Nikita you need to write a book man. Hook up with a publisher and have someone sit with you and make a modeling book. You can start with the most basic fundamentals of what is the program, the user interface and work your way from beginner to advanced . You can explain each function with its own tutorial all the way to advanced models incorporating complicated surfacing.. You got this
Thank you for this awsome tutorial there! Everything went fine for me just when joining all the sides after patching that concave shape. I couldn't able join it. It says edges aren't coincident. Although it was straight and all. Sometimes I face some boolean problems too. So it would be great to have a tutorial on how and why this happens.
YOu can join our free community and create a post and attach your plasticity project file so we can have a look and tell you exactly why it happens You can join and create a quick profile here: www.skool.com/ultimate-3d-membership-7140
Look, we all know by now that Plasticity is very good for modelling simple products. What would really matter is if it can deal with very COMPLICATED and COMPLEX products. Like a detailed car, or a ship, or a truck - but with LOTS OF DETAILS.
What would be the best workflow in terms of saving a design that you would like to go back to later and make adjustments if needed? I have a case design I made for a device, but I may need to adjust attributes of it later on. I’ve run into this where once I save and re-open later, there’s no way to retrace the steps. I’m guess this might be where I would need to use a different program.
@ hi mark, thanks for your reply. I guess my issue would be if I want to go back to a point and adjust it, I wouldn’t have all the steps after that point, so I don’t know if your method would work. For instance, in my model there is a rectangular cut out. If I saved at the point I made the cut out, but had to go back and move the rectangle over a few millimeters, when I opened that copy file I would be back at the point of the rectangle, but not of the rest of the parts I designed after that. So I would have to redo the rest of the model that occurred after I moved the rectangle.
@ thank you. I think that’s the answer I was looking for. I have really enjoyed plasticity, but this is one area that I think I will struggle with until the potentially, most likely not, bring something like that to plasticity
@@KGTv123 likely not, its by design. Fusion can also be a direct modeler, but that involves switching "modes" entirely, disabling the parametric features and history/timeline.
Wow this is great! Can I know that the basic shape can be achieved with a cylinder and a rounded cube with Boolean and fillet commands?
It's possible yes. However gives you a completely different low-quality result.
@@nikita.kapustinthanks man
Nikita you need to write a book man. Hook up with a publisher and have someone sit with you and make a modeling book.
You can start with the most basic fundamentals of what is the program, the user interface and work your way from beginner to advanced . You can explain each function with its own tutorial all the way to advanced models incorporating complicated surfacing..
You got this
I explain all the things you mentioned in my tutorials and courses. I prefer the video format of the reading
I like these product videos… it would be interesting to have a library of videos were you focus on one or two features… so this video highlights sweep
Thank you for this awsome tutorial there! Everything went fine for me just when joining all the sides after patching that concave shape. I couldn't able join it. It says edges aren't coincident. Although it was straight and all. Sometimes I face some boolean problems too. So it would be great to have a tutorial on how and why this happens.
YOu can join our free community and create a post and attach your plasticity project file so we can have a look and tell you exactly why it happens
You can join and create a quick profile here:
www.skool.com/ultimate-3d-membership-7140
Look, we all know by now that Plasticity is very good for modelling simple products. What would really matter is if it can deal with very COMPLICATED and COMPLEX products. Like a detailed car, or a ship, or a truck - but with LOTS OF DETAILS.
"COMPLICATED and COMPLEX products. Like a detailed car, or a ship, or a truck - but with LOTS OF DETAILS" no problem with plasticity
@@nikita.kapustin And I forgot to mention: to be able to build it to exact measurements, not based on blueprints
What would be the best workflow in terms of saving a design that you would like to go back to later and make adjustments if needed? I have a case design I made for a device, but I may need to adjust attributes of it later on. I’ve run into this where once I save and re-open later, there’s no way to retrace the steps. I’m guess this might be where I would need to use a different program.
You can save a copy at any interval during development. Use that to make your changes. Hth --Mark
@ hi mark, thanks for your reply. I guess my issue would be if I want to go back to a point and adjust it, I wouldn’t have all the steps after that point, so I don’t know if your method would work. For instance, in my model there is a rectangular cut out. If I saved at the point I made the cut out, but had to go back and move the rectangle over a few millimeters, when I opened that copy file I would be back at the point of the rectangle, but not of the rest of the parts I designed after that. So I would have to redo the rest of the model that occurred after I moved the rectangle.
@@KGTv123 you're looking for procedural/parametric modeling that fusion offers; plasticity is direct modeling
@ thank you. I think that’s the answer I was looking for. I have really enjoyed plasticity, but this is one area that I think I will struggle with until the potentially, most likely not, bring something like that to plasticity
@@KGTv123 likely not, its by design. Fusion can also be a direct modeler, but that involves switching "modes" entirely, disabling the parametric features and history/timeline.
I thought we were gonna introduce Xnurbs