@@ChillieGaming Definitely not all quads, nor does it need to be and the results are still identical to an all-quad topology with this workflow, it's one of the major benefits of the techniques I teach. That being said, the workflow also allows you to easily get a perfect quad topology in the end if you want to spend the extra time on it.
Your guitar modelling course was one of the best courses i have taken. May god continue to bless amazing teachers like you Chris.I will take the car course in a few weeks when i get a bit more comfortable with modelling.
Hey Chris, I just reached the end of Guide mesh section and I really loving the workflow so far, I was really surprised that you have put in those short clips ( you know what I mean don’t wanna spoil for others), Great Stuff!❤
Thanks glad you're liking it so much! And glad you liked the movie too haha, that was a blast to make. There's a couple more parts coming up as you go through the course too =)
Thank you so much for making this, this is so much needed, I'm modeling some sci-fi stuff and I'm not expert at boolean cuts in Blender and was pulling my hair out to understand why I'm running into issues. I jus assumed Blender's booleans are not up to the job, but now I've learned how to use them :)
Glad you liked it! And booleans are really useful for sci-fi stuff. If you were interested in trying add-ons, if you haven't tried Hardops yet I would definitely give that a look, might be really handy for your projects.
Switching to fast mode certainly can work in a lot of instances. However, not always, even setting the overlap threshold to zero. What I've found works almost 100% of the time is using Exact mode and turn on Self in the solver options. This applies an addition union boolean before the difference boolean and can help with objects that have multiple intersecting meshes. Hole Tolerant can also help with non-manifold objects. Of course, turning all of these options on can make booleans significantly more laggy, so that's something to be aware of if you do a lot of them.
Those options do work for my example in the video, but only if my cutouts are manifold. And you're right, this is significantly slower even on just a simpler operation. But this is definitely something I'll keep in mind for any situations that the Fast solver fails on.
@@blengine Yes, the reason the Exact solver gave "instant failure" in your example was because your cutouts were not closed. The exact solver is not expected to work if the objects are not manifold (though it does try, and sometimes can work).
Thanks, and I plan on doing nothing but youtube videos for a long time after I'm finished my current course. Very much looking forward to making regular tutorials for a long while and chipping away at a long wish list of videos to make. And if you have any suggestions for something you'd like to see let me know.
@@blengine I would love to see a workflow oriented video on game ready vehicles, specially something similar to maybe forza or GTA(interior and exterior both), some best practices on the workflow, thanks:)
@@vectordexter5393 I haven't worked on getting vehicles game ready before so this is something I'll need to research heavily. If my course continues doing well this is actually something I plan on adding in as bonus content for it where I take the car and get it ready for realtime. We'll see how things go! There will definitely be more car related stuff on the youtube channel as well, and more game stuff in general down the line.
For boolean results this option doesn't seem to work well. Maybe in some boolean situations it might, but for the example in this tutorial it has no substantial effect.
Sir, will we ever see a course on organic modeling? Sculpting and retopo-ing things or characters or creatures that are going to be in scene for a few frames seems too much work but there isn't much detailed info about how to approach these kind of models when edge tracing.
I don't think you'll be seeing any organic modeling from me. Retopology maybe, but I don't have much experience with sculpting beyond the basics. For sculpting stuff I highly recommend Zach Reinhardt at CG Boost though. If I wanted to learn more about sculpting that would be my go-to trainer.
@@blengine whoa, didn't expect a reply from the master this fast. I got into blender through your pirate raft course on udemy. Before that I had already quit a couple of times, then I got to know about you. You made me very comfortable with the software and modeling. It's a shame though that we'll not see oranic modeling from you. Guess my short film is going to take a little more time 😅 Still, thanks for the pirate raft and the guitar course. Looking forward to more content from you. Hard surface is not needed currently in my project but I'll still take this course in future, I am sure I'll learn a lot, like your other courses.
@@SavvyyKun That's awesome and great to hear! And once upon a time I did want to get into character art more, but I honestly just don't feel very creative in that way, and I enjoy the technical modeling challenges a lot more so ended up with hard surface modeling =) And there's more content coming from me, in fact I think I'll be attempting a switch to all youtube, starting wtih a revamped beginner's course coming in December just to get things rolling.
Nice overview of some techniques you can use for fixing certain shading issues! I would also point out that weighted normals work like a charm if you have more complex geometry and want to fix ngon stretching like you showed before. I also thought that you show the normal transfer with the problem when cutting a low poly geometry. Fortunately for that kind of mesh, the subdivison worked, but I think showing that techniques could help others too. :D But nonetheless, sometimes less is more (like adding the edgeloop for the cylinder to fix the internal shading).
For the example in the video, Weighted Normals won't work for me unfortunately. I tested it and it does give me *slightly* better shading, but nothing significant. I'm not sure how useful that is with boolean results. Same thing with Data Transfer. I tested it and I'm still getting artifacts around the rims no matter how I tweak the settings. Perhaps I'm doing things wrong though, if you had the time and the interest, maybe you could test these solutions out on the example in the video using this blend here - cgmasters.com/tutorials/boolean_tutorial.zip
@@blengine Finally, someone is talking about data transfer. :) I use it to fix bad shading on all my stuff. On low poly mesh with decent topo, data T will fix bad shading even without subsurf provided the guide mesh has at lease 1 subsurf level. When the topo is a mess from booleaning as the case here, you need to crank up subsurf mod (on the problem mesh) to 3 or 4, at least, for data T to be effective. Obviously, the guide mesh has to have same or 1 more level. I just tried it out with your mesh. For anyone interested, the setting I always use is >face corner data > custom normals > nearest face interpolated works best.
@@jujuboohoo Ah I misread your reply at first and thought you said to crank up the subsurf on the guide mesh, but you said the problem mesh. For the example in the video that seems unnecessary since subsurf level 3 on the problem mesh already gets basically perfect results without needing data transfer. And unfortunately from my experimenting, there doesn't seem to be a way for data transfer to fix the artifacts at a reasonable subsurf level.
@@blengine Yup. I wrote that the level of subsurf necessary to solve the shading issue might not be what most people wanted but deleted it. I just wanted people to know it'll work even with bad topo but at a cost. :)
Thanks for the tips! This'll be very handy for not getting booleans to screw up shading; I've always ended up applying the modifier and manually shifting vertices. I was wondering, how do you think this would effect a UV map? How could it be more optimized to work well with a UV map? Often times I end up using seams, since are often times sharp angles like in this video, and as a result when displayed and textured receive a lower resolution. It isn't a huge deal when the area being seamed on its own is a small area, like these holes in the exhaust, but I was wondering if seaming it would also be the right move when it's much larger.
Booleans shouldn't have a big impact on UV maps as long as they're done right. If a boolean modifier physically changes the surface a lot than this can distort the UVs a little too naturally, but a clean boolean subtraction won't have any effect on the UV map. Keep in mind that the cutout object must also be UV unwrapped, as the cutout object's topology is used for inside of the holes like in this video. So if I were to texture the object in the video, and the texture inside the holes ended up with a different scale, I'd need to scale the UV's of the cutout object to adjust the scale of the texture in the holes. I'm not sure if this answers your question exactly, because I didn't understand the question 100%, but if you're still having trouble with something you can email me the .blend file at chris.cgmasters@gmail.com and I'll check it out.
While things like harden normals and weighted normals can fix shading in some circumstances, that won't have any positive effect in most boolean cutout situations unfortunately.
Hi. In Blender 4.1 with it Shade smooth by angle it doesn’t work. In Blender 4.0 everything is OK. How to fix shading issues after Shade smooth (main object) in Blender 4.1?
Yeah no one's happy with the changes to Autosmooth/Shade Smooth by Angle. You should be able to use the Shade Smooth by Angle modifier for this tutorial, I THINK, but I'd never recommend using the Right Click > Shade Smooth by Angle option anymore. This option is destructive and will physically mark edges as sharp. It is also not compatible with modifiers and won't take them into account. So for the time being, adding the modifier to the end of your stack is the best option, but this doesn't work with everything either. For example, it does not work with the Bevel modifier's Harden Normals option. It's all a bit of mess right now, and we're all hoping the devs heard the complaints and fix this for 4.2.
@@PoMkAc27 Oh, yeah Autosmooth is now Shade Smooth by Angle, and they changed the way it works so that its compatible with Geometry Nodes. Hopefully they bring the old functionality back, it was so simple, we'll see what happens.
Yes the exterior modeling sections of the course use blueprints that are included in the project files. The interior does not have blueprints though, so for the interior we'll be figuring things out using reference photos and logic.
I focus mainly on making large courses for a living, but I'm going to be changing things around soon to focus more on youtube videos, and I'll cross my fingers that it works out for me.
Of course, all boolean topology is bad, but that doesn't always matter except to people who never had a job. Booleans are often just for quick results at the expense of the topology, but depending on the job or how small the detail is, it might not affect the end result in the slightest. Just depends on what you need out of any particular area, and how much time you have to spend on it.
@@gibson2623 Booleans are for quick results, and in many cases substantially quicker than modeling the holes yourself. And to reiterate, depending on the job or how small the detail is, it might not affect the end result in the slightest, but you'll get the job done faster. Clients aren't always going to care if you have a couple of triangles as long as they get what they need in the timeframe they need it. It doesn't always make sense to spend the extra time on something when you can slash a bunch of holes in it with a boolean and get results that look exactly the same in the final render.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Got any more boolean tips? Or come across any boolean issues you just can't solve? Share them here!
hey there i got a question.
The car that u make in your newest course is quad only? or does it still contain some ngons as well?
@@ChillieGaming Definitely not all quads, nor does it need to be and the results are still identical to an all-quad topology with this workflow, it's one of the major benefits of the techniques I teach. That being said, the workflow also allows you to easily get a perfect quad topology in the end if you want to spend the extra time on it.
Your guitar modelling course was one of the best courses i have taken. May god continue to bless amazing teachers like you Chris.I will take the car course in a few weeks when i get a bit more comfortable with modelling.
Hey Chris, I just reached the end of Guide mesh section and I really loving the workflow so far, I was really surprised that you have put in those short clips ( you know what I mean don’t wanna spoil for others), Great Stuff!❤
Thanks glad you're liking it so much! And glad you liked the movie too haha, that was a blast to make. There's a couple more parts coming up as you go through the course too =)
Thank you so much for making this, this is so much needed, I'm modeling some sci-fi stuff and I'm not expert at boolean cuts in Blender and was pulling my hair out to understand why I'm running into issues. I jus assumed Blender's booleans are not up to the job, but now I've learned how to use them :)
Glad you liked it! And booleans are really useful for sci-fi stuff. If you were interested in trying add-ons, if you haven't tried Hardops yet I would definitely give that a look, might be really handy for your projects.
Switching to fast mode certainly can work in a lot of instances. However, not always, even setting the overlap threshold to zero. What I've found works almost 100% of the time is using Exact mode and turn on Self in the solver options. This applies an addition union boolean before the difference boolean and can help with objects that have multiple intersecting meshes. Hole Tolerant can also help with non-manifold objects. Of course, turning all of these options on can make booleans significantly more laggy, so that's something to be aware of if you do a lot of them.
Those options do work for my example in the video, but only if my cutouts are manifold. And you're right, this is significantly slower even on just a simpler operation. But this is definitely something I'll keep in mind for any situations that the Fast solver fails on.
@@blengine Yes, the reason the Exact solver gave "instant failure" in your example was because your cutouts were not closed. The exact solver is not expected to work if the objects are not manifold (though it does try, and sometimes can work).
Please keep uploading, great stuff man
Thanks, and I plan on doing nothing but youtube videos for a long time after I'm finished my current course. Very much looking forward to making regular tutorials for a long while and chipping away at a long wish list of videos to make. And if you have any suggestions for something you'd like to see let me know.
@@blengine I would love to see a workflow oriented video on game ready vehicles, specially something similar to maybe forza or GTA(interior and exterior both), some best practices on the workflow, thanks:)
@@vectordexter5393 I haven't worked on getting vehicles game ready before so this is something I'll need to research heavily. If my course continues doing well this is actually something I plan on adding in as bonus content for it where I take the car and get it ready for realtime. We'll see how things go! There will definitely be more car related stuff on the youtube channel as well, and more game stuff in general down the line.
Great tips, thanks for sharing !
Thank you for the great tutorial. This is just what I needed.
i am from indonesia, this tutorials very helpful.
In addition to Auto Smooth, you can use the Weighted Normal modifier to fix shading issues.
For boolean results this option doesn't seem to work well. Maybe in some boolean situations it might, but for the example in this tutorial it has no substantial effect.
Awesome! Thank you for the tutorial
Nice tips. thanks!
Yeah, we all bump into those damn artifacts sometimes! 😄
Ooooh Hard Surface modelling yeah baby
Sir, will we ever see a course on organic modeling? Sculpting and retopo-ing things or characters or creatures that are going to be in scene for a few frames seems too much work but there isn't much detailed info about how to approach these kind of models when edge tracing.
I don't think you'll be seeing any organic modeling from me. Retopology maybe, but I don't have much experience with sculpting beyond the basics. For sculpting stuff I highly recommend Zach Reinhardt at CG Boost though. If I wanted to learn more about sculpting that would be my go-to trainer.
@@blengine whoa, didn't expect a reply from the master this fast. I got into blender through your pirate raft course on udemy. Before that I had already quit a couple of times, then I got to know about you. You made me very comfortable with the software and modeling. It's a shame though that we'll not see oranic modeling from you. Guess my short film is going to take a little more time 😅
Still, thanks for the pirate raft and the guitar course. Looking forward to more content from you. Hard surface is not needed currently in my project but I'll still take this course in future, I am sure I'll learn a lot, like your other courses.
@@SavvyyKun That's awesome and great to hear! And once upon a time I did want to get into character art more, but I honestly just don't feel very creative in that way, and I enjoy the technical modeling challenges a lot more so ended up with hard surface modeling =) And there's more content coming from me, in fact I think I'll be attempting a switch to all youtube, starting wtih a revamped beginner's course coming in December just to get things rolling.
@@blengine That would be awesome, looking forward to it.
Nice overview of some techniques you can use for fixing certain shading issues! I would also point out that weighted normals work like a charm if you have more complex geometry and want to fix ngon stretching like you showed before. I also thought that you show the normal transfer with the problem when cutting a low poly geometry. Fortunately for that kind of mesh, the subdivison worked, but I think showing that techniques could help others too. :D But nonetheless, sometimes less is more (like adding the edgeloop for the cylinder to fix the internal shading).
For the example in the video, Weighted Normals won't work for me unfortunately. I tested it and it does give me *slightly* better shading, but nothing significant. I'm not sure how useful that is with boolean results. Same thing with Data Transfer. I tested it and I'm still getting artifacts around the rims no matter how I tweak the settings. Perhaps I'm doing things wrong though, if you had the time and the interest, maybe you could test these solutions out on the example in the video using this blend here - cgmasters.com/tutorials/boolean_tutorial.zip
@@blengine Finally, someone is talking about data transfer. :) I use it to fix bad shading on all my stuff. On low poly mesh with decent topo, data T will fix bad shading even without subsurf provided the guide mesh has at lease 1 subsurf level.
When the topo is a mess from booleaning as the case here, you need to crank up subsurf mod (on the problem mesh) to 3 or 4, at least, for data T to be effective. Obviously, the guide mesh has to have same or 1 more level.
I just tried it out with your mesh.
For anyone interested, the setting I always use is >face corner data > custom normals > nearest face interpolated works best.
@@jujuboohoo Ah I misread your reply at first and thought you said to crank up the subsurf on the guide mesh, but you said the problem mesh. For the example in the video that seems unnecessary since subsurf level 3 on the problem mesh already gets basically perfect results without needing data transfer. And unfortunately from my experimenting, there doesn't seem to be a way for data transfer to fix the artifacts at a reasonable subsurf level.
@@blengine Yup. I wrote that the level of subsurf necessary to solve the shading issue might not be what most people wanted but deleted it. I just wanted people to know it'll work even with bad topo but at a cost. :)
Thanks for the tips! This'll be very handy for not getting booleans to screw up shading; I've always ended up applying the modifier and manually shifting vertices.
I was wondering, how do you think this would effect a UV map? How could it be more optimized to work well with a UV map? Often times I end up using seams, since are often times sharp angles like in this video, and as a result when displayed and textured receive a lower resolution. It isn't a huge deal when the area being seamed on its own is a small area, like these holes in the exhaust, but I was wondering if seaming it would also be the right move when it's much larger.
Booleans shouldn't have a big impact on UV maps as long as they're done right. If a boolean modifier physically changes the surface a lot than this can distort the UVs a little too naturally, but a clean boolean subtraction won't have any effect on the UV map. Keep in mind that the cutout object must also be UV unwrapped, as the cutout object's topology is used for inside of the holes like in this video. So if I were to texture the object in the video, and the texture inside the holes ended up with a different scale, I'd need to scale the UV's of the cutout object to adjust the scale of the texture in the holes. I'm not sure if this answers your question exactly, because I didn't understand the question 100%, but if you're still having trouble with something you can email me the .blend file at chris.cgmasters@gmail.com and I'll check it out.
you can use bevel modidier with weighten normal will fix any bad shading
While things like harden normals and weighted normals can fix shading in some circumstances, that won't have any positive effect in most boolean cutout situations unfortunately.
Hi. In Blender 4.1 with it Shade smooth by angle it doesn’t work. In Blender 4.0 everything is OK. How to fix shading issues after Shade smooth (main object) in Blender 4.1?
Yeah no one's happy with the changes to Autosmooth/Shade Smooth by Angle. You should be able to use the Shade Smooth by Angle modifier for this tutorial, I THINK, but I'd never recommend using the Right Click > Shade Smooth by Angle option anymore. This option is destructive and will physically mark edges as sharp. It is also not compatible with modifiers and won't take them into account. So for the time being, adding the modifier to the end of your stack is the best option, but this doesn't work with everything either. For example, it does not work with the Bevel modifier's Harden Normals option. It's all a bit of mess right now, and we're all hoping the devs heard the complaints and fix this for 4.2.
@@blengine oh, thank you for a quick response. I never heard about this, it’s a pity ((
@@PoMkAc27 Oh, yeah Autosmooth is now Shade Smooth by Angle, and they changed the way it works so that its compatible with Geometry Nodes. Hopefully they bring the old functionality back, it was so simple, we'll see what happens.
@@blengine I hope so
The only hard surface modeling course you need!
Thanks for that!
hello i want to ask If I buy the course later, will we make the car with a blueprint, right?
Yes the exterior modeling sections of the course use blueprints that are included in the project files. The interior does not have blueprints though, so for the interior we'll be figuring things out using reference photos and logic.
@@blengine ok thank you for answering my question
WHY do you STOPPED MAKING VIDEO i like your tutorials
I focus mainly on making large courses for a living, but I'm going to be changing things around soon to focus more on youtube videos, and I'll cross my fingers that it works out for me.
What car is this? Concept?
Yeah it's a concept car by Lee Rosario called the Julietta. You can check out more of his work here - www.behance.net/leerosario
This is terrible geometry....LOL
Of course, all boolean topology is bad, but that doesn't always matter except to people who never had a job. Booleans are often just for quick results at the expense of the topology, but depending on the job or how small the detail is, it might not affect the end result in the slightest. Just depends on what you need out of any particular area, and how much time you have to spend on it.
@@blengine you can actyally model the holes. no need for booleans
@@gibson2623 Booleans are for quick results, and in many cases substantially quicker than modeling the holes yourself. And to reiterate, depending on the job or how small the detail is, it might not affect the end result in the slightest, but you'll get the job done faster. Clients aren't always going to care if you have a couple of triangles as long as they get what they need in the timeframe they need it. It doesn't always make sense to spend the extra time on something when you can slash a bunch of holes in it with a boolean and get results that look exactly the same in the final render.
@@blengine That s just your opinion man.
@@gibson2623 It's experience.
Good tips. Thank you :)
hey, is it possible to contact you in Discord?
Hey, I'm not on Discord, but you can email me at chris.cgmasters@gmail.com.