IWhen I cut (boolean - subtract) in Gmax, the end result is not what it is supposed to be. Any idea why?

Before:



After

Frankly, I would have left the object planar, and then used ShapeMerge to cut the hole...

...then Extruded the result after cleaning up any extraneous vertices.

Shouldn't be a problem really.

All I did here was create a rectangle, change the corner radius, extrude it, cap it, SHIFT+drag to copy it, scale it and then Boolean it. The result is the picture below...



The only thing I can think of, is did you create the shapes with two different Rectangles? If so, the number of vertices on each shape might have been different depending on the corner radius. Other than that, I cannot think of what the problem could be.

The suggestion by Fr.Bill is probably the best solution if you are working with "shapes" from the off.

Brett_Henderson wrote on Feb 27^th, 2010 at 7:54am:

Because of GMax (and 3D Studio/Max) and the strange way they handle Booleans, the more complex the situation, the better the results can sometimes be.

Some shapes cause problems, others just take a little pre-planning before you use them.

Brett_Henderson wrote on Feb 27^th, 2010 at 9:06am:

That's why I mentioned the pre-planning. 

Take the image I posted, by isolating the complex corners into a single poly, you can pretty much guarantee that the boolean output is about as clean as you are going to get it. You might have a little bit of edge turning to do, but nothing major.



The turned edge version unwraps uniformed, so you won't get any texture stretching, should be fine.

Hello.
It`s very interesting here.
So I want to know why do you cut with bool the
fuselagewindows and get more vertex ?
I made the windows with alpha textures as glas.
For doors it`s ok, but for closen windows??

Regard

nandi

Brett_Henderson wrote on Feb 27^th, 2010 at 10:05am:

Forgive me if you are already aware of this technique, I don't mean to patronise.

Did you know that after you Boolean the shape out, you can select the inner ring of edges around the hole (left by the boolean) and then SHIFT + Move the edges inward, to create the inner_window faces?

If you want a lip on the outside, you can apply a small chamfer before SHIFT + Dragging the edges and then extrude the chamfered faces. For some reason, it appears to only allow you to chamfer a small amount, the corners seem to restrict the chamfer range.

Hello Fr.Bill.
To see the interior through the window.
Is this the only point you want ?

You can make it with different grey color in the alphatexture on the fuselage.

From glas absolutly clear to see full the interior.
or semi to see the interior and glas
or full glas without seeing the interior.

Often you don`t need the interior.
Make only one paperwall inside in the middle of the fuselage and a textur
with passengers on it .
Mostly you see only the head from outdoor.

If opening passengerdoor you can set a person as paperwall in it
and not a full 3D person with a lot of  poly.
If you set the person on the correct place you see from outdor only the front
of the passenger or steward.

Try it, you will be surprised.

Next picture is not the freeware you can get.

I made some blimps myself as static with FSDS
for a blimp meeting.
There is no one bool.
only textures
The windows are perfect, you see.

If you don`t belive it you can get a hardcopie from my FSDS




How to make the alphatextur  for aircraftwindows.
Therefore at first you need not a bmp but a tga.
I make textures with Paint Shop Pro.
It makes alphas.
Then I must convert the tga  to DXT3 with the DXTBmp-program to FS9.
Unfortunately bmp is not ever bmp as usual.
Between it gives different bmp, but you don`t see it if you have
only the name.
DXTBmp you must have.It`s the easists way to do.

I belive someone goes other ways.

Regard
nandi



Regard
nandi

Hello Jakes F14.
For what do you need that?
May be you can do that with an alphatexture.
regard
nandi

Nandi, the problem with alpha textures is that they are only as good as the resolution/quality you see them at, and unfortunately, people can see them at a lower quality than you draw them. Try turning your mipmap levels right down and the filtering off, and have a look at that blimp again.

Geometry detail is controlled by you, the more polys you use, the more people see, but they can never see less than you use.

Indeed nandi
Different approaches for diffeent needs

Cutting out with alpha does have it's uses for sure

The cargo nets were made that way..just a solid disc with the net drawn on and alpha cut out



Garry

Fr. Bill wrote on Feb 28^th, 2010 at 3:52pm:



... and to whoever thinks that Fr. Bill is stating the opposite, does not know him well.  Yes, he knows a lot, but even that old fox still learns new tricks from other people!

The beauty of modelling (in general, and flightsim modelling in particular) is that no matter how much you know, there is always some little tip, trick, .... something, that "turns on a lightbulb"  in even the most experienced modeller.

nandi wrote on Mar 1^st, 2010 at 7:02am:

I have to disagree with that, sorry. I've been a professional game/software developer for over 24 years and I have never yet seen an artist that doesn't know how to work with textures. Unless it is one that has never done any 3D modelling at all.

In fact, when you are working with textures for things like the DS or mobile phones, you have to know how to work with them. You could be creating a whole games worth of textures in a 256x256 image, not just a single model's worth.

Hello LeeC
once more.

My English is not good enough to declare what is stretching.

I believe you are  an old fox.
Please declare here and show what is to do when you have 2 different
boxes and only the same textur yello with green stripe as shown left.
How get you the stripes exactly as shown.

Beginners will love you.

May be the administrator makes a new thread?

Regard
nandi

Actually, this could be quite useful just to show what we mean about different solutions for a situation... although I do think it should be a separate thread. But while we're here...

Here is that situation with 3 alternate methods to get there.

The texture sizes are purely for reference to show what size textures I used to acheive the result.

Method 1 is more time, better for texture usage, slightly worse on geometry detail. Not flexible at all, as texture coords are shared across the whole model. Better resistant to low mipmap levels as the geometry defines the edges of the colours.

Method 2 is a quicker than 1, uses less geometry detail but more texture detail. Still isn't particularly flexible as texture coords are still shared. Only the top edge of the green bar will resist low mipmap levels, the bottom edge could blur quite badly, especially with small, low-res textures.

Method 3 is the quickest, uses least geometry detail and the same texture detail as 2. Although the texture will be slightly bigger as the 2 colour changes will break the compression twice, instead of once. This is also the most vulnerable to low system specs as the whole detailing could end up blurred with a mipmap level reduction. It still uses shared texture coord space, so is still very restricted in its usage.

From there, you can evolve to numerous other methods, using combinations of shared texture space and unique coords per face. As Brett stated, with modelling and texturing, there are almost an infinite number of cats and an equally infinite number of ways to tex... sorry, skin them. 

It purely depends on what you want, but more importantly, what you want other people to see.

Edit: I wrongly used the term Planar mapped on method 3.  Just to be clear, box mapping was applied and that mapped the side faces with no further work needed, the only change needed was the mapping of the top faces.