One more thing. If Max was smart, it should have a default normal presets based on flow lines. That was you could simply say, give me shading for point X that is natural between 2 points. Otherwise I have to find the shading myself moving the normals. Nightmare, but I will get it done.
Fundamental Flaws in 3D modeling or is it me?
Imhotep397
#28
It’s a shame, but this is something that would have been perfect for NURBS modeling then converting to polys or spline modeling techniques to generate polys for a light weight model in BURBS first or straight to poly patches, but because so many people have labeled NURBS “old” it’s impossible to find any good tutorials for NURBS or spline modeling and then people are left to toil away at super dense meshes.
As is without NURBS or Splines, there are a million ways to do it. I would retopo the the front of this into a couple of pieces to minimize the 5-Edge or Star poles when welding/merging them together eliminating the pinching (Cone, Cockpit+Window, Under Cockpit, Top Hood.) Then I would merge the retopo’d front to the back of the plane, assuming there are no other problem areas. It’s a little hard to explain in text, but the main advantage of having separate parts is to be able to control the number of edge loops use far less geo and keep it al quads.
aw33com
#30
It’s not me at all. I noticed you all never built a anything of the caliber I am building. This tool is one big bug, that’s why it’s not a precision tool. On top of that, the entire approach to shading in 3ds max and modeling in general I think is based on Phantasmagoria (polygon cylinder is a Circle in computer 3d modeling). That will mathematically never work. It is good enough ( I actually don’t agree), but problems will come up when doing any precision based parts.
It is true, that I can adjust Normals for those verts, but it’s a nightmare to adjust them when you have thousands of them, and sometimes simply impossible. This is all due to the fact that ONLY evenly spaced cylinder sides are shaded evenly. The minute you “FLOW” one of the lines like most of you suggest, that side changes it’s shade grading. The entire 3d modeling is based on that.
More, I noticed people that designed this tool were aware of this problem and they did 1 thing to help: they allowed the user to place a vert in the middle of the cylinder wall, without affecting the shading. Anywhere else then the middle and the shading is recalculated. It has to be, in order to “represent” round objects.
All of you were telling me “IT’S ME”, but none of you took the simple cylinder example I gave you and posted the result. I can find flaws in all cylinder 3d models with details on top of it. All I have to do is flip them in a specific way.
All T-Vertices, and those “topography theories” are beautiful on paper, but have almost 0 realism in practice when working on a precision item.
P.S. All you have to do is understand Chaikin’s algorithm to realize 3d modeling based on that is actually silly.
I remember when Google became popular and promised to undo what Microsoft did for the past 20 years. I swear whenever I get a chance in my life, I will undo what all software shops did in the last 30 years.
derOesi
#31
lol
your post is a perfect example of kruger-dunning.
Is poly/subd modeling flawed? sure, but so is nurbs. even clay isn’t perfect. but the main reason you fail is simply because your modeling approach is flawed, and your techniques are flawed (to say the least), while claiming to know it all.
here is some “on the ground” truth for you: Your hole plane is modeled the “wrong” way. nobody builds the way you do, which led to you suddenly hit a wall, no surprise here. learn how to model properly, your second model (probably ever) will be better, no doubt.
darthviper107
#32
Also, everything in VFX and animation is built on these polygonal techniques so if you think they’re wrong, there’s many experts that would disagree with you.
CerberusC
#33
Please, learn to use the software and be a bit more humble, probably all the people is answering you has made models way more complex than your low poly plane, that BTW I don’t know what kind of engine are you using, but today’s engines don’t need to have a plane made of 3000 polys 
Those two are the same cylinder, it’s duplicated to show you the result and the wireframe, you have to fix your normals as nearly everyone told you, the problem is not the tool or the technique, it’s the person who uses it, specially if that person denies that the problem is that it’s not proeficient using the tool, something normal when it’s the first time using it, but at the same time a little bit of humility and thanks to the people who try to help comes well.
LimitedIQLtd
#34
“I noticed you all never built a anything of the caliber I am building” -Hang on there pal. I see you’ve had replies from industry pro’s and I’m not that bad a modeller myself (10 years since I started learning Max at uni -and I’m still learning to this day).
Two possibilities exist: either you are right and everybody else is wrong, or vice versa. I may only be 40, but even I’ve learnt that when you face this question in life, its invariably you who is at fault.
Max works just fine. You can’t cut an unconnected line into a curved object and not expect shading anomalies. 3d modeling requires a three-sided poly at the very least (the clue is in the name). Once your line is connected to other vertices it becomes a poly and you can adjust its shading via smoothing groups.
You’re like some guy who’s miss-spelt a word, decided that its the language that’s at fault, and has vowed to create a whole new language because of it.
PS: I’m curious as to how a model like this compares to the caliber of model you’re working on? (its less than 30k quads btw):
aw33com
#36
I don’t think you read my post, or understood me. Maybe I was not clear.
-
The fact I have to fix my normals is a proof I have a point. The only reason we are “fixing” normals in 3D modeling, is because of the shading error on rounded objects.
-
Also, I said it is possible to fix the issues by adjusting Normals, but once you have thousands of verts it becomes impossible. Not to mention what I said in #1.
Finally, your cylinders, even though I believe you fixed the Normals for those 2 verts, are positioned incorrectly to prove your point. You need to rotate them in such a way that the light shines along side. That’s how shading works in computer 3d modeling. You are proving nothing in your image, but i have no doubt your example works once you rotate. The problem is once you have more than 2 verts. With multiple verts close by it is a nightmare.
aw33com
#37
Nice Ship, but has nothing to do with what I’m saying. It is not even rounded. Give me the max file for that ship and I will find shading problems all over it. Zoomed out item like that from that angle does not count.
And last but not least. Don’t think I’m some kind of arrogant know it all person. I do appreciate your posts. I simply stand for what I believe is correct. If I caved in to you, I would learn nothing, and things would never improve for any of us. Knowing history and myself I know very well I have a very good eye for when things are wrong, and I’m not afraid to question it. That’s all.
aw33com
#38
No such thing as wrong 3d model. “Flowing” lines does not matter in 3d modeling the way you think it does.
Actually “flowing” them changes all the shading. Cylinder walls once adjusted will create irregular shading. You can’t adjust all Normals, as you can’t even know what shading to give at that point. You can only use your eye. Not to mention everything is a triangle once the graphic cards process it. Shading and final 3d result is what matters.
I did not hit a wall, and like I said again, give me those “good” 3d models by “experts” and I will show you even more errors.
darthviper107
#39
You don’t get it, and you need to practice 3D modeling more
You need the topology to line up with the details that you’re putting in and if it doesn’t and if you have shading problems most likely you’re trying to work with a surface without enough polygons. You need to make your topology line up or you need to add more loops/subdivisions until it does.
shehbahn
#40
Based on your posts and the topo mistakes visible in your screenshots, i really think that a correct understanding of geometric continuity would get you past most of the problems that you are currently fighting.
Here is someone with decades of modeling experience (link to correct timecode hopefully):
Please take my word for it: his models are bullet-proof, even zoomed in with a microscope.
You are correct that you shouldn’t have to ‘fix normals’, but you won’t have to once you figure out better workflows.
derOesi
#41
this is probably the most moronic logic i’ve ever witnessed. So, you say… more experienced people try to basically educate you on this issue, but if you would listen to them you wouldn’t learn anything?
uhm so why did you post here then? just to vent, because your way of modeling (and thinking btw.) doesn’t work and it’s all the computers fault?
CerberusC
#42
If you know to handle your software it’s not impossible at all, and in any case you are not working with that amount of vertices, you came here asking for help, people gave you help, and you did not liked the answer, probably because you think everyone else in the world must be wrong, because there cannot be an answer because you cannot be wrong, then you started to tell people that they don’t know what they talk about and that they are wrong and “you have a point” and you are right.
In the end, you don’t like polygonal modeling? why don’t you use Rhino instead?
Ok man, here you go, really, show some respect, don’t try to give lessons unless you really know what you are saying:
No, that’s not how shading works.
Once again, you have to know how the software works, you have to learn to model, it’s not a nightmare at all, it’s pretty easy in fact, and something quite standard for real time work.
Hey stand for what you believe is correct, ignore facts and others that know much more than you, that does not make it correct, but you can stand by whatever you want LOL
As I said, quit modelling with polygons, go to rhino and enjoy nurbs, but keep in mind that you don’t have a point at all, you are simply wrong due to your lack of knowledge.
SD3D
#43
Polygon modelling is inefficent for stuff like this, but it is possible. Pixar are not the best poly modellers with regard to resource efficiency because they dont need to be. Some people at Pixar model with NURBS and then convert it to edit poly. This is an easy way to maintain curvature, but the mesh density can be extremely and unecessarilly high.
Believe it or not, but planes and cars for that matter are not made from a single piece of material. Not only can it be easier to model panels separately as they would be in real life, but as a by-product, the model automatically looks more realistic.
Your main problem is that you are cutting holes and then smoothing when it should be the other way. Smooth the curved surface, then cut the hole.
sacboi
#44
Man! is this discussion still ongoing, really don’t see why you guys actually bothered continuing because it’s quite evident too me at least, that the OP hadn’t really checked his/her ego at the door…Anyhoo might as well throw my 1.5 cents into the ring while I’m here and most likely get ping’d for my effort like y’all…
LimitedIQLtd
#45
“I will find shading problems all over it” -What makes you think there will be any errors? There may have been “shading errors” on my early models, but now they are fixed on discovery. Take a look for yourself:
Another one of my models:
There’s no errors because I know how to use Max correctly.
I’ve got to say, you have singly the worst attitude of any Max student I’ve ever come across. You’ve set yourself up to fail spectacularly. Here’s why:
- Entitlement: You think that because you’ve done some high level programming in the past, you are somehow entitled to be good at 3D modeling. This is a fallacy. Its as relevant as me having played one of the 3 wise men during a nativity play at primary school. Its also counter productive as your attitude alienates well meaning folk who would otherwise be inclined to help you.
- Fantastically unrealistic goals: It sounds as though you’ve dived straight headlong into a model of epic proportions. This is like deciding to learn to drive by jumping into an F1 car during a Grand Prix. Its the very worst thing you can do as a modeler.
You are going to make mistakes when you start out -a whole bunch of them. The more complex your model, the more time and energy its going to take to correct them (often to point where its just quicker to start over).
But its not just that. The key to modeling is speed. Example:
I have 50 vertical lines that all end on the same horizontal line. Each vertical line ends in a vert. I want them all to be perfectly aligned horizontally. When I first started out, I would zoom in as far as I could and move each vert individually up or down. For 50 verts, it might take 30 minutes. Nowadays I just select them all and use the scale tool to align them in seconds -That’s just one example of a 1000 shortcuts. In Max ignorance costs time -and a lot of it.
Do you even know the difference between a high and low poly model, or how you use normal maps, or quad topology?
If not I suggest you find the “How to make a next Gen Hotrod” series of videos (they are old but still good -although normal map baking is now done in seconds using a program like Substance Painter). What you will learn in 10 hours, will save your 100’s, maybe even 1000’s of hours of trial and error (I see somebody else posted a link to a tutorial, knowing the quality of the modellers around these parts, I suspect its well worth watching).
Final point: cgsociety.org (this website) is probably the most famous and highly respected 3D modelling site on the web. Most non-pro’s (including myself) wouldn’t share our work here, its just not of a high enough quality. Coming here and patronizing 3ds Max and its users, is like a new violin player finding a website used by the world’s very best composers and violin players and declaring that their understanding of music is wrong, and that you are going to design a new violin because you know better than they do.
shehbahn
#46
You would be surprised: these guys tend be extremely frugal with their topology and only put vertices where they absolutely need to be, relying on the subd algorithms to do the heavy lifting. Small models load faster, are easier/faster to fix & modify: optimization becomes a virtuous cycle. As mentioned above: it is all about productivity. IIRC, Merida’s full-body skin control cage is something like a measly 25k quads, compared to the 125k triangles of a Battlefield 3 soldier.
With that said, cartoon animation is its own niche ; ‘photoreal’ VFX characters will often have much higher surface complexity to support the needs of hyper-detailed articulation (muscle/wrinkle/vascular deformations).
Definitely not as a general practice. The vast majority of assets are 100% Catmark subds (including all the cars in Cars) and rendered as such (you can find papers on how prman intersects those for ray-tracing). You may find some Loop subds for simulation assets like cloth. And some straight low-res poly models for sets background objects (ex. the trash mountains in Wall-E).
Hard/complex-surface modelling with polys is positively medieval. For general animation & gaming, Catmark (with crease support) is generally your best choice. There is a fairly good choice of apps (i include Mudbox & ZBrush here, since they both use subds under the hood), but pretty much all of them come with serious issues & require extensive customization for advanced users. For CAD, NURBS are currently your only hope (maybe one day we will have NURCCs…)