Hello
I don't think that you need moi or g2, g3 or g×√π for vehicle design. You need insperation and a pencil and a sheet of paper.
Ok, Maybe, You need also a black turtleneck sweater, glasses with a thick spectacle frame - especially if you don't have problems with your eyes(simple float glass), some cool apple gadgets, a Artemide Tizio on your desktop and a showcase with some old Braun products;-)

Kind regards
Karsten
p.s: Am I redirected? Or is this really the moi M O i - Forum???

..and a showcase with some old Braun products..

Does this mean my Bellini Olivetti calculator doesn't count? ;-)

Ok,
And a Bellini Olivetti calculator ..... also.

Right (not the Sottsass one).

the Sottsass one ;)


All the collection ;)
http://www.epocalc.net/pages/calc_olivetti
and of course here;
http://www.storiaolivetti.it/

"""""""""There are no even such a term Like 3D modelling when Marcello Gandini created Countach or Miura."""""""""""

No, he would have used things like "French Curves" And "Drafting Machines" and a heavy "understanding of math" for the ability to actually use a French curve...... Also understanding that he was creating a 3 dimensional object which needed to maintain the beautiful characteristics of Curvature...

He most definitely didn't just draw something and say "Look at that!"...............

I never known why this is called "French Curve" ! :)

In French that is a "Perroquet" (a parrot) look the last one on the right side!

Maybe!?

:)

Hi Pilou,

I don't know why they called french curves, but the name Ludwig Burmester may be interessting for you!

Have a nice day
Karsten

Yes, mister Pierre Bezier was his successor! :)

Dont't forget Bernstein and De Casteljau;-)

Nevertheless, my hero is Ivan Sutherland:-)

Those guys were monsters in math and masters of geometry.

Burmester was working on "lightlines" before je moved into creating his motion theory.

...after Catia,continuity and mathematics don't forget taste,stylish,elegance..what we Italians call "the concept of beautiful"

For some "Designers" here, check this video this will be a 7 minute master class for you about design.
Filippo Perini talked about design of Huracán, also he creates concepts for such an iconic cars like Sesto Elemento and Aventador.
You will not hear not about Catia, not about Concept of Continuity not about any 3D modeling stuff. This is pure design, thoughts behind design and creative process.


Here some of "Designers" can not understand that there is design in 3D for concepts, that do not need precision, closed surfaces(watertight), ideal continuity etc... All that stuff will be made by you - 3D Modellers when concept will be approved. So lets everybody will do their things, designers will create design and modelers will create perfect 3D models.
And when 3D modellers start to talking about design(some persons in this forum) it looks awful.

Also this is new Russian Tram:


Design was made by guys that never have deal with 3D their work was creating web sites, brands, images etc (marketing stuff)...
They even have no educational background in any kind of Design.
But they made nice job.
And fore sure they work in team with engineers and 3D modellers, but everybody made his job.
So pleas stop talking about design in terms of 3D technical stuff. You will never create any beautiful stuff if you will think like 3D modeller, not with Catia nor with MoI.

And about MoI and Car Design...
For sure MoI is not good for Car Design in terms of Concepting and forms research. Polygons is perfect tool for this. MoI may be suitable in modeling cars from already made concepts and blue prints. But it defenetly lucks of some essential tools for this work so it is not the best choise for car design.

Why I'm so against MoI in this situation is that I want people do not waste their time doing car design in MoI or any other "Organic" stuff. Their enthusiasm will finish one day and they will have to spend time to learn another app...And this is will be very hard. Because you will have to change your habits, minds, understanding of modeling etc... Personally for me it was very hard task. So this is how it was with me. So why people have to repeat somebody's mistakes?
MoI gives you a lot of inthusiasm with its simplicity but you will have to pay price for this - limited possibilities.

Hi Andrei, you seem to have a tendency to make overly broad statements a lot in here. The things you say may be applicable to your particular modeling style or needs but they may not apply so directly to other people because they are doing something different than you with a different focus and different priorities.

For example you write:

    "For sure MoI is not good for Car Design in terms of Concepting and forms research. Polygons is perfect tool for this."

There is not just one single definition of "concepting" - one method of concept modeling is taking an idea you have visualized in your head and trying to get it constructed as a concrete model as quickly as you can. MoI can certainly be good for this type of concept modeling, it's one of the things it's primarily designed to do.

If you are talking about going into a design where you do not really have a strong definite idea about what you want and instead want to make dramatic changes like make big bulges and kind of sculpt away at it, then what you are saying makes sense. Polygons are good for mushing shapes around and making large bulgy modifications to things.

But that does not apply to everyone's idea or workflow about realizing concepts and doing concept modeling.

One of the core ideas behind MoI is that it tries to make it possible for you to really quickly construct the idea you had in your head, it's why it is named "Moment of Inspiration", because you can quickly draw things.

If that type of quick object realization does not fit with what you in particular need, then that's certainly fine. But there is no need to insult other people who do find it useful and try to claim that their style of work is somehow wrong which you seem to be doing a lot recently here.

Vehicles do tend to be a difficult type of model to create - they involve a lot of variety and changes in the surface shaping. They are difficult to do in polygons as well.

- Michael

Andre,

I'm having trouble understanding your intention.

I think one is naive to believe modeling vehicles with polys is the only way. Certainly a person must allow for there to be more than one approach to model vehicles. Most car and boat designers I know, who actually do it for a living, don't use polys or SDS (Sub-Division Surfaces). Of course SDS can create fine models, as long as one has a good understanding of polyflow, knows how to spin quads and create edge weight maps along with another half-dozen other specific techniques, which when applied end up being VERY restrictive-- and certainly don't allow for infinite iteration. In fact, take for instance some basic TurboSquid SDS models of something simple, say an iPhone. These are among the finest SDS models on the planet.

Take a look at these and tell me exactly how easy they are now to modify by pushing a few polys around? Not very-- and these are representative of the very BEST SDS modelers in the world. So, it appears SDS doesn't provide such great workflow in even the easiest of hard surface models.





Granted, SDS modelers, like the one you use, are great for creating cartoon characters, and I would certainly agree with you your SDS program can create a better Donald Duck than MoI. But hard surface models and/or vehicles. I don't think you can really say one is substantially better than another.

Certainly fine work has been done in both.

Hello,

I think the Problem of These discussion is the different Point of view about the meaning of design. I'm not a designer, but I think we have to clearify and find a consence about the meaning of some Terms. Here some non-binding proposals:

* product design - concepts and geometrical shaping of a product with respect to function, usability, production, matierials, estetic, communication/ iteraction with the user, haptics, Emotion,....
* estetic Styling - estecic of the form, colour, surface structure,...
* functional Styling - form follows function - depending on concepts (integral - differential design)

I had worked 14 Years for an automotive supplier and I've never heard something about Sub-D there(O.k. in Catia are a lot of Buttons;-). It may caused by the history of the companies. But I had a lot discussions about curvature stuff. I often get Models made or smoothed with ICEM. Some drafts came from ALIAS. The Styling with this Tools is a hard peace of cake (told the colleages that worked with ICEM, - No Designers!)- and very Special. I know something about the specifications for the Styling and the dataquality (Q-Checker:()
Sometimes I had to work at some blends for hours. So I don't understand the discussion about effective Styling/shaping not. For automotive styling you have to fullfill exactly some specifications and the wishes of the designer. Everybody can make a choice who he is and what he will do with Moi.

I like the contributions about other Tools and Software thank's for that to all- but a discussion about the matial arts of Chuck Norris v.s. Jean Claude van Damme in the forum of harmony is in my opinion obsolete.

Kind regards
Karsten

"Language shapes the way we think and determines what we can think about."
Benjamin Lee Whorf