Backhoe Contribution – duerer – Wheels / Rear Axle

[spikeyxxx]

I am not sure what shading problems you are talking aboutFor instance, there is this:

In context, it’s this area:

Which is actually just this edge that shouldn’t be there giving problems:

remove it and you get:

And then there is:

which causes this:

Which is a lot harder to solve, because you have a 5-sided pole (actually two of them), where you are trying to reduce your geometry…

So, maybe something like this:

Which gives:

Right side ‘fixed’.

Also, you have a lot of 5-sided poles near each other on a curved surface, which creates a lot of shading problems:

Personally I’d first connect everything and then solve the topology/shading. When you do one and then fix the shading and then do the next part, you might end up with new shading artefacts and end up re-doing the topology every time you connect a new piece, if that makes sense…

Maybe sooner use a triangle that is not too stretched, when you can’t avoid it an not use so many 5-sided poles.

These shapes are just really hard, just kep going and you’ll get there.

And even as it is now, it already looks really good!

[Ingmar Franz]

Thanks a lot, @spikeyxxx , for this detailed review and the encouragement 😀! For me, it’s learning by doing since I haven’t modeled such a complex piece with many intersecting parts before. And your approach of connecting things first and then caring about the topology makes! Sometimes, I’m overcomplicating things, in this case certainly also as a consequence of insufficient experience. One challenge among many for me is to find a clever way to handle the holding edges that are flowing from one part into the next. I avoid 6-poles and keep 5-poles away from edges with the help of the holding edges. Exceptions from the last rule are corners where 5-poles not only can’t be avoided but are even necessary for smooth transitions.
Furthermore, I try to keep newly created mesh as local as possible instead of loop cuts running completely around the mesh. I also taking care, that the mesh is as evenly dense as possible (which is of course not 100 % achievable), since in some parts edges are coming very close causing unintentional bulges under the influence of the “Subsurf Modifier”. I know that I can smoothen this with shrinkwrapping but I don’t want to run into a bad subsurf modeling habit by relying too much on the “Shrinkwrap Modifier” which should only come into use if nothing else helps. The big question is only: When is thy point reached? I hope to finish the gearbox until tomorrow. Wish me luck! And once again thank you so much for your help😀!

[spikeyxxx]

Break a leg @duerer , you’ve got this!

[Ingmar Franz]

Thanks, @spikeyxxx 😀!

[Kent Trammell]

@spikeyxxx gives next-level feedback + tips. Very grateful for his efforts!

You’re doing fantastic work @duerer. For not having much experience with such a complex structure, you’re wrestling the bull into submission. It’s not easy work and you’re taking it on like a champ 💪

[Shawn Blanch]

I agree it is looking nice even with the feedback. Those are some great review points though. @spikeyxxx has an incredible eagle-eye for details and discrepancies, and a brain like an elephant to share knowledge and wisdom passed down from generations of modelers.

If you post a file for someone to look at, be grateful it was @spikeyxxx that looked at it. He has the Midas touch.

[Ingmar Franz]

Two new parts (highlighted in the image below) connected but they need further tweaking:

[Ingmar Franz]

Yes, @theluthier and @blanchsb , that’s exactly what came to my mind when I saw @spikeyxxx’s very detailed review 👍. I was really fascinated how  you, @spikeyxxx , spot even the slightest discrepancy and explain it right on the point what’s wrong together with a clear proposal on how to solve the problem. Thank you, @spikeyxxx , @blanchsb and @theluthier for the feedback and the encouragement 😀 !

[Ingmar Franz]

The bottom part of the gearbox needed some reshaping. This is the still unfinished status so far:

File is here.

[Ingmar Franz]

This is the current status of my rear axle as a whole:

[Ingmar Franz]

The gearbox is now one connected mesh, but not yet all quads. Nevertheless, the “Shrinkwrap Modifier” does a good job:

[Ingmar Franz]

This is now also one mesh:

The wireframe is from the skrinkwrap target which is just a copy of the old separate main body. I worked with vertex weights and different projection methods (“Nearest surface point” and “Project” along local axes). Maybe some smoothing will be necessary after applying the modifiers. File is here.

[spikeyxxx]

There is a ‘strange’ quad here:

and a 5-sided pole directly at the ‘transition area/point’.

I played around a bit and came up with something like this:

Got rid of the first Shrinkwrap and reduced the Subsurf to 2 levels and then it looks like this:

But your biggest problem is this extra Face that shouldn’t be there:

[Ingmar Franz]

Thank you, @spikeyxxx, this looks much smoother than before! The first “Shrinkwrap Modifier” was just for keeping the original shape as much as possible. Don’t I come too much off from that shape if I delete that modifier?

[spikeyxxx]

You will deviate from that original shape a bit, but see how you like it. Remember that these are cast iron shapes, with maybe some of the shapes welded on. That is a different look than the thin, pressed metal plates that form the outside of a car. And Shrinkwrap might ruin that effect.

Also using the Shrinkwrap Modifier with Vertex Groups or even Vertex Weights is very dangerous. I used it on my ‘ Bee-hicle’ project, but it was a frustrating experience of applying the Shrinkwrap and re-adding one, several times. Don’t get me wrong: it can be done, but like all magic: it comes with a cost…

[Author]

Posts