The best way to make a tapered round base
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- What was I thinking?! While the Bridge Edge Loop tool is fine for making bases there is definitely a better way!
If you're interested in the video making custom name plates you can find it here: • Make your own Custom N...
Support the channel on Patreon: / artisansofvaul
Free Add Ons
Old Modifier Panel: bluenile3d.gum...
Quick Snap: github.com/Jul...
CharMorph: github.com/Upl...
Simple Tabs: chippwalters.g...
Edge Flow: github.com/Ben...
Sculpt Bridge: blendermarket....
(Affiliate links) SUPPORT THE CHANNEL BY BUYING SOME STUFF YOU WERE GOING TO GET ANYWAY ;p
Machin3 Tools: blendermarket....
Hard Ops and Boxcutter discount bundle: blendermarket....
Hard Ops: blendermarket....
Boxcutter: blendermarket....
Just Panels: blendermarket....
Construction Lines: blendermarket....
Cablerator: blendermarket....
Mesh Copier:blendermarket....
Grid Modeler: blendermarket....
Mesh Machine: blendermarket....
Curve Machine: blendermarket....
Decal Machine: blendermarket....
Punch It: blendermarket....
One Click Damage (OCD)/Cracker discount bundle: blendermarket....
One Click Damage (OCD): blendermarket....
Cracker: blendermarket....
Flowify: blendermarket....
Simple Bend: blendermarket....
Conform Object: blendermarket....
Curves to mesh: blendermarket....
Power Select: blendermarket....
Favourite modifiers: blendermarket....
Wrap Master: blendermarket....
![[UA] Eternal Fire проти NAVI | EPL Season 20 Malta](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/chvlsDygrZM/mqdefault.jpg)
What I would do is cylinder. Extrude up. Face mode. Select top face. Size. Type "=36/39.5". Thoughts?
Agree. I watched this for 5 minutes trying to figure out why that _wouldn't_ be obvious. But you don't have to extrude the top face, just grab it and type in the height. Apply scale.
Totally viable. I had that on the video originally, but that felt like it required an explanation that extrusion isn't done as an actual measurement but as a proportion compared to 1 and that added a couple of minutes to the video which I was trying to keep more punchy. So I decided to leave that one out and keep in the method someone had commented in the previous video as it felt like a nicer thing to include for some audience/ comment "participation."
I'm now regretting shortening the video 😅 But that's always the way. Getting the perfect video length when compared to detail is always a challenge.
The method I'd use (works for irregular shapes too) is to select the top face of the cylinder, inset it by the specific amount you need, select the edge loop around what was the upper outside edge, and Dissolve them. The cone method is great for circular bases though.
That's a good call for an interesting solution 👍🏻
Oh wow, the Cone method is perfect for round bases!
What I've been doing in the past (which would work for both square and round bases) is:
1. Add a circle or a plane. (if circle, fill it)
2. Select the face, hit I, and enter the diff bewteen top and bottom width/diameter / 2
2. Move the inner face up by the base's height.
3. Fill the bottom.
The Cone is way easier for round bases. This method should still work well for square/rectangular basis, though.
👌🏼 Totally agree with everything there
For sqare bases you can just factor in the ratio of the diagonal vs the side of a sqare, which is half of the sqareroot of 2, so in other words about 0.707. So if you want a sqare 30mm base, then your cone radius should be r=30/2/0.707= 21.216
Also thank you for making these videos. They are really interesting
Cheers man. Thats very true you definitely can use things like the ratio, I just find the other method just as fast as working that out as (without explaining) it takes a couple of seconds. But for others this will be faster so thanks for commenting. 👍
How would you go about adding a magnet hole for the bottom of the base to stick a magnet into the base?
I'd just make a cylinder a tiny bit bigger than the magnet and boolean it out of the base
In 3dsmax you can add edit poly modefy, celect the upper face of the cylinder and scale it down,
Is there anything similar to that in Blener?
You can scale the top face in Blender too but it scales my a ratio of its size, not by a measured amount. Is this the same in 3dsmax?
@@ArtisansofVaul yes it scales by ratio too
Great ❤
Thanks 😁
Is this to match a specific taper angle for a specific wargaming product? I make DnD minis and I honestly just eyeball it 🤷♂️
Yeah, well in this instance I found it easiest to measure the bottom and top diameters using callipers.
Why not just create a cylinder, tab into edit mode, select the top face and scale it down? The math can be done in the dialog boxes.
Yep it can. But then it needs to be done as a ratio and I think this is still simpler.
@@ArtisansofVaul that ratio (or its inverse) would be the scaling factor
Exactly what I thought. Just scale down the top face. What could be simpler?
@@richardconway6425 I would say just typing in the size you want for the top face is easier than scaling it and putting in ratios is simpler. But each to their own, if that works for you, great.
@@ArtisansofVaul yes, so this is all related to the fact that blender does not natively excel at fast precision design/modelling. Anyone coming from a technical design/engineering background will find this frustrating, because cad type software is optimised to do this very well.
But my engineering background was all about drawing boards and using ink or pencil on translucent paper, so we could see the printed grid reference sheet underneath. People who grew up drawing and designing in this way would always have their calculator to hand, for exactly this reason, to constantly check ratios and dimensions, and angles. It's a way of thinking, and working. I still think in this way, and, when I first started using blender, I tried to work in this way too. I would always have a calculator open somewhere on screen, to do these same calculations, so I would have the ratio that I needed ready to use. But of course, if you know how, blender has all the tools you need to do this, they are just not very obvious.
I wish blender had a fast cad ui mode. That would be good.
Edit: the cone method is really good, and I thank you for bringing it to our attention. Again, unintuitive that the cone would have this functionality.
It's a bit like, in terms of intuitiveness, taking a cylinder, and scaling the top face to zero. Have you tried this? It's reasonable to assume it would destroy the mesh, or least the top half of it, but it doesn't. If I remember correctly, you get a cone !! There is the small matter of a load of overlapping vertices at the point, but that is quickly solved with 'merge vertices'.
interesting...surely there are multiple ways to do most things...liking the efficiency; not creating downstream issues being fast...lawdy
👍🏻😁
Gah, UA-cam have been messing with my computer again, they've blocked features of UA-cam Redux and the page is weird. I'm typing in a little bar on the side.
Does anyone have a link to the old version of making bases? I want to know what this divide-by-2 thing is about and why this is better than just beveling a cylinder.
Thats frustrating. So this video covers the dividing by 2 element (its basically about being able to remove data easily):
ua-cam.com/video/Wm5Nzr3G--k/v-deo.htmlsi=Yksi7P61IqFWz3uc
This is better than bevelling as you can have an exact size for the top and bottom. If you dont need that then it doesnt really matter.
@@ArtisansofVaul Thankyou very much Mr V. 🙂I'll watch that video right now and find out what I missed.
Finally, F9
😁
I use the simple deform modifier on a short cylinder with the ratio. The benefit of blender is that you can find something to suit your workflow.
Agreed, there are many ways you can achieve something in Blender, which is great
What happens if you use a cylinder>edge select> select button edge and scale out?
That's what I was thinking too, I even think it would be more comfortable to change the size
Thats totally possible, I just removed that section (but with scaling in) as it seemed a bit repetitive. It will just use some simple maths as scaling is done in comparison to 1, not as a unit measurement.
Never just one way
Exactly!
How about hex bases?
Thats a good question. Assuming the diameter of a hex base is measured from one flat surface to the opposite one of the first method would need to be used. If its measured from a corner to an opposite corner the final method would be faster.
The cone method is how I used to do the bases. But, I am trying to find a better way now to create the base where the bottom has lips and magnet holders, not solid flat like in the video.
I can do it, just not effective yet.
Hmm... Have you got a picture of the base in question? It sounds like an interesting problem
@@ArtisansofVaul Not that I can easily show (YT filters). BUT, on "cult s" the design number, 324686 (FROZTYBEVERAGE's model) is similar to what I was talking about.
I can do it, just takes too long and I get fragments from booleoning the "circles" that hold the magnets.
Not an issue for 32mm bases, but when I want larger monster bases, those magnets help.
@RoseKindred for the lip I'd just extrude in the bottom face, extrude it towards the top and then scale that in in Xray mode to check I'm keeping the base the same thickness.
@@ArtisansofVaul I'll have to try that next time. What I was doing:
Duplicate the cone/base.
Scale it around so I have 2mm less on all sides while also reducing the height so it is 2mm from the top of the cone/base.
Difference between the two bases.
Paste in my "magnet holders" which are cylinders with the middle removed.
Join them all.
Bevel all edges.