Talk:Wings 3D/Tutorials/Box modeling a car with all Quad topography
From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection
Hello all. I've created this tutorial to show how easy it is to model a car in Wings3D. The basic mesh created is quite flexible and relatively low poly. From this mesh it should be possible to develop many car designs via modification. Also it should answer some problems faced by new/intermediate Wings3D users in the process of modeling cars. If there are any problems with this tutorial it might be in length and number of pictures used. Perhaps it could be edited later to fit more consistant formatting and maybe separate pages.
--Pauljs75 23:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Paul - A useful tut, but I've a few minor queries and I wondered if you'd prefer to alter / edit your own stuff?
<< plan drawings in Isometric view >> Is 'isometric' what you really mean - rather than ortho / 3 view or similar?
Am curious why in steps 23/24 (I think) you selected the VM face, converted to verts, flattened, then back to face mode to select VM face - rather than using Face | Flatten (would rmb flatten be worth a brief mention re badly distorted mesh being kept on the zero centreline?)
Elegant use of scale rad > 0 in (13), btw - but 'vertice'? :)
As this is only meant for you, pl. delete after reading.
ppIs 'isometric' what you really mean - rather than ortho / 3 view or similar?
I did some minor changes as per suggestion. I changed iso to ortho, although it does appear to render a view as isometric when not viewed direcly side on.
Also when are you going to post a tut here pp? (No ads, the server is fairly reliable, and the Wings 3D wiki needs it.) You've made some incredibly good beginner tutorials, I think they'd do alright here. (Or do you think someone will come in and really mess up your work?)
I don't mind getting input btw. That's what this discussion is for. Also don't worry about anyone reading this. Think of the discussion as providing a context towards changes made in the tutorial. If anything is badly written or plain wrong, the beauty of a wiki is that anyone can go and change it.
Elegant use of scale rad > 0 in (13), btw - but 'vertice'? :)
Why vertices? Just happens to be that way in the workflow, I suppose edge selection works just the same.
--Pauljs75 07:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Re the Isometric / Ortho issue - Although I queried the terms, I'd probably just put something like?
<< This tutorial is for a freeform generalized car model. It can be easily adapted for making specific models by importing 3-view drawings and using these as background / reference images when modelling in Ortho view - adding extra edge loops / geometry as and where needed. >> ?
Re the centreline VM face: It's probably me being thick but I still don't get this :) After loopcutting the model in half and dumping one half, I'd do:
Select centre face.
Face | Flatten > X (use rmb option if wanting to ensure flattened face was on centreline).
VM
I'm just wondering why you're doing:
Select centre face.
Convert to verts.
Vert | Flatten > X (use rmb again etc if want to).
Deselect verts (or go F, -, to get face by selection jumping).
Select face.
VM
Are you saying you've had problems with Face | Flatten, so that's why you use Vert | Flatten?
<< vertice >> Sorry, nothing wrong with the workflow - just me going into 'vertice' rant mode, re its use, as opposed to 'vertex' - it's just another of those weirdo situations in the english language (vertex: singular, vertexes or vertices plural - no 'vertice' - that's all, no more, no less :) )
Re putting tuts here - yes, I probably will at some stage - but I can't see the point atm of just repeating existing (aards) stuff when much of it would benefit from re-writes etc because of changes to wings, since they were originally written. Better to have more upto date / relevant ones, I'd have thought?
pp
(btw - this discussion page doesn't seem to keep the same format as the 'as written' text - making workflow sequences more difficult to read :( )
Vertice? Vertex? Pot-a-to? Po-tat-o? *shrug* I never really noticed that before. Probably just too much lazyness in the American version of the English language. As for using vertex mode, it might be a holdover from an older wings version where face flatten didn't always ensure the vertices were indeed flush with the plane of reference. (I remember that they would be off by some wee fraction, but usually enough to cause problems later.) Goofy? Maybe. But I know it does work.
As for keeping posts clearer in discussion? Throw in a <hr> tag between entrys. It seems to help separate who's posting what.
--Pauljs75 05:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
