5
$\begingroup$

Basically I am asking what was already asked a year ago in this thread: Create a rounded wireframe?

The question is basically unresolved an I thought that since a year ago someone might have an answer, or simply an idea about how should I go about doing this in my own case. The wireframe + subsurf technique, even with with a crease of 1.0, will create uneven thickness with pointy corners at the vertices, however much I play with the options, and also subsurf adds unnecessary edge loops, subdividing edges between vertices.

What I feel would solve the problem is a RESOLUTION option in the wireframe modifier in order to turn those 4-sided wire frames into cylinders. Just like the option you have with curves. I know you can convert the mesh to curve but that automatically results in disconnected topology. And the skin modifier is way too heavy and results in twisted topology as well as rounded intersections.

enter image description here

In more practical terms, here is what I want to achieve. I have this mesh you can see in the picture above, which is actually a floor. Everywhere you see edges, I would like to turn them into cylinders in order to make a nice pattern onto what is an otherwise quite boring floor. I could of course use a texture but I would like the pattern to be 3 dimensional, and a 4-sided wireframe just doesn't make it. It needs to be round. What would be the most efficient way to do this, without the ugly results of the wireframe+subsurf, skin, or curves?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ What about deleting faces only, turning into a curve, adding subserf, and then play with it from there? EDIT: Okay, never mind, blender doesn't like that method :( $\endgroup$ – TARDIS Maker Jul 5 '15 at 19:38
  • $\begingroup$ possible duplicate of Create a rounded wireframe? $\endgroup$ – Ray Mairlot Jul 5 '15 at 20:10
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @RayMairlot the OP is indeed referring to that question, but not getting an adequate answer to his/her needs. $\endgroup$ – cegaton Jul 5 '15 at 20:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What about adding a wireframe modifier, than adding a bevel modifier, and using the angle in the bevel modifier so that not all of the edges are beveled, and playing with the bevel values? $\endgroup$ – TARDIS Maker Jul 5 '15 at 23:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I too am still interested in finding a nicer solution :) Perhaps a feature request is in order.. $\endgroup$ – gandalf3 Jul 6 '15 at 3:52
4
$\begingroup$

You can use a sub-division surface modifier on top of a wireframe modifier. The trick is to enable 'Crease Edges' in order to maintain the crease in edges you don't want the subdiv to smooth out.

It should look like this:

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ As previously stated in the question linked, the comments and the question itself, wireframe+subsurf and crease does not give appropriate results. You can see it in your screenshot: the radius of the cylinder is not constant. The intersection points have a bigger radius, which gives "pointy corners" at the place where the original vertex were. $\endgroup$ – Eranekao Aug 4 '15 at 21:35
3
$\begingroup$
  1. Select green edge loop Alt+RMB, Ctrl+E > Edge rings, Split (Y), Hide (H)
  2. Select blue edge loop Alt+RMB, Ctrl+E > Edge rings, Split (Y), Hide (H)
  3. Select all (A), delete all vertices X, unhide vertices(Alt+H)
  4. Back to Object Mode (Tab), Curve from mesh (Alt+C)

Set Curve 3d fill to full and set bevel depth and resolution:

enter image description here

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Interesting idea. So far one of the best, but still not exactly what I am looking for. Issues: 1) Disconnected topo. Here it is done on purpose so that we are left with a consistent result instead of one single and very long curve, but inside faces remain and the object is not manifold. 2) For the first time trying this, the angles/intersection are looking great. However, it does so at the expense of a "flattened" (ellipse) tube rather than a circular one. There seems to be no way around this, because it's impossible to specify a separate X and Y value for a "width" of a curve control point. $\endgroup$ – Eranekao Aug 19 '15 at 22:28
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the interesting idea though! $\endgroup$ – Eranekao Aug 19 '15 at 22:29

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.