Hi Andreas! Your tutorials are amazing! Would you recommend any additional source for learning more about surface modelling techniques? Especially anything that helped you during your learning days.
Much appreciated. Please spread the word. It very much depends on the industry you work in, but if you are concerned with tricky patch layouts and care about high quality, Barry Kimbal's videos knowledge.autodesk.com/support/alias-products/getting-started/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/2019/ENU/Alias-Tutorials/files/GUID-D430727C-44B3-42F7-A6D5-FAC390A18BDD-htm.html are fantastic.
I really love your videos, thanks for sharing. I'm a Rhino user, but a bit of a novice. Do you think this technique is possible in Rhino? I have tried a few times but have struggled to make the 'Y' curves in the center meet while maintaining continuity. I haven't found any succesful examples online of this being achieved in Rhino.
Glad it helps. For the three curves to meet in the centre, you must symmetrically align them on both ends, so the curves are symmetric to themselves and thus by definition intersect exactly. In Alias, you see that you can align G1 or G2 numerically. I'm afraid I don't know how that is done in Rhino.
I don't have that product here or a technical drawing to see what shape that is, but I guess it's either the classic "G2 ball corner" technique ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-o9RPAlSBFiE.html or maybe something along those lines ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-w6AL1xTRjjc.html
A curvature continuous fillet with matching corner is foremost a formal aesthetic choice. As in case of the infamous "round corners" (G2) on many Apple products (and surface transitions preferred by many tier-1 consumer product OEMs or transportation and automotive OEMs), a G1 (tangent) solution would break the highlight flow and makes surfaces look "patched together" instead of monolithic and unified. With ball fillets and ball corners (G1), one has to live with the dreaded "tangency shadow".
@@Andreas_Hopf Yes I agree, but are you suggesting you cant get curvature using a single surface patch ball corner? O do all the time. Maybe using a cube was misleading for the benefits of this approach. Dont get me wrong, your technique here is great for doing it this way, I was just curious as to why that simple corner wasnt handled how it is typically handled in a design studio, especially an automotive one. ;)
No, it's a good question you asked. A ball fillet/corner, by definition, results in G1 (tangent), because a "ball" (sphere) has a circular perimeter, see mathworld.wolfram.com/Circle.html Like I tried to suggest, it is not about "right" or "wrong" or "good" and "bad", but rather an aesthetic choice. And that depends on the designer and client, for example. Some companies like G2 or G3 even where no user can ever perceive it. Other companies don't care about homogenous aesthetics at all and just bang out products. And in between these two, there are umpteen approaches...
@@Andreas_Hopf Ball corner is just what its referred to though...they are not necessarily mathematically correct "balls" but rather do have curvature. I guess I was wondering why you didnt do this corner the way its usually done is all? Maybe I am missing something.
That's odd. I have not worked for clients that mean G2 when talking about a "ball" corner/fillet. But, what is "usual" for one, might be "unusual" for another : )
Maybe you could make a good old manual sketch of the type of corner you have in mind and post it on imgur.com so it's easier to see what exactly you're after...
