Try as I may, I just cant embrace Blender

[LawnDartLeo]

I have a head full of ideas for parts but zero patience for Blender. A little back story. Throughout my engineering career I have used AutoCAD, ProE, Solidworks and the like. Engineering programs that are exacting in nature (and really nice revolve capability that lends itself to making rocket parts)... I became a slave to their ways of doing things in the 3D world and just can't come to grips with Blender. Are there features in Blender that I just haven't found that will allow me to model more like I have using the other programs or is is live and die by freeform modelling?

[JewelShisen]

I have a head full of ideas for parts but zero patience for Blender. A little back story. Throughout my engineering career I have used AutoCAD, ProE, Solidworks and the like. Engineering programs that are exacting in nature (and really nice revolve capability that lends itself to making rocket parts)... I became a slave to their ways of doing things in the 3D world and just can't come to grips with Blender. Are there features in Blender that I just haven't found that will allow me to model more like I have using the other programs or is is live and die by freeform modelling?

Blender is QUITE exact in nature as its unit is defined as 1m. Also it does have a revolve tool.

[Camacha]

Blender is QUITE exact in nature as its unit is defined as 1m. Also it does have a revolve tool.

If you feel those two things define an exact nature, I guess you have never worked with Solidworks or similar programs

[JewelShisen]

If you feel those two things define an exact nature, I guess you have never worked with Solidworks or similar programs

No but I have toyed with AutoCAD and don't see any ways that it is more 'exact' than Blender or Maya.

[landeTLS]

Iwe only used solidworks myself a few times back in 2003 so my info really isnt updated:D. I recently started out pretty much from scratch with the intention of actually learning how to model and i chose blender as my platform. I currently use blender for all my noob modelling needs. Ill say that blender was a bit tricky to start with. But as im finding out it is a really powerful modelling and especcially animation tool(hint, some tools are hard to find. I usually never need to read tutorials on how to find features and use the gui for applications but with blender there is no way around it).

Solidworks is excellent and probably much more well suited for what its intended use is (industrial models for real use, 3d prints etc.) But for games and general renderings i must say blender is very good. Iwe used 3dsmax too and it is perhaps a bit easier to learn and do the actual modelling in but afaiks not as powerful for rigging and animations. Just my thoughts. I have heard ppl say that blender is really not easy to learn if youwe used another modelling sw a lot before as its quite different in use from most others.

Ps. I think this thread should be in the modelling subforum

Edited March 16, 2014 by landeTLS

[Camacha]

No but I have toyed with AutoCAD and don't see any ways that it is more 'exact' than Blender or Maya.

I am not sure about AutoCAD, but something like Solidworks is built from the ground up to make actual real world parts. It tries to not even bother with vertices, normals and all that jazz, as the intention is to work with volumes (solids, hence the name). You can sketch freely, but it is just as easy to add dimensions and, more importantly, relations to everything. It is a bit too much to explain here in detail, but the program makes it really easy to work with mathmatical precision if you feel the need. When I compare that with the freeform modelling tools I know (some propietary programs and a little bit of Blender) which are designed for freeforming shapes, those feel relatively sloppy.

The difference is not relevant when working on game assets as dimensions are less critical, but I can imagine the feeling something is missing when coming from a CAD-oriented program.

[Green Skull]

Autocad is made by the same people who make 3ds Max. They may be similar to use. There is a 30 day trial but what puts me off is the LMAO price of £3000...

If you are a student you can get it for free in the US

http://www.autodesk.co.uk/products/autodesk-3ds-max/overview

[JewelShisen]

Autocad is made by the same people who make 3ds Max. They may be similar to use. There is a 30 day trial but what puts me off is the LMAO price of £3000...

If you are a student you can get it for free in the US

http://www.autodesk.co.uk/products/autodesk-3ds-max/overview

You think that is crazy? Try looking up the cost of ONE license for MASSIVE. It's a crowd maker used in movies and each copy is $16000 USD

[Daemoria]

Such is the cost of 'pro' tools. You pay for what you use to make money, seems reasonable to me.

--

Blender has spline tools that allow similar functionality to drafting programs such as CAD, but you are not going to have the entire workflow transfer over. For one thing, the parametric modeling where you can adjust bevels across the entire surface at any point in the modeling history just doesn't exist.

Instead of looking at Blender for what it isn't (A drafting tool), look at the features it offers. Namely, polygon based and subdivision modeling. This is the technique used for real-time development applications like games.

If you truly wish to learn this method of modeling, there are lots of resources available, but I'll link you some of the best ones.

http://wiki.polycount.com/SubdivisionSurfaceModeling

http://wiki.polycount.com/CategoryTopology

http://wiki.polycount.com/CategoryPropsModeling?highlight=%28\bCategoryProps\b%29

There are several techniques commonly used to maintain a certain degree of control over your surfaces, but they are mostly based on utilizing your parametric tools for extrusions and bevels and keeping the values a certain factor. I use powers of 2 for my grid sizes, in order to create a surface to snap to, although that is a hold-over from using the Unreal engine, it is still a good base to use.

[Camacha]

You think that is crazy? Try looking up the cost of ONE license for MASSIVE. It's a crowd maker used in movies and each copy is $16000 USD

Those are typical numbers for production type software. I think a license for a fully dressed version of Solidworks costs around 8000-9000 euro (~11.000-12.500 dollar) a year. Another modelling package I tested was around 30.000 euro (~42.000 dollar). Granted, you got a nifty pen-type input device for that money, but that is not what makes these things expensive.

To be fair, the programs are often the result of years of refining - and it shows.

Edited March 16, 2014 by Camacha

[JewelShisen]

Such is the cost of 'pro' tools. You pay for what you use to make money, seems reasonable to me.

--

Blender has spline tools that allow similar functionality to drafting programs such as CAD, but you are not going to have the entire workflow transfer over. For one thing, the parametric modeling where you can adjust bevels across the entire surface at any point in the modeling history just doesn't exist.

Instead of looking at Blender for what it isn't (A drafting tool), look at the features it offers. Namely, polygon based and subdivision modeling. This is the technique used for real-time development applications like games.

If you truly wish to learn this method of modeling, there are lots of resources available, but I'll link you some of the best ones.

http://wiki.polycount.com/SubdivisionSurfaceModeling

http://wiki.polycount.com/CategoryTopology

http://wiki.polycount.com/CategoryPropsModeling?highlight=%28\bCategoryProps\b%29

There are several techniques commonly used to maintain a certain degree of control over your surfaces, but they are mostly based on utilizing your parametric tools for extrusions and bevels and keeping the values a certain factor. I use powers of 2 for my grid sizes, in order to create a surface to snap to, although that is a hold-over from using the Unreal engine, it is still a good base to use.

Why not link to the Blender foundation's own tutorials?

[Daemoria]

Because I assume that was the first place he looked for tutorials on how to use blender. Instead I present the alternate as ways to learn the workflow for real-time modeling, and there is no better place than Polycount for that. Industry professionals regularly post their workflows for their projects, which would be perfect for someone transitioning from drafting software to an entire new way of modeling.

[Andon]

Oooh, someone else that cannot stand blender!

I learned how to model (Badly, I might add) in gMax, autodesk's short-lived free version of a now-ancient version of 3ds max (I mean, seriously. The minimum system requirements were Windows 98...). I, used 3ds max once upon a time a bit later and it was, well, identical to 3ds max in methodology and use (It was pretty much all behind-the-scenes things that were changed in gmax. And the colors).

After learning of blender, I downloaded it. Tried it. Could NOT get past a few things on it - Mainly, it does NOTHING how I expect it to due to 3ds Max. Sometimes it's not a matter of how GOOD something is, it's a matter of HOW it does things. And unlearning/relearning is a VERY frustrating, awful, and tedious process.

And also, my modeling sucks so it's not a big deal anyway. Unlike Daemoria over there, who makes eyegasmic rocket parts at the drop of a hat...

Edited March 16, 2014 by Andon

[JewelShisen]

Because I assume that was the first place he looked for tutorials on how to use blender. Instead I present the alternate as ways to learn the workflow for real-time modeling, and there is no better place than Polycount for that. Industry professionals regularly post their workflows for their projects, which would be perfect for someone transitioning from drafting software to an entire new way of modeling.

Ah well that does make sense at least~

[LawnDartLeo]

Unlearn about sums it up.

I've looked at many tutorials... repeatedly. Some are helpful, some not so much. The "flow" of creating something... or lack thereof... is what frustrates me.

Keep on grinding. Sooner or later it'll click.

[skykooler]

When you talk about 'precision' - you might not know (I didn't for several months at least) that when moving, rotating, scaling etc an object you can type in a number for the exact value of the move/rotation/rescale. So you can use it for precise sizes. However, it doesn't have the dimensioning tools that CAD has.

As for workflow - I think it's best compared to vim. It's a very steep learning curve that throws most people off. But it allows you to become quite efficient if you master it. If you're just looking to make a model or two, learning Blender might not be the best choice. However, if you plan to do a lot of 3D modeling, it might be a good idea to look into.

(As an aside - the graphics program Gimp has a spinoff called GimpShop that changes the UI and controls to be more like Adobe Photoshop. Has anyone done this to make Blender control like other 3d software?)

[Daemoria]

http://www.blendernation.com/2007/04/16/maya-3ds-max-layout-with-icons/

or

http://www.daniel3d.com/pepeland/misc/3dstuff/blender/maxmayainterface/maxmayainterface.htm For max/Maya-alike configurations.

Although I heartily recommend customizing your software to do what you want it to. There is a good run thru of the process on this page

My c4d doesn't resemble the default basic ui at all, and i love it like that. Half of the fight against these programs is against the terrible UI decisions the programmers made.

Edit: and if you are not a fan of the default color scheme, try this repository. I hope it'll work for the version you're using, it's a bit old.

Edited March 16, 2014 by Daemoria

[Payload]

I think the main problem is most of the Blender tutorials available on youtube and such are not targeted at teaching someone to use Blender for a video game project. I see a severe over use of subsurface in most of these tutorial videos. Subsurface is great for full render CG work. You never actually have to apply the modifier when your project never leaves Blender. There are tons of these videos out there. They are likely to not contain subject matter that is of much use to you as a game asset maker.

The only reason I would ever use Subsurface in a game asset would be when I am setting up Objects that will be used for a texture normal. They will not be in the final model. So again, it doesn't matter. I also see people in these tutorials use 4k+ textures and generally fail at Correct UV mapping and get away with it because of that 4k texture.

There is also the fact that the needs of the two mediums are different. If I am making a CG movie, I need enormous UV maps and all unique texture coordinates. A video game asset is pretty much just the opposite. Your islands needs to be large and efficient. So lots of UV mirroring tends to happen.

Try to focus on the videos that are about making video game assets in Blender. You might also want to try searching several different strings like UV mapping in Blender or even KSP and Blender. Eventually you will hit upon the videos that drop nuggets of info that pertain to your application.

Don't be afraid to use several root primitives as entirely separate pieces. Your model isn't required to be seamless or to be all one part. Use that to your advantage to keep poly count low. Every single face and vertex needs to be doing something useful for your models visual appeal.

Here is a cabin that I am working on for a new SSTO shuttle craft. You can see that I have used a baked Ambient Occlusion map to judge which parts of the mesh need to have unique texture coordinates. All of those things you see are actually modeled, yet the poly count is low. That small bit of space left on the texture card in the top right is perfect to add plenty of small details in actual polygons. There is even room to stuff more in the cracks. That is where using geometry efficiently can help you.

There is still plenty of small detail that will be added to that. Such as grab rails and hand holds. I could safely model in panel lines and believable six sided bolt heads if I wanted to take it that far. Though I find that normal mapping handles those sorts of details convincingly.