1
$\begingroup$

enter image description here

I have this larger face with the exact same 2 smaller copies above it. I have no idea how to make a smooth transition between them. Imagine one big mountain with 2 peaks. The tool I am searching for would extrude the bigger "parent" then move upper vertices to their closest neighbors in the smaller copies by the same percentage. That would be repeated as many times as it takes to reach the shape of 2 copies. The higher the extruded level would be the closer vertices would be to both of these upper parts. That would be of course linear but I would love to adjust that by a custom function. This is my MODIFIED (for the sake of clarifying) proposition. Maybe there are other ways around it to get same result. Okay, I can make this simpler. I want to connect two small shapes to the big one. enter image description here Here is when I try the classic bridge edge loops. enter image description here

The very origin of the problem is that I want to use a part of mandelbrot fractals as height map. enter image description here Which is impossible with orginal output and extremely hard (at least for me) to convert. So I tried by hand and this is the problem. Now as u can see, if this was somehow a height map it wouldn't have straight lines like in Aoradon solution. I might make edge loops in between though and scale them down. Subdivision surface mod would make it appear like a curve.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
7
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ sorry, could you rephrase it in simpler terms? maybe it's me, but coudln't understand waht you wish to do... $\endgroup$
    – m.ardito
    Jul 6, 2017 at 16:03
  • $\begingroup$ please edit your question, I'm having a hard time understanding what you want to do. Can you draw something with the grease pencil pointing out what piece connects with what or give us more hints for this riddle? $\endgroup$
    – user1853
    Jul 6, 2017 at 16:13
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ This question is becoming a bit of a train wreck what with the use of "answers" to expand on the original question. I recommend you ask a new question of "how do I build a mesh based on a height map?" $\endgroup$
    – Mutant Bob
    Jul 6, 2017 at 17:39
  • $\begingroup$ just read what I wrote maybe and then complain. I will repeat XD I know how to use height map, but in this case it is nearly impossible. $\endgroup$
    – TheTrebuchet
    Jul 6, 2017 at 17:54
  • $\begingroup$ My feeling is that the key to this is thinking of it as a height map and using a displacement modifier to "push up" the geometry, or use a third (highly subdivided plane) and use a cloth modifier to take the shape of the two other layers (used as collision objects). $\endgroup$
    – user1853
    Jul 6, 2017 at 19:33

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
0
$\begingroup$

Your question is rather difficult to understand so this may be incorrect, but are you looking for bridge edge loops? Using bridge edge loops you can take two of your faces and bridge the gap between them (It finds the nearest vertex). It works by taking two selected edge loops as input. In the example below there are two identical planes with one rotated.

Before bridge edge loop: enter image description here

After bridge edge loop: enter image description here

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

@cegaton Program sees it like random colors with quite different patterns and converting it to grey scale would probably take me eternity but the second idea is actually brilliant THX

I found another solution I would have more control of. I could just extrude the 2 smaller meshes then use Boolean on the larger parent so that I end up with one flat mesh with 2 holes of... its children. Then I prepare this mesh for last step (triangulating and subdividing makes geometry density(?) uneven and this has to be fixed). Then I just use connected proportional smooth falloff while moving the loops in holes by z axis up.

enter image description here

I think both of them are final solutions.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ here's another idea: if you have the shape as planes, set them at the height you need. You can then use an orthogonal camera, set as top view and render that image. Use the values on the Z-pass (depth), that would allow you to generate a height map with very little effort. Then use that image to deform a plane using the displacement modifier. $\endgroup$
    – user1853
    Jul 7, 2017 at 14:51
  • $\begingroup$ @cegaton This solution is best so far, I had few problems with mine, proportional editing needed denser geometry where space between hole loop and outer loop was smaller to correctly elevate the whole mesh in "connected" mode. With your solution I can edit the "raw" height map even in paint.net to match my needs for the final shape. Thank you very much. $\endgroup$
    – TheTrebuchet
    Jul 8, 2017 at 18:54
  • $\begingroup$ Please write an answer detailing what worked for your project. Others might find it useful. blender.stackexchange.com/help/self-answer $\endgroup$
    – user1853
    Jul 8, 2017 at 19:03
0
$\begingroup$

I gave up on the idea, but after (thx cegaton) reminder here is what works best. You have to export these existing 3 objects as a height map from orthogonal up view. Then using for ex. paint.net smooth out edges of the whiter part of the image (2 smaller objects). Use the exported image as height map for a plane. Get rid of the square shaped basis and here it is. Some fixes are needed but that's the final solution.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .