Organic Modelling

[Dreamer]

would anyone plz hint me on how to model such an organic shape (shown in the attached image) either in Autocad or Max.

 

http://www.cgarchitect.com/forum/filepush.asp?file=Theatre1.jpg

 

i have tried the fit deformation tool,but it didn't gave me the results i'm seeking.

 

 

cheers

[kid]

hi,

 

that would be possible to model in Autocad using Ruled Surfaces but it would be a lot easier to do in Max.

 

As Cesar says, you could start with a sphere, deform it, then delete the parts of the sphere you don't need.

 

Or you could poly-model it to the rough form then add a Meshsmooth modifier, much like character modelling techniques. This is the technique I'm using for a project I'm currently working on, although it's more wobbly than your surface...

 

low-poly form -

 

 

mesh-smoothed render -

 

[Cesar R]

Try nubs in MAX, although they are quite combersome to work with in max.

Why don't you make a sphere in Max and deform it using the FFD I think its called. And also scale,

then at the end subtract the bottom to create your opening.

[Christopher Nichols]

Nurbs are dead... long live Sub-D's

 

Sorry for "the from the hip" response.

[Ernest Burden III]

Nurbs are dead... long live Sub-D's

Just when I was really going to try to learn to use Rhino better than my emergency-only plan.

 

How accurate can you really be with sub-division surfaces? You build a box in which forms a surface...I like how much like sculpting that is, but accuracy? How would you cut a ring out of a surface, of fillet a corner?

 

And back I go to my polygon modeler...

[edgemaster]

But also another thing would be to use surface tools if your using Max. But you may wanna look at some tutorials for that one. And if that doesnt work I'd move on to sub-d modeling. yeah I've never really had any luck on using nurbs in max.

[Diego Rosales]

If I'm not wrong, that shape looks like a sphere with part of its hemisphere chopped off and a couple of bend modifiers put on top of it.

 

I wouldn't be so worried about the accuracy of the "spheroid", unless you are given exact shapes from which to model it, or if you'll create construction documents from the 3d model. If so, It would be more a design than merely a modeling issue (I would do it in rhino or similar). It also depends a lot on how close you'll be rendering the model and how detailed it is.

Generally speaking, your workflow will depend on what you'll do with the model.

 

This was a quick n' dirty test for what I described above:

 

[Christopher Nichols]

Originally posted by Ernest Burden:

quote:

---

Nurbs are dead... long live Sub-D's

How accurate can you really be with sub-division surfaces? You build a box in which forms a surface...I like how much like sculpting that is, but accuracy? How would you cut a ring out of a surface, of fillet a corner?For ID Nurbs is still very valid, but for architecture, I don't think you can really do a Nurbs surface for a construction document. Splines is still more valid. In fact, if you can't draw it with arcs, you're out generally out of luck.

 

Sub-d's can have a lot of detail in there, especially if you do multi level sub-d's. But you are right, it is a lot more like sculpting. If you need accuracy beyond that, I suggest using the section tool tool to draw spline from your surface after you are done. But designing organic shapes with sub-d's is way faster than Nurbs.

 

Keep in mind that I say this without having used Rhino, which I hear is a great nurbs modeler, if not the best. Its Nurbs modeling may be as fast a Sub-d's.

 

I'm speaking from the perspective of the film industry where Nurbs is all but history, most pipelines are using polies (and sub-d's) since renderman can do micro poly sub-d's just as it did micro poly nurbs.

[joseph alexander]

sub-d's render faster then nurbs and take up less file space.

 

-Joe