In order to model a part of a wire puzzle, I used a cylinder unit, added an array modifier to make it as long as I want, and finally added a curve modifier to give it its shape. To make it look nice, I wanted to add a subsurf modifier, but this resulted in a strange pattern that I do not understand - I expected just a smooth tubular shape as a result.

enter image description here

Can anyone explain where this is coming from, and how to avoid it? (I hope there is a solution that does not involve applying the modifiers.)

  • $\begingroup$ your base mesh will be repeated then subdivided, but each instance has a face facing the next one... subsurf is causing artifacts for this... try removing the two octagonal faces (just faces) $\endgroup$
    – m.ardito
    Nov 6 '17 at 23:07
  • $\begingroup$ Can you explain the result you're expecting? $\endgroup$
    – cmomoney
    Nov 6 '17 at 23:09

Your source mesh has front and back capping faces, deleting those gets rid of the seams:

result no side faces

However, there's a better way to build this shape. Get rid of the cylinder, and add a bezier or nurbs circle. On the path (not the circle) go down to bevel object, and select the circle from the dropdown, and also check "fill caps"

bevel and fill caps location

Not only do you not need to worry about open ends of the path vs seams, but you have total control over the polygon count of the resulting shape. The "resolution" setting on the path controls divisions along the length of the path, and the "resolution" setting on the circle controls the divisions around the tube.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks a lot for the explanation as well as for the alternative way! $\endgroup$
    – flawr
    Nov 6 '17 at 23:41
  • $\begingroup$ For a circular tube you don't even need a bevel object. Just increase the bevel depth and resolution. $\endgroup$
    – sambler
    Nov 7 '17 at 2:00
  • $\begingroup$ For some silly reason, the "fill caps" option is not available with that method. If you don't need it though (say, a wire) yeah, you don't need the bevel object. $\endgroup$
    – JtheNinja
    Nov 7 '17 at 19:23

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.