18 AM

Technical Director
Join Date: Feb 2004

Posts: 2,988

Just found this: https://www.cgfeedback.com/cgfeedback...read.php?t=124

Might help.

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

Quote

# 11 20-09-2011 , 01:47 PM

Lead Modeler - Framestore
Join Date: Feb 2003

Location: UK

Posts: 6,287

Interesting article.

Edge weighting though.....mmm thats a tough call. I was asked about this on my last gig by one of our heads of tech as to whether or not I used it, and if not, why not and so forth...... in a nutshell, if you jump back and forth between software or even have trouble and need to obj the object to 'clean' it, all that edge weight goes out the window. So I'll be sticking with the smooth mesh/sub d approach for a while yet.

N_Gons, not if you can help it.....

Modelling with separate parts - theres nothing wrong with it whatsoever, yes we'd all like to bash a model out in one piece, but look at things from a real world point of view and ask why wasnt that car made in one piece or that engine, simply because its not practical and plus it wouldnt work, so sometimes the same approach is needed in 3d, so dont worry and certainly dont limit your creativity to the single mesh approach, you wont get anything done

J

Quote

# 12 20-09-2011 , 02:30 PM

Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2004

Location: Michigan, USA

Posts: 2,998

subd local refinement and creasing has a similar problem to edge weighting in that if for any reason you have to convert back to polygon you lose all your refinements and creasing or you have to bake them permanently into the mesh.

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." Sir Isaac Newton, 1675

Last edited by ctbram; 20-09-2011 at 02:47 PM.

Quote