Loading...
> >

Boolean in Carrara or Hexagon or am I a fool?

2

Comments

  • UVDanUVDan Posts: 112
    edited December 1969

    Group hug!!

    group_hug400.jpg
    400 x 415 - 36K
  • JoeMamma2000JoeMamma2000 Posts: 2,615
    edited December 1969

    And to give you a basis of comparison, I re-did the faceplate using the same boolean operations (in Hex), UV mapped it, and exported to Carrara, and it took right around 4 minutes. A little longer. Although I always get messed up with Hex booleans because you have to go into faces mode, not object mode before you boolean, or it thinks you're generating a spline or something. Always messes me up.

    Anyway, like I say, it mapped fine, renders fine, and is pretty quick. Though Carrara converts the big n-gon generated by Hex into a million triangles, which is messy but it works.

    Faceplate2.jpg
    640 x 480 - 14K
  • 3DAGE3DAGE Posts: 3,311
    edited December 1969

    Of course, you can do any modelling you want in Carrara. The question is, when faced with a modelling task, what’s the best way to go about it?

    That's exactly why is I'm saying that a Boolean operation is NOT the "Best" way to go about it.
    also that for someone "new" to modelling, it's not a good first option to choose boolean.

    You’re convinced that, in this case, a boolean is not the way to do it. No real reasons given, just a statement. I gave many reasons why your method is no better than a boolean.

    I posted two examples images of how it can be done using the software the customer asked about. not an alternative modelling software.

    If you look at the examples I've posted on the first page , you'll see there are NO ngons. and that seems to be the main reasons you gave for not using one of the options I suggested, yet in your own attempt to prove yourself right, in Hexagon , by using a Boolean, you note that ....

    Though Carrara converts the big n-gon generated by Hex into a million triangles, which is messy but it works..

    Messy but it works isn't very good at all. not Professional. and not clean modelling, therefore , not good advice.

    I showed an example of how a boolean can work fine for what he wants, and it UV maps okay and renders okay, and can be done very quickly. You discard all that and stick to your guns. That’s fine, and what I expected.

    Your example has a Flat Colour shader,
    Q: how does that show that it's UV mapped, or will texture correctly, ?

    The same can be done in Carrara, and will result in an equally messy model, which can also be shaded and rendered.

    The question wasn't "what's the fastest method", it's What's the "best" method.

    I don’t work for DAZ, and I have no need to steer everyone to solving their problems in Carrara. Apparently you do.

    No,. I DO NOT WORK FOR DAZ-3D again you make hugely inaccurate assumptions about me, and you question my integrity and the reasons I post advice here.

    I don't get paid by anyone to come here and I DO NOT offer advice for any reason other than furthering peoples knowledge.

    Well, except for expecting people to do it in an external vector drawing program.



    The advice to import an AI or EPS file is an "OPTION", and it applies in 3D software throughout the industry.

    The spline (vector) shapes can be created just as easily within carrara,. as the OP has already done.

    Importing an AI, or EPS is an "optional" method , mostly used when you're using technical drawings from a client, and it's also a short-cut for someone without much direct modelling experience.

    I'm sure you're not seriously suggesting that by using external image editors or drawing programs that it's somehow wrong to do so, or wrong to make people aware of that option.

    Again, that’s fine. But that’s no need to discard some very well thought out and presented information on modelling technique that professionals use and consider, and instead make blanket statements that everyone else is wrong.

    I didn't discard anything,. I contradicted the advice to use Booleans as a "first approach" and I gave clear examples and screen shots of HOW it can be done within the software which the OP asked about.
    I also expanded on the modelling advice to include how it can be done using Carrara's shader functions, (alpha channel) rather than by modelling.

    I made no "blanket statement" where I said "everyone else is wrong".

    Like I said, in some cases, such as this, there is no “good” or “ideal” way to do it. It’s a very difficult mesh to generate cleanly and without n-gons and other somewhat undesirable polygons.

    I disagree, there are indeed good and ideal ways to model cleanly,. but if you don't learn them, you'll never use them.

    Here's an example of how simple it can be in Carrara, using a vertex grid, deleting some polygons, and using a simple extrusion.
    Note that I'm showing the base Mesh here, and there are absolutely no unwanted Ngon's being created using the extrusion method.
    holes1.jpg
    1280 x 1024 - 315K
  • JoeMamma2000JoeMamma2000 Posts: 2,615
    edited December 1969

    Okay, Andy.

    You're right, and I'm wrong. Sorry for questioning you.

  • thoromyrthoromyr Posts: 452
    edited December 1969

    3DAGE said:

    Thanks for providing level headed advice, I appreciate it.

  • 3DAGE3DAGE Posts: 3,311
    edited December 1969

    Thanks Thoromyr :)

    Joe :) Don't stop questioning. .. asking questions is how we learn.

  • stijillstijill Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    I always use Illustrator to create any complex shapes. The drawing capabilities in Carrara Pro I can't say it lags, but the coordinates are made for the 3D world. And Illustrator if you have it is a lot faster for creating 2D shapes in layers then saving in Illustrator 3.0.

  • KixumKixum Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Hey roygee,

    Let me add a few ideas to your technique.

    1. Draw your hole shape.
    2. Fill the shape with a poly.
    3. Add thickness.
    4. Scale the extruded shape to extend out past the original like you suggested.
    5. Pick points along the sides that would form a practical group for one of the box edges, select the appropriate drawing plane, and send the points to the drawing plane. That gets them all aligned. Move those points back to the place where you want the box edge to be.
    6. Do that for the other three edges.
    7. Make adjustments on the edge points as necessary.
    8. Select everything and send that whole mess to the appropriate drawing plane to flatten it.
    9. Empty out the original shape to make the hole.
    10. Select everything and add thickness to make the box with the cool hole (poof!).

    Very much coolness!

  • KixumKixum Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    I also should have mentioned to empty out the stretched poly after step 4.

  • RoygeeRoygee Posts: 2,247
    edited December 1969

    Goodness me - that is so complex and long-winded!

    We in Hexagon use a far simpler method:-

    1. Draw the shape of the hole/circle
    2. Fast extrude - yes, in Hexagon we can extrude polylines to form shapes!
    3. Square off the edges by selecting verts along one side, make size on X axis 0 repeat for other side, repeat for top and bottom by making size on Y axis (or simply drag on the scale box of the universal manipulator) .
    4. Use multiple copy tool to make as many replications as needed, with offset.
    5. Weld
    6. Add thickness.

    The equivalent in Carrara would be to draw a circle/shape, copy/paste, scale up the copy and use ruled surface to join. After that follow 3 to 6 above.

    One day I'll manage to figure out how to calculate the offset for replications in Carrara so that the copies fit exactly edge-to-edge - Hex does this automatically.

    Cheers :)

  • DiomedeDiomede Posts: 15,158
    edited December 1969

    No one brought up negative metaballls :ahhh:

    ;-)

  • RoygeeRoygee Posts: 2,247
    edited December 1969

    No one brought up negative metaballls shock

    wink

    I wonder why...:)

    Another method that is handy in certain conditions is "fake boolean"...bridge opposite faces. Clean, quick and simple :)

    Just to add to what I wrote above. If you have a complex shape which has convex and concave edges, the method I mentioned will not work - you'll get cross-over polys. In this case, boolean is a good option. Carrara automatically triangulates the N-gon, so no problem there and all renderers understand tri's.

    You'll have a problem if you need to bevel/fillet and such. You could spend the next week sorting out the topology, or take it into Blender and use the remesh tool to instantly convert everything to equally spaced quads.

    May as well do the whole thing in Blender - it's spline tools are nothing short of magic :)

  • DiomedeDiomede Posts: 15,158
    edited September 2014

    I'm just a hobbyist, but it seems the circle hole is being made more complicated than it needs to be.

    In Carrara, just insert a cylinder with one section, select the outside ring, extrude beyond the circle, then use symmetry to select vertical and horizontal sides and scale to zero to make a box or rectangle as desired. Delete circle and add thickness. No ngons, no fuss, easy to uvmap. Could start with an oval instead of a cylinder if you don't mind an extra step.

    For multiple holes, use duplicate and weld as described by Roygee. For gaps more complicated than circles, Wendy and Andy provided straightforward options.

    Edit - this is very similar to Kixum

    cylinder_to_hole.JPG
    825 x 630 - 29K
    Post edited by Diomede on
  • Design AcrobatDesign Acrobat Posts: 459
    edited December 1969

    Then there is the 'no modeling' hole method - using the ALPHA channel in the "Texture Room". :)

    alpha_hole.jpg
    648 x 511 - 34K
  • RoygeeRoygee Posts: 2,247
    edited December 1969

    Good one there, diomede - I never knew that you could extrude edges in Carrara :)

    Of course, with that method, you have the residual of the cylinder to delete - otherwise pretty much the same as other methods.

    You could also extrude the ring of faces instead of the edge and after deleting the inner face, bridge the edges.

    Shows that there are many ways to skin the same cat!

    And don't go calling yourself "only an amateur" - most of us here are :)

  • DiomedeDiomede Posts: 15,158
    edited December 1969

    LOL - nothing directed at you by the hobbyist comment. Sorry if it seemed that way. The first two pages of the thread had a lot of back and forth on what professionals do, as opposed to hobbyists. Just being clear that I don't claim to be professional, nor would I know what professional modelers usually do. Some of the earlier posts to the thread seemed to imply that was worth noting.

    Excellent point, Design Acrobat.

  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,050
    edited December 1969

    diomede64 said:
    LOL - nothing directed at you by the hobbyist comment. Sorry if it seemed that way. The first two pages of the thread had a lot of back and forth on what professionals do, as opposed to hobbyists. Just being clear that I don't claim to be professional, nor would I know what professional modelers usually do. Some of the earlier posts to the thread seemed to imply that was worth noting.

    Excellent point, Design Acrobat.

    I don't know how long you've been following the forum, but there is was a bit of, ummmm- shall we say- history with some of the posters in this thread. Myself included. Only one person on this forum was ever put on my ignore list, and it wasn't 3Dage.

  • DiomedeDiomede Posts: 15,158
    edited December 1969

    evilproducer said:
    diomede64 said:
    LOL - nothing directed at you by the hobbyist comment. Sorry if it seemed that way. The first two pages of the thread had a lot of back and forth on what professionals do, as opposed to hobbyists. Just being clear that I don't claim to be professional, nor would I know what professional modelers usually do. Some of the earlier posts to the thread seemed to imply that was worth noting.

    Excellent point, Design Acrobat.

    I don't know how long you've been following the forum, but there is was a bit of, ummmm- shall we say- history with some of the posters in this thread. Myself included. Only one person on this forum was ever put on my ignore list, and it wasn't 3Dage.

    The early posts of the thread do have a confrontational tone that I wasn't used to seeing on the forum. I see that the dates on the posts are relatively old. I started following the forum regularly about a year and a half ago, maybe a little more. I like the current forum better.
    :-)

    group_hug400.jpg
    400 x 415 - 36K
  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,050
    edited December 1969

    Me too! :lol:

  • KixumKixum Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    Just as an example, I used the technique I listed above to see if it would work. If you have a complicated hole pattern, it can take extra steps to keep the vertices to the box edge untangled but it does produce reasonable results.

    box_hole.jpg
    861 x 1027 - 58K
  • TangoAlphaTangoAlpha Posts: 4,584
    edited December 1969

    diomede64 said:
    I'm just a hobbyist, but it seems the circle hole is being made more complicated than it needs to be.

    In Carrara, just insert a cylinder with one section, select the outside ring, extrude beyond the circle, then use symmetry to select vertical and horizontal sides and scale to zero to make a box or rectangle as desired. Delete circle and add thickness. No ngons, no fuss, easy to uvmap. Could start with an oval instead of a cylinder if you don't mind an extra step.

    For multiple holes, use duplicate and weld as described by Roygee. For gaps more complicated than circles, Wendy and Andy provided straightforward options.

    Edit - this is very similar to Kixum

    I wish I had seen this before I made the room at the top of my tower (aborted entry for this month's challenge - see http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/45561/P255/#679025 ) Those arched windows took an inordinate amount of faffing about, and they still looked clunky. But now I've redone them using this technique, with duplicate & weld to make a row of three. (I only made 1 wall vertex object, then duplicated, rotated & grouped it to make the room. This has the advantage that it's easy to take a wall out for easy scene setup etc.) Took a tiny fraction of the time and looks much better, IMHO.

    To make an arch, simply select the bottom half of your cylinder, scale to zero and drag it down to get the right height.

    To make the window frames, select the interior faces of the arch, duplicate, scale and add thickness. The curved centre sections are just another arch frame cut in half.

    FollyWIP2.jpg
    900 x 675 - 367K
  • bighbigh Posts: 8,147
    edited December 1969

    Tim_A said:
    diomede64 said:
    I'm just a hobbyist, but it seems the circle hole is being made more complicated than it needs to be.

    In Carrara, just insert a cylinder with one section, select the outside ring, extrude beyond the circle, then use symmetry to select vertical and horizontal sides and scale to zero to make a box or rectangle as desired. Delete circle and add thickness. No ngons, no fuss, easy to uvmap. Could start with an oval instead of a cylinder if you don't mind an extra step.

    For multiple holes, use duplicate and weld as described by Roygee. For gaps more complicated than circles, Wendy and Andy provided straightforward options.

    Edit - this is very similar to Kixum

    I wish I had seen this before I made the room at the top of my tower (aborted entry for this month's challenge - see http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/45561/P255/#679025 ) Those arched windows took an inordinate amount of faffing about, and they still looked clunky. But now I've redone them using this technique, with duplicate & weld to make a row of three. (I only made 1 wall vertex object, then duplicated, rotated & grouped it to make the room. This has the advantage that it's easy to take a wall out for easy scene setup etc.) Took a tiny fraction of the time and looks much better, IMHO.

    To make an arch, simply select the bottom half of your cylinder, scale to zero and drag it down to get the right height.

    To make the window frames, select the interior faces of the arch, duplicate, scale and add thickness. The curved centre sections are just another arch frame cut in half.

    very nice
    great looking textures

  • DartanbeckDartanbeck Posts: 21,526
    edited December 1969

    Yeah... Tim_A and Kixum... Awesome!

  • DiomedeDiomede Posts: 15,158
    edited December 1969

    Great job, Kixum and Tim. For buildings with windows and such, you might want to check out Roygee's suggestions at post #19 here.

    http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/29357/P15

    In some cases, you could create a square panel using ruled surfaces like Roygee, then replace the square with a fancy cut out using Kixum's suggestions.

  • RoygeeRoygee Posts: 2,247
    edited December 1969

    Since discovering that Carrara can do edge extrusion just like Hex, I'm over the moon because most of what i do starts with polylines :)

    Even simpler than what you describe, use a circle instead of the cylinder - less steps is always a bonus. :)

  • DiomedeDiomede Posts: 15,158
    edited December 1969

    I'm about to start a hexagon tutorial by jack whitney. Nothing is where I expect it, and all of the icons for the tools look the same. Hopefully the learning curve is not too steep. Back to square 1 for me.

  • StorytellerStoryteller Posts: 80
    edited December 1969

    Im bit shocked CSG got such a bad rap. Its very powerful and far more that 'fancy booleans' Its also responsible for over a decade of game level design. In the hands of the experienced, it is a powerful that speeds up many workflows. Dismissing CSG is like dismissing the bridge too, because you can delete vertices and stitch by hand. A waste.

  • RoygeeRoygee Posts: 2,247
    edited December 1969

    What is CSG and who gave it a bad rap? :)

    Here's one that Hex can do simply - vary the depth of a Boolean cut. Can Carrara do this?

    bool.jpg
    1600 x 900 - 243K
  • StorytellerStoryteller Posts: 80
    edited December 1969

    CSG is Constructive Solid Geometry. It allows for similar operations to booleans that can still act live,like dynamic geometry in hex, but you can use massively complex stacks of structures. When exported, they maintain a sensible vertice and polygon arrangement.

  • evilproducerevilproducer Posts: 9,050
    edited December 1969

    Storyteller said:
    CSG is Constructive Solid Geometry. It allows for similar operations to booleans that can still act live,like dynamic geometry in hex, but you can use massively complex stacks of structures. When exported, they maintain a sensible vertice and polygon arrangement.

    So, what software uses this method? Why does it get a bad rap?

Sign In or Register to comment.