Glutten for Punishment

[GDblEK]

Hello, I know the title may seem odd, but I think you'll get the joke by the time I finish this post.

 

Being hard-headed and a bit stubborn, I decided to jump ahead in the curriculm and get the modeling basic of the program down so that I could start building the model I wanted. I have gone through the first three lessons, and skipped straight to models. I read through the plane one, then used what I read to start inputing my own model.

Here it is todate:

 

Minus a transparent pane on the visible side near the rear.

 

I think the level of detail will need to buffed up, as this only has about 910 patches. From what I've been reading on high detail models that have on the order of tens of thousands.

 

I am finding it a better learning experience for myself, if I work on what I want to and when I get to a point where I go, doesn't the program do this and I go look and learn how to apply it quickly. This is not something I would recommend for others, as I have spent a lot of time playing with the program.

 

This is why I say I'm glutten for punishment, but I'm really like-ing how this is starting to look.

 

comments?

[robcat2075]

looks like an ambitious model.

 

You should post a wireframe. There are a number of creases ( I presume unintentional) that could probably be fixed with simple splining corrections.

 

But I'd suggest doing the plane tut and getting feedback on that too.

[heyvern]

"tens of thousands" of patches isn't an absolute necessity. Even for this project. It depends on where you put the detail and how you connect it to other areas. With mechanical modeling like this you can use more hooks and 5 pointers with out worrying about it. Most mechanical surfaces don't move like organic modeling.

 

I saw an engine model in another post that had lots and lots of ringed surfaces as actual modeled geometry. It was only one "section" but was still "only" around 4,000 patches and had tremendous detail. Up close the modeled geometry is going to look fantastic. From a distance you could create that detail using maps.

 

You have broad "flat" areas. Having a ton of points in those areas may not be a good idea. Having lots of splines running through "flat" areas can make keeping them smooth later kind of difficult for the beginner. Once again it depends on how you want to apply the "details" like window edges and rivets, seams etc... with a bump or displacement map? Or with actual splinage? How closely will the camera get to the model? Those are questions that go into how the model is created.

 

Listen to me! I should practice what I preach... I tend to go way overboard on detail and too much splinage where it isn't needed, but I still don't usually end up with tens of thousands of patches... my computer can't handle it.

 

I remember the ridged cap of a plastic bottle I did. I could have created the ridges with splines but used a bump map instead. Looked just as good and at a fraction of the patches (left me more patch space for the dang fully functional detailed hinge on the back of a lid that no one could see anyway. ).

 

-vern

[frosteternal]

I totally agree with Vern here - you should aim to have fewer patches, not more.

One of the beautiful things about splines and patches is that you can generate astoundingly complex surfaces with a minimal number of control points.

This is what gives a patch-based model enormous advantage over other modelling techniques. Rendering, texturing, animation - these are all stream-lined by an efficiently built model.

In a world where computer power and memory are indeed, desperately finite, getting the "most bang for your buck" is key.

[GDblEK]

Here is the shaded wire frame of the project. Some of the 'ridges' are areas I think could use additional patching, due to the model size (150m.) Being this is the first time really trying to get a model like this built, I am making guesses, some WAG's and some SWAG's.

 

 

I do have some understanding of modeling, but I am learning the capability of this program as I go. I am anticipating that a good level of detail will be beneficial, as I plan on getting some close ups of the model in fly-bys.

[higginsdj]

Never dead end a spline unless you want it to cause a crease. If you need to end it then end it in a Hook and not a CP. Never have more than 2 splines crossing through the same CP. You can solve some of these problems by changing the direction of the spline - ie around the 'bridge' area.

 

Cheers

[GDblEK]

I had kinda of noticed that dead ending a line into a patch had a tendancy to cause a point or ripple. As to using a hook, I shall look that up and see about using it to clean this model up.

 

Thank you for the help and advice.

[heyvern]

It is never "wrong" to jump right into the deep end with something like this in my opinion. However, just be warned a lot of the "mistakes" will require reworking down the road.

 

I remember years ago jumping into a complex project before having a lot of experience with splines and how they should be constructed. My final model was good in my opinion but some time later I looked at it again, and realize how bad it really was.

 

I too never finished all the tutorials. A lot of my skill with AM was learned doing it on my own (and from advice on the forum of course). I admit in hind sight that I could have avoided a lot of trial and error if I had done more of the tutorials in the beginning.

 

I would suggest that you may want to review some of the basic modeling "rules" about splines and how they work. There are some issues with this model regarding creasing and spline placement that at some point you may find yourself reworking a lot of it.

 

Also you may want to think about the shape of the model in terms of how to create it from a simpler shape. For instance I often look at the final model goal in terms of which direction the splines flow naturally... is it a cylinder? Spherical? Extruded? Could I lathe an outline to create the basic shape or should I extrude a cross section? How will parts be connected? Where will the 5 point patches go so they aren't "in the way".

 

I have found over the years that imagining the final in my head in this way saves wasted effort in the beginning.

 

For instance right off the bat I see your ship model as being created using an extruded shape that is modified along the length. This would avoid the awkward "caps" on the outer ends of the "wings". You would only need to cap the front tip and the back. The "nacels" or engines could be connected with 5 point patches (like "arms") instead of just dead ended into the body. The whole model would be constructed like a continuous cylinder or "tube" shape. This would entirely eliminate most of the awkward 5 point patches in areas where they aren't really needed.

 

More detail could be added in certain areas using hooks. Because of the extruded cylindrical nature of the whole shape they would be easier to add in.

 

These are only suggestions. As I said jumping right in is not bad and is a great way to learn... as long as you don't let the potential frustration get you down too much.

 

-vern

[GDblEK]

Having take the advice, I have made modifications that are cleaning up the exterior. I am working towards getting the model more complete with the details before I see about doing more modifications to the model itself. I've been looking at the other startship models that have been posted to see what I could use to help improve my work.

 

I think one of the big things was to change the nacel to an extruded model vice hand drawing/placement. It does appear to be a smoother fit. I have tried to put a glow stick inside the nacels to get the engine field glow, but little success. I guess it is something I'm going to have to do more research on.

 

 

I have started to use decals to see if I can get them to work. The first set is the deck dividers, which adds some definition. I'm going to see about adding more decals from star trek models I have lieing around.

[Xtaz]

Hi ... ambitious model !!

 

I notice that you are committing small and common mistakes to any beginner.

First CP rule if you want a soft patch transition. Never... I said never use a single control point as vertex for more than 4 patches...

I used your wire reference to show you how could be modeled the problematic parts ...

-the green dots are hooks

-the white lines are where were the '5 patches' cps'

 

 

good luck !

[Darkwing]

What type of ship is that? It looks familiar to me. It looks like a cross between a dauntless and a prometheus class. I'm just curious. Tbings are looking good for jumpinf right into it. I did the airplane model, then i jumped into the bigger models. My first was an enterprise 1701. Like other people here have said, the splinage is very important, and the cleaner the splines, the better the model!

[the_black_mage]

hey man, one thing you should know about modeling can help...the least splines the better!!! normally reducing the spline number can smooth out your model...

 

also another thing that could help is deleting half the model then smoothing out the spline path...then using the copy/flip/attach option after selecting that side then right clicking it...

[arkaos]

Well, the first thing I notice viewing the wireframe is you have way too many splines on the side areas of the ship. You can get much better smoothness using fewer splines and

taking advantage of bias handles.

 

I also see that you use patches on the engines to provide a surface for the red markings. Lose those, decrease the spline count running along the

length of the engines and use your bias handles. The coloring can be texture mapped and will render faster if you map them.

 

Remember, it only takes 4 cp's in a ring to make a circle using bias handles. I suggest you examine each cross section along the ship and try to replicate the

shape you want using as few cp's as possible and using the bias handles in a temporary spline ring off to the side. That will give you a better feel of how many

longitudinal splines you will need to get the basic shape of the ship. Once you got a good, smooth basic model in the shape you want, THEN start adding detail

only where you need it, once again using as few cp's needed to get the job done.

 

One other thing to consider. If you want cutouts (holes) in the model, it may be better to use boolean cutters, depending on the complexity of the hole shape. Complex

holes will be difficult to spline in and makes it harder to keep the areas around the hole smooth due to increased spline count. Of course, there are advantages and

disadvantages to either splining in holes or using boolean cutters, so really, whichever method you choose is completely up to you.

 

You have a really good basic design of the ship. With time and effort, you will end up with a fabulous model. Good luck and don't get discouraged.

[GDblEK]

Having taken more of the advice to heart, I worked on just half the model, then did the copy/flip/attach option. I've also started on another piece of my vision and started modeling the Ent E. I've not gotten to far with that, but some of the detail can be seen.

 

And here is the two models put into a simple choreography.

 

To answer the question about how I came up with the design, I took the Dauntless from the Voyager series, kind of melded it with Voyager, put some touches from the Delta Flyer on and came up with this. There are some streches, as the engine are more common Star Trek engines.