Anonymous at Sun, 22 Aug 2021 08:27:44 UTC No. 845772

>>845770
Why don't you go back to work instead of making shitty threads?

Anonymous at Sun, 22 Aug 2021 08:29:11 UTC No. 845773

>>845772
man i don't know anything
that's just the observation i made
in what way is the blender workflow superior?

Anonymous at Sun, 22 Aug 2021 08:32:30 UTC No. 845775

Did you need to make another thread you fucking retard?

Search by software: Fusion 360 on artstation people are already using CAD in media, it has advantages and disadvantages which you can only learn through experience so I suggest you fuck off and don't come back until you've made something.

Anonymous at Sun, 22 Aug 2021 08:47:49 UTC No. 845778

>>845770
Now add some damage to the mounts and make the outer side of the elbow burst from the ice that formed inside during an unexpected cold night.

Anonymous at Sun, 22 Aug 2021 09:42:08 UTC No. 845797

>>845770
2 different programs, with different uses.
CAD is math
Blender is sculpting.
Using CAD to create game assets is hard and stupid
Using Blender to create mech parts is stupid.

Anonymous at Tue, 24 Aug 2021 08:24:57 UTC No. 846165

>>845797
So if I wanted to recreate a car for an animation but needed very close up shots, should I do that in CAD (Anything Autodesk) or Blender?

Anonymous at Tue, 24 Aug 2021 09:03:29 UTC No. 846167

>>846165
Blender

Anonymous at Tue, 24 Aug 2021 09:04:31 UTC No. 846168

>>846165
>>846167
This kind of surface quality is sufficient for CGI shots:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwoq53Bjb3Y

Anonymous at Tue, 24 Aug 2021 10:16:06 UTC No. 846174

blender is digital content creation. Solidworks is for CAD or anything that may or may not make its way to a workshop, CNC machine or vacuum press.

I wouldn't design my ultralight airplane in blender.

Anonymous at Tue, 24 Aug 2021 12:01:22 UTC No. 846183

>>846165
You certainly don't need CAD for the modern car commercial-tier CG, or almost anything that's going to be used purely for visuals for that matter. In fact, creating good/correct-looking car geometry is important, but it would be one of the least difficult/skill-demanding aspects of producing this type of stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG357ZHoB0U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKQ5d19wGlQ
https://vimeo.com/453317936
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPvZ1Lt5Sqk

Anonymous at Tue, 24 Aug 2021 12:24:58 UTC No. 846189

>>846183
All car models for commercials rely at least on partial CAD data from the manufacturing process.

Anonymous at Tue, 24 Aug 2021 20:16:20 UTC No. 846287

>>845773
The problem with CAD software is your model made out of math so when you tell the computer "hey solve the math and turn it into a pile of connected vertices" it usually does a bad job.
If you want to use that model for something (a nice render, a 3d print, a game asset) you're going to have to do a lot of work to optimize it for its new format, so much so that you might have been better off just box modeling it instead.

Blender is pretty good at making hard surface stuff and with the new procedural node stuff you can make your own library of common shapes and then use those to greatly speed up making new stuff.
Hardops and Boxcutter are cool and powerful but also have their own learning curve and their own weird bugs.
Also with Blender if you know Python you can write scripts and do even more automated / procedural stuff; I assume you can do that with CAD too but again the point is if you put in the time to create a library of automated / procedural assets you can greatly speed up making things in Blender to the point where you're probably nearly as fast as you would be in CAD.

Anonymous at Mon, 30 Aug 2021 06:59:42 UTC No. 847471

>>845770
>you'd need to find the right addons like boxcutter/hardops

anon.. you know that there are ways of learning that let you not have to use those, right? even with them, it only helps the workflow, not the ability to actually produce something in that same exact way. every program has it's strong and weak points, and i'd imagine yours has it's strong points for sure, but don't be obtuse and assume that everyone should prefer to use CAD programs like that

Anonymous at Mon, 30 Aug 2021 07:05:48 UTC No. 847475

>>846287
>CAD software ...your model made out of math
use 3d software instead, it's made out of dirt