I'm trying to make a sort of an elongated tear drop.

  • First I tried to draw it manually with vertices in 2D and then extrude to give it height.
  • Then I tried to utilize the Screw modifier but none of the properties I tried made it look correct.
  • I also tried was to make a straight bezier curve, add a solidify modifier, and then fatten the points near the end of the curve to try and create a tear drop shape.

This is the shape I wanted to create enter image description here

What is an easier and quicker workflow that gives a more accurate shape?

  • $\begingroup$ And front elevation? $\endgroup$ – Strawberry Oct 22 '20 at 14:59
  • $\begingroup$ Hello @Lucas :). Feel free to accept one of the answers if they helped. $\endgroup$ – Jachym Michal Feb 21 at 17:53

You can use Proportional Editing.

  1. Start with a default UV sphere
  2. Move the top vertex upwards
  3. Check ✓ Proportional editing, Falloff > Sharp and adjust to your liking

enter image description here


The Screw modifier is still a great choice for this style of object. Make sure Merge is turned on to fix the shading at the wide end.

It lets you control the profile with a single curve of vertices, adjust the resolution dynamically, and generally gives you a lot of control with very few drawbacks. You can apply it later if you need to make rotationally asymmetric changes.

That being said, to arrange mesh verts into a teardrop profile so as to have something to spin via the modifier is certainly easiest using proportional editing (apply that answer but on a circle of vertices, then delete one half) - but if it's going to stay as a teardrop, a curve object may be preferable because then you can control the whole thing via bezier handles and only two or three points, leaving your final shape a lot more dynamic and easy to edit and tweak later.

In most workflows you should start with the simplest possible control surface (that is, number of editable points) and move to more complicated, higher density geometry only when needed - this lets you change your mind later or adjust things as needed. Sculpting is an obvious exception to this, as it needs high density real geometry to work on from the beginning.

Left is a curve with two points, right is a mesh object with 17 vertices. Comparison of two similar teardrops

Different comparison of the two teardrops

Control points for curve object:Control points for curve object

Vertex locations for mesh object:Vertex locations for mesh object

Both have very similar Screw settings - the only difference is the axis of rotation is X for the curve object because I used a 2d curve:

Screw settings panel


With the Default Cube.

enter image description here

Just as a cube turns into a sphere with enough levels of Catmul Clarke Subdivision surface, can make it a tear drop.

Add the cube, in edit mode select top face and scale to 0. S0. making the top face a zero area, (edge length 0) ... all 4 verts in same location quad face. Without quad faces, sub'd modifier results look like rubbish.

Assign the cube a subdivision modifier. To fatten the teardrop, scale the bottom face in edit mode... to elongate move bottom face down, etc.

enter image description here For example sake have added a shapekey to the sub'd cube and scaled its top face to zero. Here I scrub the influence to go from sphere to tear, scale the bottom face to make it fatter, or move it around

A Cone

Scaling the top face of cube to zero, (a pyramid) is akin to a 4 sided cone. Add Mesh Cone, To make sure it has a top face, give it a nominally small minor radius.

enter image description here

Add sub'd modifier will produce result similar to above.

The major difference being the rotation of 45 degrees about Z. Compare the front views of above and below.

enter image description here Example of 3 subdiv levels on cone, scaled in X, Y and Z. Showing front top and right view. 2 of the base cones corner verts are higlighted in red, (connected to 3 edges not 4)

A Lattice.

Looking at animation above, could not help but notice it looks very similar to using a lattice modifier to deform a mesh. hence, have added this as a quick addition, so many ways to skin a cat in blender.

Add a new lattice to scene and transform and scale, in object mode, such that the lattice nicely encompasses the sphere object. (pretty much so it matches models bounding box).

A lattice modifier is added to the sphere object pointing to the newly created lattice. Now in edit mode of the lattice select the top four points and scale to zero.

enter image description here Example of deforming a lattice (as shape) to deform the sphere, once again I've used a sub'd cube for example sake, try it with Suzanne (the monkey). By way of example have given this lattice a bit more resolution (grid) than the default, and used proportional editing, when transforming top 4 points

enter image description here Same lattice as above, deforming a 3-Icosphere


I struggled to understand what you're trying to make based on your top/bottom/side views, is this what you're going for?


I made the object a couple of times, and this was the best workflow I could figure out:

  1. Create a circle object
  2. Use proportional editing to make the circle into a teardrop shape.
  3. Bridge edge loops to fill in the circle
  4. Make two copies of the teardrop (One rotated 180 degrees in Z).
  5. Bridge edge loops to connect the sides

You should have this object, call it object A

Object A

  1. Extrude another copy of the teardrop shape to make object B

enter image description here

  1. On Object A, add a shrinkwrap modifier targeting object B with Project mode set to axis Z, both negative and positive.

  2. Hide object B (or apply shrinkwrap and delete object B)

Final result

Refined it a bit more here:

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Hey, I guess I should have included a front view and back view, but I'm not sure if that would have cleared it up. The other replies guess what shape I was trying to make correctly, but I greatly appreciate your reply and attempt to help me :) Seeing other, more experienced users workflows is always a good thing! $\endgroup$ – Lucas B Oct 24 '20 at 4:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think my confusion was because the top and bottom views seemed to be facing opposite directions. $\endgroup$ – Wossname Oct 26 '20 at 20:24

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.