That is the best hard ops and box cutter mini tutorial I’ve seen!

@ArtisansofVaul

Жыл бұрын

Thanks so much. If you want more on Boxcutter I have a series looking through its functions specfically here: kzread.info/head/PLnqmLZKRm5CajsNlyFbieVyGxzdbBN-jo

this is exactly what I've been looking for! Thanks

@ArtisansofVaul

2 жыл бұрын

No problem at all. Great to hear that it's helpful 😁👍

I figured out an okay way to do panels but seeing the cyclic option here is so much better. Thanks for the video 👍🏻

@ArtisansofVaul

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, it's a real time saver and allows for some nice precise work.

I just want to thank you for this. I've been humming and hahing about getting boxcutter and HardOps for a while now, and I am currently working on something that needed panel lines. I just got the bundle of both and have put the panel lines on the model and it looks 1000% better

@ArtisansofVaul

2 жыл бұрын

No worries and glad it helped! Box cutter and HardOps are such a maze of tools, not because they are poorly designed, totally the opposite, just because they have SO MUCH functionality. Im aiming on doing a video on BoxCutter at some point, I just need the time as it's huge by itself.

@Thiccron

2 жыл бұрын

Hard ops and box cutter are a real game changer

This was really helpful. Thank you.

@ArtisansofVaul

2 жыл бұрын

No problem, glad it was useful.

Sooooo. I’m definitely gonna have to get hard ops and box cutter!

@ArtisansofVaul

2 жыл бұрын

Its well worth it in my opinion

Just brilliant! Thank you! Dg

@ArtisansofVaul

2 жыл бұрын

My pleasure!

I usually use the knife tool (press C to cut through the whole object if you want) bevel the new line with 1 segment, and then Alt+E to extruder along normals. you can then bevel the upper edges if you like. you can also make a knife projection from another mesh object as well if you want circles or curved objects

@ArtisansofVaul

2 жыл бұрын

It's not a bad method at all. I generally go with the methods that at least start non-destructively so I can "tinker".

@gordonbrinkmann

Жыл бұрын

@@ArtisansofVaul If you want to start non-destructively, instead of using the knife do something simliar like in your video: create a cutter object and use it as target object in the Boolean modifier on the other one. Set it to Difference and with the cutter set to be only visible as Bounding Box, but the object showing the wireframe you can make adjustments to where you want to cut the object. Then apply the Boolean modifier. The object will have a cut as if you had used the Knife tool, but it's still one connected object. Then bevel the edge with one or two segments (for the chamfer version).

@rbettsx

6 ай бұрын

Hello, Gordon.. 😂 Penfinity et al devised a non- destructive method based on cut topology and a mask modifier.. I think I have a BSE post on that.. but GN should be able to automate it.

Well done

@ArtisansofVaul

Жыл бұрын

Cheers 👍🏻

with the bevel you can make the inside corner a single vertex with the settings in the modifier or when CTRL + B

@ArtisansofVaul

Жыл бұрын

On interesting, I'll have to try that. Thanks!

@Rubberduckerino

Жыл бұрын

@@ArtisansofVaul its something in the geometry settings

When you are scaling the duplicate of the object smaller, there's no need to fiddle around scaling differently on X axis etc., I see this a lot in tutorials. Just use Alt+S to Shrink/Fatten and it will not even be an issue with the inset part. Also the method StormCat mentioned (yeah I know it's destructive) could be done with beveling the edge, but with 2 segments this time, and instead of extruding along edges to get an inset you could just select the center edge and also use Alt+S to shrink it. This way you can much much more easily and quicker get your first result with the chamfer (that was destructive anyway). And the great thing about the Knife + Bevel method is, it gets rid of a lot of steps you did for the chamfer. If you bevel the edge with 2 segments, you can select the complete center edge simply with one Alt+leftclick instead of Ctrl-clicking a few times. No merging of vertices necessary to connect two edges. And if you want a controlled certain amount of line thickness and a perfect 45° chamfer, just type in the values. For example, bevel by 0.02 with two segments, select the center shrink with Alt+S by -0.02 and you're done.

@ArtisansofVaul

Жыл бұрын

I actually recorded a video on the shrink/flatten tool last weekend, it's very helpful as you say. I just with you could do it without having to tab into the object and it assumed you wanted to do it on all faces.

@gordonbrinkmann

Жыл бұрын

@@ArtisansofVaul Yeah, but in this use case shown in the video it's okay to do it on all faces and I would rather tab into the object instead of having to scale more than once...

For your second method, a little easier way to do it is to delete the cutter as you did, but instead of creating a duplicate, just inset both of your interior faces, then select the two new new loops and join. It's pretty fast and perfectly uniform. Plus you can type in the exact inset amount.

@ArtisansofVaul

Жыл бұрын

I'll have to have a look at that

@stormycatmink

Жыл бұрын

@@ArtisansofVaul Another approach I'm trying to sort out is using existing edges in the mesh, marking them sharp, then using the separate modifier on sharp, then solidify (so now it makes geo inwards on those marked edges), then a custom bevel profile to give a square (or whatever shape) profile to the inset panel. Hopefully limited to the marked sharp edges. I think you could also use a vertex/edge group for this, or even a face group.I think I've got the process sorted out from a few other videos I found, just need to try it out and work through any issues. The other method I've seen (which is probably often overkill), is to use the shrinkwrap modifier to literally shrink panels onto your base mesh, using other planes it's also shrinkwrapped to as guides. But that's probably only for the most detailed of models where you want to be able to pull off panels or need that level of fidelity for cinematic use or something. Or maybe if you wanted to 3D print an actual model with removable panels.

@gordonbrinkmann

Жыл бұрын

And I would also use the bevel for the first method as well, see my comment.

@ArtisansofVaul

Жыл бұрын

@@stormycatmink The sharp method I've seen (I can't remember the chanel) and it's quite interesting. I haven't seen how clean the mesh ends up after and how it would work on complex curves but it's quite clever.

@stormycatmink

Жыл бұрын

Spent an hour or so trying to find this video again, and I can't seem to get it. I can even see it i n my head. It was sort of an aside at the end of another video about cutting shapes out of other shapes. The author said 'Oh, and if you run into this issue, here's how to get around it...' If I run across it again, I'll try and drop a note back here.

I love your techniques, and I really am learning a lot. If I can be a little critical, though you're not using modifiers as much as you could be. You do a lot with hard geometry that things like the solidify and bevel modifier can make more-or-less parametric. Still, good stuff and I'm going to apply these to my work flow.

@ArtisansofVaul

2 жыл бұрын

Its a fair comment. I think because a lot of things I deal with are going to be a set size because of the nature of the work that I just set it to that size straight away. And it can take more time to set up a bevel on one edge with a modifier than it will be to just set it to that size to begin with so it's just more efficient for me and the way I work. Bevels for example will be something I set fairly early on in my workflow but then the panel lines will be added as a modifier. For me this works well as that original bevel shape can be easily modified or returned to what it was (using Machin3 Tools for example) so there really isn't the need to use a modifier to do it as that just adds an extra stage and complication to the workflow. But that's just my thinking on it. In the end everything will need to be applied and it just feels nicer to fix issues as I go rather than at the end.

@3dpprofessor

2 жыл бұрын

@@ArtisansofVaul I can definitely agree with you about those times you need to apply all and fix it one modifier at a time but, but in my experience that's less common. I can often just use the 3d print export button (or file->Export->STL don't forget to click "selection only"... I always forget to click "selection only") and if I've made sure the induvial elements are all playing nice usually the final result prints nice and it's rare I have to go through and apply things one at a time to get it to stop complaining. Sometimes there's some minor non-manifold problem, but I just use 3D builder (comes free with windows 10) or netfabb's cloud service to fix it up automatically. Saves a ton of time.

@ArtisansofVaul

2 жыл бұрын

@@3dpprofessor Haha. Not clicking "selection only" is for sure the classic issue in Blender for 3D design. I have done it countless times. There must be a way to set it as the default🤣 You seem to have had better luck than I have with 3D builder. Don't get me wrong, I love it and it does wonders (I have mentioned it in a few videos, especially when importing STL into Blender) but I have had enough instances of it making the incorrect "assumptions" around booleans for example that I always want to check them myself. I have found that applying everything and at least running a triangulation modifier means that 3D builder (which I assume runs on triangles but wouldn't be able to say for sure) makes less mistakes when interpreting and solving problems. I haven't played around much with Netfab, is that what Lychee used to use to fix errors?

@3dpprofessor

2 жыл бұрын

@@ArtisansofVaul Saving only the selection was the default before they made it an option! All thei had to do was be constant with themselves! Then again, if they were we'd all be right-mouse select still. Netfabb was purchased by Microsoft, and the code was incorporated in 3d Builder. But the cloud service still exists. Maybe that's what Lyche uses. I don't know.

@ArtisansofVaul

2 жыл бұрын

Thats really interesting to know, especially the Netfab info 👍😁

Could you maybe make a part 2 to this vid explaining how to do different types of panel lines with box cutter? For example the door to a tau devilfish has a circular panel line design on it, like the design you have on the roof of the large building, could you explain how to do stuff like this? Thanks for the amazing content.

@ArtisansofVaul

2 жыл бұрын

Great idea. I'll add that to the list of videos to do and I agree I think that will be useful for people.

@BB-ti9ic

2 жыл бұрын

@@ArtisansofVaul awesome! It was very strange coming across your channel as I am in the process of creating a tau terrain model and wanted to learn how to better create panel lines and it just happens you are also creating tau terrain in your vid!

@ArtisansofVaul

2 жыл бұрын

@@BB-ti9ic Its always helpful when you get random finds like that :p

Thank u so much. I literally hated box cutter because it always gave me a box that made cuts based in perspective. I actually want to try the addin again now. Also thank u for essentially showing me how to et rid of duplicate geometry with merge by distance. Question: will the 3d Print non-manifold trick work for just regular modeling for game assets? Thanks again

@ArtisansofVaul

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for the comment, glad I can help. The 3D printing tricks should work for game assets as well, the only thing I would say is that some game assets want to be made up of quads from my understanding (I don't really do game assets) so that's an extra thing to watch out for. But in many ways game assets are more forgiving than for 3D printing. For example they don't have to be manifold in most instances

does box cutter let you do not hard angles? I've been looking at hops and boxcut, if i wanted to do a circular panel cutout (say something out of a star trek ship).

@ArtisansofVaul

6 ай бұрын

Do you mean like rounded edges? In that case yes

Wait a second! mx2 told me to use the EM Macro thing in HOps to do the same thing... That _seems_ faster/less clicks. Not for nothing but HOpsCutter/Meshmachine/Machin3tools have MORE keybinds themselves than ALL of vanilla Blender. I learned me something again. tyvm. My little brain will go into a recursive endless loop now trying to figure out if I should use BC or HOps (!) /jk

@ArtisansofVaul

Жыл бұрын

Hops doesn't have many shortcuts, it's mostly in the menu when you press Q. Also for anything there is a shortcut if you have the N panel on the right side open and you look on the tool panel is should list shortcuts to use. BC and HOps are not a requirement, and some people would find it best to start without it so you know some of the functions behind what it is doing. The other argument is that it will save a LOT of time and provide functions that otherwise don't exist in Blender. I'm not sure if that helps you decision loop 😉 But hopefully it gives you some ideas.

@jeffreyspinner5437

Жыл бұрын

@@ArtisansofVaul Well all his modifiers of using the EM Macro for example, shift, ctrl and alt make it do different things, like his Sharp, the same... sometimes he has ctrl + shift as a modifier over a selection in the Q menu too. If you open up the H menu while doing stuff, that sure seems like mucho numbers of keybinds to affect how your selection works too. I mean from that perspective there's a lot of keybinds to remember...

@ArtisansofVaul

Жыл бұрын

@@jeffreyspinner5437 Oh I see what you mean. Yeah thats true but do remember if you hold your mouse over the item in the Q menu it comes up with the list of what it does. I dont think I had EMmacro+Alt memorised for a while until I had a project and used it a lot, and even now its muscle memory more than remembering the command, my hand just does it and thenf or the tutorial I have to look down and see where I clicked 😅

@jeffreyspinner5437

Жыл бұрын

​@@ArtisansofVaul Today I spent 2 hours wondering why a simple bool was fubaring the shading so bad it was unrecoverable... it turned out that you should shade smooth, smooth normals, bevel and apply a weighted normal FIRST then bool away in KitOps. I thought I didn't understand how to create an INSERT, but it was worse, I couldn't create a simple bool! I don't like the triangle corners that the normal bevel makes, so I square the corners with Meshmachine. So I thought somehow that was messing things up... nope. I was comparing BoolTool and it worked but HOps didn't so I'm going down the ctrl ~ menu going WTF man! I restarted my computer cause sometimes Blender stabs itself in the leg and that gets the knife out... It also did work after a restart, so I'm thinking did I restart doing it right, or Blender is bizarre? Then it wasn't me, it wasn't HOps, it was the Box! This is why lots of keybinds can conflate what the heck is wrong, like debugging a program and I've avoided learning how to code this long, I'm trying not to have to start now... Blender may be free, but you pay, you pay (!) Stay safe and enjoy...

Are you using Box cutter addon as well? I want to slice some parts (fuselage) but it doesn’t work. It seems to be working only on cubes etc.

@ArtisansofVaul

10 ай бұрын

Some of this uses boxcutter. It shouldn't only work on a cube. I would suggest checking you're versions of Blender and boxcutter are up to date and if they are make sure you have the cut settings to "view " and not "object"

@cabacho

10 ай бұрын

@@ArtisansofVaul thank you very much for your advice. I will check this. And once again, many thanks for this great tutorial 😀👍🏻

why dont you scale along normals? An you can cut edge directly on the mesh and than bevel it and extrude along normals. Same result but faster

@ArtisansofVaul

4 ай бұрын

All good technique choices 👍🏻 I was trying to keep the techniques used a bit limited as I assumed people watching this would be quite new to Blender and didn't want to throw too much in at the same time. Maybe I should do an update.

9:34 i know this video is a year old and you probably know this by now, but as long as you have snapping set to what you want (vertex in this case), you dont even have to tun it on, just g, hold Ctrl, and mouse over vertex to snap to. that way you dont have to turn snapping on then off again for a single snap. ctrl toggles it.

@ArtisansofVaul

7 ай бұрын

😁 I am aware but thanks for commenting all the same as it helps other people out who don't know 👌🏼👌🏼👌🏼😁

For the second option.. why not just add a solidify to the cutter object?

@ArtisansofVaul

2 жыл бұрын

Its an option for sure. Im just used to doing it this way at this point. As with many things in Blender there are a number of ways to get the same result so go with your preference.

I’m using the first version, the method breaks down after the slice operation, since no 2 exists next to either of the sliced objects, nor do any boolean modifiers.

@ArtisansofVaul

2 жыл бұрын

Hi there. Sorry, I'm not quite sure the issue you're explaining to be able to help. I think you're saying you don't have the option to make the boolean action undividual on each object?

@regisb2865

2 жыл бұрын

@@ArtisansofVaul yes, I already have a bevel modifier applied to the object as well, I’m not sure if this has an effect on it though

OMG how did I miss bool tool's slice???

@ArtisansofVaul

2 жыл бұрын

Enjoy 😉

U can also solidify your cut. ^_*

@ArtisansofVaul

Жыл бұрын

Very true. But if it is going through the whole way then it wouldnt be one object. Or do you mean one of the other techniques?

@MaKs5757

Жыл бұрын

@@ArtisansofVaul No, just thought it can be throwed in as an option. The backside of this is that it separates the object, indeed. But depending on the POV of your model, u can get through with just a solidify( if its a tiny one and the object is a fair amount away from the camera :D )

@ArtisansofVaul

Жыл бұрын

Definitely. I should probably mention each video that the channel has a 3D printing focus and mention when there are other options for pure CG work. I do try to but sometimes forget

He knows..

@ArtisansofVaul

4 ай бұрын

😅?

Boxcutter is easiest. Ngon Line and Inset. DOne

@ArtisansofVaul

Жыл бұрын

For sure. Unfortunately it doesn't always work on complex shapes.