Do THIS before you boolean! (Curvature Trick)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ส.ค. 2021
- Hard surface modeling deals with a lot of booleans and curvature. Here's a little trick I use to get it just right!
⮞⮞ Get our Hard Surface eBook for free - www.blenderbros.com/ebook
Hard Ops/Boxcutter (affiliate): gumroad.com/a/811037811
Website - www.blenderbros.com
Patreon - / theblenderbros
Gumroad - gumroad.com/theblenderbros
Socials - linktr.ee/joshgambrell
Discord - / discord
Biz inquiries - josh@blenderbros.com
In summary, the fix is "adjust the positions of the meshes beforehand to align the vertices as much as possible"
My disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined
In another universe this video is 10 seconds long and everyone is happy
@@cac3r in another universe this video contains actual tricks
Yeah this was a weirdly useless video haha. “Simply don’t end up in the tough situation, :)”
Long story short :)
You made a 30 seconds video into 8 minutes one, great job
Not really sure about this one -
What if you are working to exact measurements where you can't rotate or move each cylinder?
For this, it is better if you start with a hi-poly mesh. Instead of 16 verts, set it up much higher such as 64 or 128 so that the distance between the vertices which you need to merge is shorter.
You can follow Arrimus 3D youtube channel for more topology tips and tricks.
do people use blender for things that need to be that precise? I always assumed you'd use CAD software for anything like that
@@r6scrubs126 There's a lot of people who model cars or stuff like that, where You have to be precise. Blender is not only for some bullshit concepts without actual use for insta fanpage. Many people use it for product renders as well.
if you want to work with exact measurements, use a parametric CAD application like FreeCAD or Fusion 360. ;-)
Blender is a Vertex-Pushing-Tool for artistic purposes. Art is rarely exact measured. :-)
A cylinder is symmetrical, why couldn't you rotate it? It's measurements are the same no matter how you rotate it. You could also cut the cylinder in half modify the end closest to the boolean, then join them back up. So the end joining the other cylinder gets rotated to fit, but the outer end stays uniform in its original position. The only difference is there would be a slight twist along the cylinder but that would hardly be noticeable if you use enough subdivisions.
Of course, if you are working on anything that requires extreme precision you should be using a high resolution mesh anyway so adding subdivisions should be no problem to you.
It’s not really a solution, more of a workaround. Won’t work for precise geometry where every milliner counts, also only works in a perfect environment like this.
Absolutely. Seems more like a little trick, as the video says
What would be a better solution?
@@tomasfiorentini4126 No idea. This seems like a nice trick
voxels and retopology
Ok, but what if you can't just move the cylinder around freely and it has to be placed in a specific position, regardless of how the vertices align?
add edge loop before to merge all vertices to isolate and keep other vertex in the same position
Good idea. Unlike this video which forces to compromise with the structure.
@@nirmansarkar well if u r going with subsurf it will fix the slightly disturbed curvature.
Indeed, I wasn't very impressed with this tutorial.
In addition to your solution, you can take this a step further and drag the vertices along the edges to get each point up close to the boolean object. Just hit GG to drag a vert along an edge.
.. which I do, by insetting the good faces. Absorb the change in longitudinal edge direction in a tiny bevel at the intersection.
"... apply your boolean and move on with live ..." thank you very much, your tutorials are very helpful, as always!
I'm glad this video was made. Wouldn't have known all the other tricks without the comments
My God! You can stretch a video unnecessarily wayy tooo muucchh!
You can also party automate this with a weld modifier.
It allows you to still move around to find a good spot with verts merged and subdiv.
Thanks, Gambrell you're doing a great job.
I love this guy. Thanks for your work.
Good idea. When you have a project with a specific dimension, just rotate it until it fits xD, omg.
Great video. big difference when the verts are close. Another possible approach when the verts don't line up might be a "data transfer" of normals from an unedited version.
Thank you Sir - for very good technique!
i will use with other 3D applications as well.
GREAT video, been wondering during my workflow how to solve these issues working with cylinders/circles.
Very situational. This is an ideal practice but not always the solution.
the problem with this method is that in machine shopping for example people will want specific dimensions specific angles where there is no room for "mitigation of topology issues". So the solution is to subdivide prior to boolean bring your quads to the size of the smallest difference between vertices (using smooth helps sometimes others it doesn't) then you go for boolean, then you deconstruct some ( and then you save your 1 micron and your 1mm copy of the thing you made so that you don't ever have to do go through it again) .you want loop cuts near the intersections on both sides on both pipes and you want their distance to the contact points to be about the length of what your "weld bevel" is going to be. this gives it a very natural smooth intersect with decent shading at low poly counts and smooth shading at high counts. As always i am just a lousy blender part timer so I may have just said a bunch of nonsense that there might be a much better way around.
Perfect as always 😉
This was very helpful... Thanks for sharing...
An old 90s LightWave trick to deal with this issue was to:
1) Have two copies of the boolean meshes
2) Cut one set - using this example cut the bottom tube with the top tube
3) With the second set, reverse the cut - cut the top tube with the bottom tube
4) Take the two tubes that were just cut and merge points (should merge perfectly), delete the other "cutter" tubes.
5) Delete the unwanted geometry - the "holes" as it were
Voila! Perfect intersection without messing with the cross sections of any geometry...
So I was curious about this method and just tried it. The results were identical to just using a regular boolean. Topology still has to be fixed after the fact.
Really intresting, bro! More Videos like this one!
I just add more divisions to the objects, then merge and use Meshmachine offset with triangulation and merge, then click Clear Mesh, and apply Quad Remesher. This is much faster and gives better results, because I don't have to play around with the positioning of objects, connect vertices, and I can position objects exactly the way I want. Take advantage of it.
With a zebra matcap the explanation of curvature would've been a bit more obvious, this works maybe in this case, for hard surface functional modelling the rotation could throw stuff out of whack, having more loops from the start would half the distance for merging and disturb even less
This is a good general rule of thumb, but I wouldn't call it a full solution. In many many cases it's better to get it aligned however you need to and then just do retopo.
Right, just a little trick. I hope noone called it a solution!
the absolute VERY FIRST thing i pretty much always do on such junctures is - Ctrl+B with 2 segments and curvature of 1. Then cleanup keeping the original curvature on the border edges of the bevel, dissolve the middle loop, add a new one, Alt+S to your liking. I never align anything.
Thanks for the video
Would you please explain that both side age loop
you really made an 8min video to tell people they can aproximate their vertices
Hi! what is your custom menu with quick commands?
This unlocked a PTSD memory that I never knew I had lol
love your vidoes
Though I understand the criticism in the comments, it seems to be a bit harsh. Everyone in this industry knows that you are never done learning no matter how much experience you get. Not enough people are thanking you for making resources that help. Keep the content coming!
Because many of the things he does are bad habits in a production pipeline.
@@ch-yq5yn did you read my comment even?
I am aware this is video is not maybe the best.. but there is no reason to attack him for it. That is what my comment was about.
hello sir, in 6:31 How do I set Bevel profile to 1and get result like you did?
I should use Quad Remesher to remesh the boolean object. maybe the wire layout isn't that good,but it's quickly.
Wouldn't It be better to make 2 edge loops on each, AND THEN!!! Line those up to best of ability?
I face weird shading on a higher topology where it is kind of hard to align the vertices before merging them together. And shading gets a mess where it is extremely pain to deal with. I ended up using z brush dynamesh to merge the two but the process took me awhile.
Could you guide me or give us more video on this topic where you start off with a complex shape?
I can't believe I waited till the end of this video
Please, put on the screen the buttons you press to do what you do
so there is no easy way around rather than fixing>merging with boolean> apply and stitching , good video thanks!
This is fun and all, but it's not always the case where can move the positions of the cylinders due to context.
How are the vertices so large?
If your "solution" is to change the design because of topology issues then it's not a solution, not even a workaround, it's just bad advice.
Instead, do THIS before you boolean: Increase the sides of the cylinder and after boolean place edge loops near the intersections to protect the shape and finally make topology compromises with triangles and n-gons as best as you can.
This is it! I learned this solution from Mario (Elemntza) who is a master of sub-d modeling. By far he is the best instructor in this type of workflow.
What's with the mumbling at 6:57? the most important part
hi what's that short cut to quickly add cut at 2:22?
CTRL R, then use the mouse wheel to set the number of cuts. The first left click confirms the number of cuts, the second click adds them.
But to have this in consideration makes the artistic freedom a slave of clean topology… Is there no easy method instead?
I’m looking for a year already.
Boolean, but then use retopology techniques.
th-cam.com/video/CuQzPDs99yM/w-d-xo.html
You normally use this to make high-poly sculpts into low poly models using the Shrinkwrap modifier, but it should still work. If you have really tiny details, though it may just be better to merge vertices but keep a quad formation (square polygons) if it needs to be deformed. Unless it's a hair tip or something, in that case you'd extrude the ends of it to tris (triangle polygons) while keeping the rest quads.
in 5:45 mins, how did you put vertices that cross to other side?
What if you have a plane and then an object with thousands of verts you want to union
So you let the vertices dictate your final shape?
time saver
I really thought I was going to learn something cool here..
it works but It take a lot of time and maybe you need to change meshs positions, it's not the perfect solution for me, i remember years ago these kind of operations were quickly and perfectly done in 3 ds max, is there an addon that could help? ..thanks anyway for your effort
Can't you do all of this in 1 click using Mesh Maschine add on?
With all due respect, I appreciate your videos, but you didn't need 8 minutes to explain something so obvious.
at the 00:11 mark you call up a viewport shading menu. What's the key for that?
it comes with hardOps addon, hotkey is Q
@@priceykiller8534 ugh thanks
my disappointment is I already knew this recently before this video recommended this to me by youtube lol... also it only works 10% chance you'll do this but good to have it in mind
how about, when you make the duplicate, rotate it 90 deg on Z and 30 on X and move it up, you don't actually do that just leave the duplicate where it is, and therefore, after emerging all the vertexes together, everything stays perfectly as it was? :D That way you can even skip the duplicating and merging steps!
An alternative solution, which may be more precise and result in lighter topology, makes use of the shrinkwrap modifier to move vertices exactly where they are needed without disturbing the underlying shape at all: th-cam.com/video/IS2LPVNp6SE/w-d-xo.html
In some cases you might need to make a duplicate of the object as a shrink-wrap target and then create your proper topology in a separate object in preparation of joining the meshes.
hi! how do you do that in 7:03?
I wondered the very same. In my Blender, the vertex would just end up SOMEWHERE after I did this...
The triangulate modifier fixes all this after you boolean union
now its made automaticly in new blender 3.5
where do I get that Quad Sphere object?
1. Create a cube
2. Select it and press ctrl+3, then apply the SubSurf modifier
3. Add Cast modifier with factor of 1, then apply it
@@vomitpills I know that. But at 0:25 you can see he has that object in menu already
@@spaceexpireaudio666 it's "Extra Objects plugin". You can find it in add-ons tab in preferences menu.
@@spaceexpireaudio666 I couldn't find the exact add-on used in this video, but you can create a quad sphere by creating a round cube with radius of 1
A good video once again. I assume you are using version 2.9x by now? I see you are using a matcap here - could you tell me where to find matcaps in 2.9? The internet could not help me at all with this, every video and thread talks about, where to find them in 2.8 - in 2.9 they got moved somewhere else, and nobody seems to know where. You seem to know, please let me know where to find matcaps in 2.9x (and hopefully they won't hide them again in 3.0)
In the upper right corner of the viewport, where you can change between wireframe, solid, material preview, and render view--while you have the second sphere icon selected (for solid view) the down arrow on the right end of that group of icons will let you choose matcap instead of "studio" and pick from there.
@@allit.164 Ohhhhhhh...... I feel dumb..... It has been there all along, but nobody mentioned, that the little arrow is context sensitive to which display mode you have currently enabled. I saw people click it in 2.8 and they had matcaps there, I clicked it and had almost nothing there - now I realize, I was in rendered mode, where there is not much to be selected...... Well in any case, thank you very much, you have solved a mystery for me. Seemingly, many people have this issue, since I had plenty of threads where people asked the exact same thing, and responders couldn't tell either.
Trick about spherical cow. In reality you bool box with 1 polygon on side with 3000 poly shape, and it does't work
Wow, we just need to align the vertices? Insane... 8minutes...
I thought you said this wasgoing to be a quick video?? To make a short story long!
Just apply boolean union and subdivide.
9 minute video that explains more than years of tutorials. NICE and thanks!
So.. "Line up your objects" essentially, lmao
Exactly what I'm looking for. Thanks.
superclean
2 buttons in fusion 360 or solidwork
this whole idea is another way of saying plan your geometry well before merging which is not a new concept
it would be nice though if we get a program in the future that cleans topology and keeps the shape without us needing to solve puzzles XD
seriously fixing topology could be such a turn off and a pain sometimes
You did a 8 minute longass video just to explain this ????? lmao Im pass out [D
Edit: That feel when a YT comment mentioning the Weld modifier...
Why did this have to be 8 min video long?
Works if you want to compromise your design and the cylinders at similar sizes. But if the cylinders were very different sizes and at acute angles this wouldn’t work.
The method he shows isn't specifically for this form/size. He's basically saying, try to get vertices as close to each other before merging. Of course this is working better or worse, depending on form. But his video just shows the very base you should use, and then enhance on the theory depending on your models. He could have explained it better to make that clear.
👍👍👍
Great tut! Can we get keyboard/mouse use displayed please?
At what point do you start worrying about non-planar faces?
why you hide your key information, I don't know how to do that specific boolean, please.
06:08 This is rape of topology without consent.
How to fix a hard topology? Don't make it hard from the start by creating something completely different
uh...
its not a solution
Come on people, this guy is nice enough to take time out of his day to show a technique that can be used in certain circumstances. It's not a fix all for everything. No reason for the negative comments if it doesn't fit your particular scenario. Lighten up.
Thanks for the awesome content!
Sorry man, i thought you were gonna propose a procedural solution, maybe a remesh techbique or something, but this is not viable for a lot of things and is only a step for a normal workflow :/
Starts at 5:08...
Ty for big video! Jesus is coming back, God bless all!!! :D
The problem is that your geometry is dictating how your end result looks. Not very accurate.
Hmmmm. This is not how it is done.
My topology is really, really bad
I must admit being disappointed but Josh is not asking us any money nor are we forced to watch! So… nasty comments are out of line. Tons of good content on his Channel let’s focus on these…
ayy im early
you could just use edge crease instead of creating those bevels
quick vid
8 min ...
Sorry, but you don't show a solution for a problem, you show a problem for a solution.
Captain Obvious strikes again
You went too fast!!! So annoying! at 6 minutes 55 seconds, I wanted to see how you ran a "Subsurf" which I was guessing was a Subdivision Surface modifier. I have no idea how you got that result. My cylinder looks completely different - doesn't look smooth around the sides like yours. Can you please explain how you did that? Add Object>Mesh>Cylinder>Add Modifier>Subdivision Surface, Levels Viewport: 4>Apply, am I missing something? And how did you make it look shiny and metallic? Please help!
So you've changed the design of something so that your boolean operation can be cleaner????? Great, that's what product design is all about, nothing to do with form, more about clean geometry....... got it.....
So a video needed to be made I guess...
yikes lol
That's bull shit. It's like changing the shape of our models if we want the best topology. Never😢