🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 16:26:04 UTC No. 990085
How much time do you think this should take? I'm working on this for 12-14 hours total at this point and honestly I expected it to go faster, but there are many minor issues along the way and they sometimes take unexpected amount of time to fix. For example, when I choose a face for custom transform orientation and start moving something, snapping to vertex/edge stops working as expected and instead snaps things to some weird locations, which makes some things really hard to model or cleanup. I wonder are there any plugins or workflows which make it easier/faster to model stuff like this?
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 17:14:33 UTC No. 990089
>>990085
Any normal person would do that in an hour give or take 20 minutes
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 17:35:50 UTC No. 990093
Additional question /3/-bros, how would you implement this secondary roof? It's curvy but the tiles are uniform, any easy solutions? Because what I did felt too tricky and roundabout.
the chair nerd at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 19:40:27 UTC No. 990108
>>990089
Yep that model would take about 30 minutes.
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 19:46:40 UTC No. 990109
>>990085
20min to an hour.
You just need to learn how to use your tools properly.
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 19:48:41 UTC No. 990110
>>990093
Make one side (just bool kit the ends?) and then just rotate duplicates out from the center point of the tower
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 19:49:42 UTC No. 990111
>>990110
>bool kit
Bool cut. Stupid phone.
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 20:43:34 UTC No. 990122
>>990085
Shouldn't take more than a few hours. Under an hour is unrealistic though, if you're starting from scratch, unless you have a very clear idea of what you want/need to achieve. But in most scenarios, almost everyone is going to be stuck designing/trying different things, getting indecisive about a shape and what not, even if they have a general idea of what they might be going for.
The only way I could see someone doing this in 30 minutes, is if they're replicating something, for example, reproducing what you've done would be simple enough. That, or the end result doesn't matter, and it's just some throwaway model, basically the equivalent of a doodle. But if you're designing it for a purpose, you're going to need to invest time thinking things through.
>>990109
>>990108
>>990089
People have a tendency of overestimating their capabilities. Don't listen to these guys. You see it everywhere, in CG, construction, software development, you name it. They imagine the process in their mind, while glossing over/forgetting all the minor, and not so minor things that end up adding to the total time. Then they end up spending multiple times the amount of time they claimed they're capable of and present you with something that hopefully resembles something you hired them to do.
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 21:08:00 UTC No. 990125
>>990085
I wouldn't worry about speed, explore ideas and make things properly, don't rush. but I would recommend you try and make it more modular. it'll save you some headache when you start texturing
Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 21:37:10 UTC No. 990129
>>990110
Yeah, that was the last step.
The tricky step was using lattice but only for one projection, to not ruin uniform width of tiles.
It only worked because tiles go one under another at the end so non-uniformity in height isn't too noticable.
I think the actual proper way to do this is sampling averaged surface normals at fixed steps in geometry nodes,
and spawning geometry at those point with rotation according to normal + constant displacement to make them go one under another. I'm not sure it's even possible to get averaged normals in geometry nodes though.
>>990122
This is all done from references, I also expected it to take few hours when I started.
Actually this time includes doing watercolor shader from tutorial, but it was like an hour or two and I will still have to tweak it a lot later to make it look coherent.
And by the way this time I mentioned isn't something like "I scheduled myself to sit for 12 hours but half of it was actually surfing internets", it's time of actual activity in Blender window, which doesn't include time I alt-tabbed or went afk.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 20:43:22 UTC No. 990205
>>990122
>People have a tendency of overestimating their capabilities. Don't listen to these guys. You see it everywhere, in CG, construction, software development, you name it. They imagine the process in their mind, while glossing over/forgetting all the minor, and not so minor things that end up adding to the total time. Then they end up spending multiple times the amount of time they claimed they're capable of and present you with something that hopefully resembles something you hired them to do.
preach.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 21:28:06 UTC No. 990206
>>990122
>Lattice
Why on earth?
Just use a surface deform with a bound plane (subdivided a lot, ofc) as an offset?
You could even get away with a curve modifier.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 21:29:11 UTC No. 990207
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 05:34:40 UTC No. 990233
>>990206
Idk, sounds like they're all similar in this case?
It wasn't hard to use lattice, and I didn't have to subdivide anything, because all I needed lattice operating on is vertices of cubes which make roof tiles.
It was just non-obvious at first the vertical non-uniform deformation of tiles can be ignored (because the height of a tiles is unknown to viewer) but not the horizontal one (because width of tiles is immediately obvious to viewer).
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 01:56:11 UTC No. 990310
>>990089
15-30 minutes. Yeah.
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 07:16:23 UTC No. 990334
Spent 4 hours yesterday doing this. Involved some cool magic too, like separating loop cut from mesh, converting it to curve and then doing array + curve modifier to place objects at intervals along that curve.
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 10:56:05 UTC No. 990344
>>990310
Bullshit. At 15 minutes, you'd have opened your 3D software of choice, and created an empty scene, possibly placed in some early blocks, Not a single person on the planet will create that in 15 minutes, unless they're 100% prepared prior to that and in a perfect mental state and absolute focus, and are actively trying to do some sort of a speed modelling challenge.
Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 12:34:36 UTC No. 990419
>>990085
>How much time do you think this should take?
Depends, am I being paid by the hour?
I have this plugin video saved but I've never used it because I don't model buildings, it might interest you
https://youtu.be/3qDuqCMilVM?si=_lD
the chair nerd at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 15:59:48 UTC No. 990434
>>990334
I like chairs.
Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 18:05:23 UTC No. 990532
Am I insane for doing this manually?
I tried IvyGen and even my own geonodes and it all did suck so much I went depressed for two days.
Now I at least like where it is going, but it feels it's taking forever.
>>990419
Good stuff ,thanks.
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 11:30:13 UTC No. 990664
>>990085
It takes a lot longer than most people will give credit, esp if you are modelling something that you are unfamiliar with or that requires exact aspects, angles and measurement.
Architecture if you try to be accurate is very slow compared to what people estimate.
I recently modeled architectural 2 story modular buildings, accurately, for a client. I would've expected it to take 'a couple of hours' as it's 'just some stacked boxes'.
real time spend clocked in at 70h. And I have decades of modelling experience but I'm a character artist and not a environment specialist.
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 12:47:20 UTC No. 990669
>>990344
Sounds like a skill issue to me.
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 14:20:59 UTC No. 990672
>>990669
Nah, just experience from the occasions I've had to hire someone. If someone tells you they can get something done in a week, it's best to assume it'll take at least a month in reality, if you're lucky. People in general are shit at estimating how long things take to do, and it's much more common that it takes a lot longer, than less, even when they give their "worst case" estimate.
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 18:23:36 UTC No. 990684
>>990672
In general maybe, but this project doesn't require much if you know what you are doing. Maybe if you are just starting out perhaps.
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 23:20:02 UTC No. 990706
I wonder if any Blender watercolor shaders can get anywhere as nice as this. Imagine having this in realtime while you rotate camera.
Doesn't seem like this is physically possible though. This particular software does iterative full-image postprocessing taking at least dozen of seconds
>>990664
> or that requires exact aspects, angles and measurement.
Aligning things sometimes is a big time-sink. I think I spent more than an hour just to make fascia look good in wireframe view because overlapping geometry looks bad and snapping became tricky to use.
>>990684
Big picture seems clear, but there are a lot of devils in details. For example to carve out sector of roof on the second floor I did another 2d array of roof tiles and imagine how fun it was aligning it to overlap perfectly with actual roof.
And if you think I should have just carved out a cube instead - well it didn't look good, cause those roof tiles are laying one on top of another and in certain segments of tiles you have to somehow remove the beginning of upper tile while leave the end of lower tile in place.
Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 23:55:01 UTC No. 990711
it takes me hours to make simple objects
it's so fucking over
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 01:56:55 UTC No. 990721
>>990085
These people saying it takes 15 and half an hour are so full of shit lmfao
Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 19:38:51 UTC No. 990753
Settled on this. Not too happy with it, but it will look better in NPR renders.
Although, I realize, most of this should be smooth shaded, but I have no idea how to properly make it smooth shaded. It looks even worse than flat shading when I try.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 12:16:45 UTC No. 990771
>>990753
bruh I'm sorry to break it to you but it looks like garbage, and no amount of shading will help you
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 14:19:20 UTC No. 990779
>>990085
1 week
1 day to find a pajeet
1 day to negotiate
2 days for the work
1 day of revisions
1 day for delivery
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 15:23:00 UTC No. 990791
>>990771
I mean that rectangular thing where horizontal and vertical rain gutters connect. I redid it 5 times and all broken.
Some of the attempts looked good with smooth shading, but the upper part breaks because it for some reason becomes visible through the tiny surface of horizontal pipe with smooth shading on.
Anyway, I think I redo it again because it kinda sucks.
Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 15:48:33 UTC No. 990796
>>990771
>>990791
This particular upper part breaks with smooth shading because it becomes for some reason visible through that other smol surface of horizontal rain gutter.
Maybe I'm missing some basics here because I couldn't even make horizontal rain gutter itself look proper with smooth shading. For some reason it looks almost the same as with flat shading ie the faces of cylinder are still visible and I have no idea why.