Hey guys!

Im a designer and come from a 2d background. A few months back I decided to change career direction, Im currently in progress of creating a new portfolio consisting of 'concept design vehicles'. And I have been looking around to find the right 3d software for me to translate my 2d sketches into 3d models.

So far I have tried several different software's: Zbrush, Modo, Maya, Autodesk Autostudio to name a few of them. There are obviously different advantages of every package, but what I noticed that I missed in polygon-modellers was the precision, so I believe Nurbs is the way to go for me. However I felt that Autodesk Autostudio (even though alot of people recommend it to me) was way too complex and the learning curve felt very steep. When I found MoI I was very happy, it was very intuitive right off the bat for me. I have been enjoying the trial now for about 2-3 weeks and I absolutely feel that this is the software for me.

I have some questions I hope some more experienced users can help me with:
MoI obviously doesnt have all the tools for extremely high-precision surfaces as Autodesk Autostudio might have, but so far I feel like it has enough precision for me. Im looking to create models similar to the pictures attached below.

1. Is MoI capable of creating complex parts and form-transitions as airplanes and cars have? Or to put it differently: Is there anything MoI would struggle with especially?

2. So far the only thing that worries me slightly about using MoI is the layer-system. When having alot of parts things have been getting a little confusing for me. Im aware of the capabilities of the scene browser such as grouping and naming objects and turning off types as well as color-coding groups. Which are all great, and it might be me not used to the interface, but I still feel somewhat 'handicapped'.
I guess my question is: Am I missing something here, perhaps scripts or workflows Im not aware of?

The ability to "stack groups deeper down in folders and layers" so to speak would be amazing (english is not my first language hope you understand what Im trying to say).


Cheers
Nick

I think you'll find that MoI still lacks the continuity tools (at this stage of its development) to model cars and aircraft reasonably accurately, due to all the subtle little curves in them and the need to keep all the surfaces tangent to each other.

Even though Cars and aircraft are hard surface objects and seemingly perfect subjects for nurbs modelling, they are still very organic in shape and polygon modelling tools are better suited to organic type modelling.

"""""""""""""""MoI obviously doesnt have all the tools for extremely high-precision surfaces as Autodesk Autostudio might have, but so far I feel like it has enough precision for me."""""""""""""

MoI's precision and surfaces will be just as high quality.... Surface at G2 and curve generation at G3... Nothing wrong with that...........

""""""""""""1. Is MoI capable of creating complex parts and form-transitions as airplanes and cars have? """"""""""

For what you have described, Yes.... MoI can draw precision NURBS curves and surfaces as you are looking for.

"""""""""""""Or to put it differently: Is there anything MoI would struggle with especially?""""""""""""""

but you are talking about going out of "sketch"... Tracing out of blueprints and such will have you need tools for surface matching and such that MoI doesn't have.... You would struggle here.. Even run into areas that cant be handled by the current toolset.

The grouping tools are up to you...

Hi:
Cars like this could be done in MOI3D because shapes are "squared" and not detailed



complex shapes require sub-d modeler or Alias( panel-by-panel with continuity)

Hi Nick, MoI is a program that tries to focus on ease of use and on making it quick and fluid to do simple things. That's a lot of the reason why it feels more friendly and easier to use than some of the other CAD programs that you've tried.

The problem is, the types of models that you are showing there are some of the most difficult and advanced types of models to generate. So there is some of a disconnect between Moi's primary focus on ease of use and your desired target of highly advanced and difficult stylized types of models that you want to create.

One thing is that the difficulty of those models is rather fundamental, the more that your models contain a lot of stylized swoopy surfaces, the less easy it is to describe those models using just 2D profile curves. If you are not able to use a primarily 2D curve driven workflow it puts your work in a category of working with 3D curves and more advanced surfacing commands like doing sweeps and networks and trying to deal with things more as a patchwork of pieces rather than the solid modeling approach of working with a large piece of stock and carving pieces away from that. It basically puts your work more in the realm of organic shaping and less in the realm of mechanical extruded shapes.

So it's a fundamentally more difficult type of model to target, and it's not a type of model that MoI is specifically oriented to work with.

If you look through the gallery you will find several examples of some pretty sophisticated vehicles so there is some possibility to do similar things, but you should keep in mind that those results represent a signficiant amount of both effort and accumulated modeling skill by those modelers.

May I ask why you have the focus on accuracy? Are you planning on physically manufacturing these designs, or are they going to be used only for animations and renderings? Because if they are for renderings only most likely you should most likely not be so overly concerned with the accuracy and possibly a sub-d modeling program would be a better fit, although again producing models like this in a sub-d modeling program is not going to be what I would term "easy" at all either.


> 1. Is MoI capable of creating complex parts and form-transitions as airplanes and cars have? Or
> to put it differently: Is there anything MoI would struggle with especially?

MoI has some of the tools involved for that such as the Blend tool but is missing a few other tools like it does not have a surface match tool to modify an existing surface to be smooth to an existing one. As I mentioned before those types of tools tend to be for advanced projects which are rather finicky and "high learning curve" in nature and so they have not been a priority for MoI. It's much more of a priority for MoI to not get to be so tremendously complex that you need a math degree in order to understand how to use it as you might get the feeling you need with Alias AutoStudio.


> 2. So far the only thing that worries me slightly about using MoI is the layer-system. When having alot of
> parts things have been getting a little confusing for me.

Maybe you're just trying to put too much stuff in a single file - maybe try working on things in more separate pieces rather than all combined together?


> The ability to "stack groups deeper down in folders and layers" so to speak would be amazing
> (english is not my first language hope you understand what Im trying to say).

Yes, I definitely do want to add some functions in the next version for managing nested hierarchies more easily.

In the meantime stuff in this area is not likely to really be the main problem that you will face, just the difficulty level of learning the most advanced type of NURBS modeling workflow will be more challenging.

- Michael

blindfoldjump,
If you are doing Concepts especially of Cars MoI is definitely not for you. First it has no Polygonal Module, second witch is MUCH CRITICAL for doing concepts MoI will not allow you experiment/research forms in easy way. In apposite, polygons allow easily change forms by moving vertex, edges or polys for finding the best shapes.

MoI is good for not "organic shapes" and most for creating 3D from blueprint not making Concepts.
I use MoI for concepting simple geometric forms it is very good for this, but definitely not for "organic forms" like Cars have.


I spend about year trying to make in MoI that smooth stuff, but then decided to go to Sub-D it is much more powerful for these "organic shapes".

If you are still want to Concept with MoI you can check my tutorials about how to make those "organic shapes" in MoI http://moi3d.com/forum/index.php?webtag=MOI&msg=6058.1

But do not waist you time go to Sub-D.
Because there is different tools for different tasks, you can not use iron to cut Bread.
MoI is great but only for certain tasks like and Sub-D and Sculpting.

If Moi supported importing a hi poly surface that we could retopologise using splines then this would accomplish a lot of possibilities with more organic shapes.

First off I think I need to clarify something:

I come from an industrial design background, and Im hoping to find a digital workflow that emulates the design process used in industrial design.
That would be ~ Sketch out ideas on paper-> Use clay to develop form/design further-> Build a final model in a foam-material in the workshop

My digital approach: Pen&paper sketch-> MODO rough block-out (to get mass/volumes down) -> ZBRUSH Import mesh, sculpt/develop form -> Final model in NURBS (use .obj as reference and to constrain curves)

This might look inefficient with so many steps, but I want a workflow that is very exploratory and enables me to experiment all the way. I believe these tools in combination provide that.

*****


Thanks for highlighting the "Surface-matching" issue. Lets see if I understand what you guys are saying:
MoI _will_ be able to create all the curves and surfaces sufficiently - however the problem occurs when I will try to connect multiple surfaces together into one complex surface so that everything has continuity?



Michael:
> "Are you planning on physically manufacturing these designs, or are they going to be used only for animations and renderings?"
Only for presentation purposes. Rendering and animation.

> "although again producing models like this in a sub-d modeling program is not going to be what I would term "easy" at all either."
For me trying to sub-d model the final model has proven extremely hard. I dont have the understanding of topology and experience to create a good edge-flow etc. to avoid things as spiders that would mess up the surface. Also just to create sharpness the way I want, and hard surface in general has been very difficult. I do like polygon pushing in the early stages like I mentioned before to roughly see how the design-silhouette will look in 3d.
So far I feel that MoI suits my workflow very nice. I get to have all the creative exploration beforehand. In MoI I can use the .obj importer and build up my curves constrained to the .obj and in the end get clean surfaces with sharp edges where I want - in a speedy manner. Obviously the surface-matching might be an issue, but I like MoI so much Im not going to give up despite the lack of this function. Im giving it a serious attempt and I guess we will see how it pans out.


Andrei:
> "MoI will not allow you experiment/research forms in easy way. In apposite, polygons allow easily change forms by moving vertex, edges or polys for finding the best shapes."
Yes you are right, I hope use the strength of polygon modeling as well as nurbs.

> "If you are still want to Concept with MoI you can check my tutorials about how to make those "organic shapes" in MoI http://moi3d.com/forum/index.php?webtag=MOI&msg=6058.1"
Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge. I have already learnt alot from watching some of your youtube videos, great stuff!


2byts:
> "If Moi supported importing a hi poly surface that we could retopologise using splines then this would accomplish a lot of possibilities with more organic shapes."
Im not sure if you are aware of the .obj import script. I attached it below for you.


Mauro (M-DYNAMICS), Burrman, kevjob:
Thanks so much for your input on this. Helped me understand this better.


Again big thanks to all of you. You are all very helpful and knowledgeable.

Nick

Hello,

I think MoI is a valuable tool to have in your toolkit for vehicle designs. If you happen to have Rhino you could try out AD Shape Modeling for Rhino which provides the sort of tools you need for automotive design. It's $1300 but it beats the $40K bill for Autostudio. In fact their downloadable tutorial deals specifically with automotive surfacing, it's a good exercise. You could also look into Tsplines for your conceptual work before surfacing using something like ADSM. Even reverse engineering tools like M2S for Rhino allow you to build up your NURBS model from scan or mesh data. I still haven't found a streamlined interface than MoI, even if you're performing some operations in Rhino to fill in the gaps one is perfectly capable of creating these sorts of models in NURBS.

Hi Blindfoldjump,

I hope my input can help you in some way. I do some car modeling in my free-time. I started this with MoI. You can check some of my models in de gallery.
Yes, you can get pretty far with MoI, but when you really want to create the curves as required for sophisticated modeling, you will soon be in need for the more sophisticated tools like surface matching, as available within Rhino and even more refined within AD Shape modeling and Analysis.
You could consider starting with Moi and “grow” to Rhino, also including the AD shape modeling tool later on. At least it is the path I went into. (Still learning all tricks and techniques by the way…)
See some renders here. The white one and the white/green city car are made purely in MoI. The grey sedan (concept 6000) in Rhino, the grey sports car (concept 2002) with Rhino + Ad Shape Modeling and Analysis. As far as my experience goes, I think I would not have been able to create the sedan and the sportscar in MoI.
I often use MoI for setting up the rough form first. As long as no really sophisticated surface modeling is required, MoI is still my favorite program due to its great UI.

Raoul

Hi Nick,

> Thanks for highlighting the "Surface-matching" issue. Lets see if I understand
> what you guys are saying:
> MoI _will_ be able to create all the curves and surfaces sufficiently - however the
> problem occurs when I will try to connect multiple surfaces together into one complex
> surface so that everything has continuity?

Yes, that's pretty much it - for that type of modeling you will end up working at a more "patchwork of individual surfaces" construction type workflow on the NURBS side which is fairly different than the solids modeling boolean oriented type workflow.

It's in the solids modeling toolset that NURBS modeling really shines, that's when it is basically at its most convenient and powerful level where you are able to make a lot of things happen with a small number of 2D curves. With a "patchwork of surfaces" type workflow you will instead be working in a much more finicky and advanced area of NURBS modeling.

When dealing with a patchwork of surfaces constructed next to each other the surface continuity becomes an issue. Just constructing 2 NURBS surfaces along some common construction curve at an edge does not make the surfaces inherently smooth to one another, that's where sub-d modeling has a big difference since adding more polygons to existing ones does make the subdivided results smooth to each other.


> > "Are you planning on physically manufacturing these designs, or are they going
> > to be used only for animations and renderings?"
> Only for presentation purposes. Rendering and animation.

Then I'd really suggest that your strong focus on accuracy is somewhat misplaced.


> For me trying to sub-d model the final model has proven extremely hard. I dont
> have the understanding of topology and experience to create a good edge-flow etc.
> to avoid things as spiders that would mess up the surface.

Yes there is no doubt a lot of learning curve involved and a lot of experience needed. But also there are a lot of tutorials you can get into especially for character modeling, so there are resources that can help you to gain these skills. The area where it tends to work well is it can more easily deliver a smooth looking complex organic skin.

There are various trade-offs though, often times any kind of cutting operation with sub-d is difficult, you basically don't get to cut things by 2D projected curves at all anymore, with sub-d modeling holes and openings have to be an integrated part of the topology. If there are many cuts and holes in the shape this can become extremely burdensome. It's also why sub-d modeling will never replace NURBS modeling for regular mechanical part design where various cuts and drilled holes are very common.

In the future a fusion between these methods will be more common, with being able to use sub-d modeling techniques to build a base surface but with that surface as a NURBS result so that you can perform booleans and cuts on it using the NURBS toolset as well.

- Michael

Hi Nick,

I'm also an Industrial Designer who likes to use MoI for concept development. I believe, as some have mentioned, while MoI isn't a single tool to replace them all, it is most valuable as a rapid modeling tool in your overall 3d arsenal.

FWIW, I use SketchUp as a concept tool, Lightwave to create Sub-D models, and MoI for solid modeling and (mostly) 3D printing. I also own Modo, Rhino, and FormZ. KeyShot is my currently favorite renderer, but I also use Thea Render as well.

I tend to focus on speed modeling/rendering the most, and typically I have only a week to fully conceptualize, design, render and photo composite models. Sometimes I create printable prototypes as well.

Certainly surface continuity is critical in creating perfectly accurate auto bodies. But for much of the conceptual design stuff, you may find it requires extraordinary time to create these type of models in Rhino, CAD or even Sub-D. At least that has been my experience.

For instance, I have a new drone project coming up which requires two full concept developments in only 2 weeks. I can't imagine being able to fully design and detail the concepts using a strictly Sub-D workflow in that timeframe. But, I will be able to complete using a SketchUp to MoI workflow as described in the thread:

http://moi3d.com/forum/index.php?webtag=MOI&msg=7199.1

I believe Daniel Simon, of whom you shared one of his images, uses a similar type of workflow, except he uses Alias to rough out forms and then details them in Photoshop/Illustrator. Then he finalizes the design in Alias.

As always, the tools cannot help but shape the final design. If you're using Sub-D, many times the shape can appear "inflated" or "cartoony" (unless you're an expert Sub-D modeler). SketchUp models also have a certain "rough geometric" appearance. NURBs models also have a "NURB" look to them which may be described as not overly detailed. That said, in the hands of true experts, all of these programs can and do create superb results.

While the auto industry has certain requirements for creating finished designs, I still believe lots of conceptual work can be done in a variety of programs. MoI, because of it's excellent UI and workflow, allows me to work really fast to accomplish what I need to be able to. I hope some of this helps.

OSTexo:
I had a look at AD Shape Modeling, also downloaded the .pdf on the Autodesk site (was that the tutorial you were refering to?)
It certainly does look very capable. And I remember trying Rhino in school, it felt a whole lot more comfortable compared to Alias. This might be complement I need. Thank you very much for pointing me to this.
T-splines, yea that looks interesting as well. There is a jungle of software's out there for sure... I slightly regret purchasing Modo+Meshfusion now.

Raoul:
Impressive models, very well done!
If you dont mind me asking a couple of questions about your models and workflow:
About how much time did you spend modeling these?
By looking at your models Im trying to figure out what areas are the "problem-areas". If possible - could you point me to where you needed Rhino+Shape modeling the most?


Michael:
"Then I'd really suggest that your strong focus on accuracy is somewhat misplaced."

Yes you are right of course. I didnt mean accuracy in that context. I failed to find a better word for it, what I meant was something close to what Chipp is saying in his post below:
"If you're using Sub-D, many times the shape can appear "inflated" or "cartoony"" - This is pretty much how I felt with Sub-D's (but this obviously has to do with my lack of sub-d-modeling skills).

"It's in the solids modeling toolset that NURBS modeling really shines, that's when it is basically at its most convenient and powerful level where you are able to make a lot of things happen with a small number of 2D curves. With a "patchwork of surfaces" type workflow you will instead be working in a much more finicky and advanced area of NURBS modeling."

Thank you for explaining this to me in such a clear way, now I much better understand the difference.

chippwalters:
"I hope some of this helps."
Yes it does, very much so! I appreciate you sharing your experiences as a fellow industrial designer doing this. Im also very thankful for your tutorials. I really like you quick approach to modeling. It was actually when I watched your toolchest-tutorial I know MoI was the program for me. Would love to see more from you, especially Sketchup and MoI in action together would be very interesting.

Ah yeah Daniel Simon! I use him and Vitaly Bulgarov as my benchmark :)


*
Again outstanding answers from everyone, Im very grateful.
Im slowly getting a hang on this. Even if its feels even more daunting than before, I also know what Im getting into better and that is good. Its funny how some months ago I thought that "I just need to learn a little bit of 3d" to realize my ideas. A little bit turned into an ocean ;)


Nick

blindfoldjump,
Daniel Simon as I remember use Alias, Vitaly Bulgarov use SoftImage, absolutely different approaches.
Fact is that you can make models like Black Phoenix Project http://www.bulgarov.com/index.html of Vitaly Bulgarov in MoI. He used hard surface approach that is very close to MoI. But you CAN NOT make any other models of him like this http://www.bulgarov.com/personalprojects.html in MoI.
If you think that you will make those templates in Sub-D than using import obj will import them in MoI and then create surfaces around that polly references, I hasten to disappoint you, it is not so easy like you think. First Import Obj not as perfect as you might think, it works not bed on simple models but on complex models it will not make good work, at least it will not join all polygons. Second if you think it is easy work to recreate those complex "organic" like shapes in MoI you are wrong, I can say it for sure because I have big experience making that forms in MoI. You will spend A LOT OF time very a lot to reproduce complex shapes in MoI, and I can say for sure you will be not satisfied with result.
My experience shows if you start make Concept in Sub-D you have to finish it in Sub-D, it will save you a lot of time and give you a lot of possibilities to change model on any stages.
My suggestion to you is to go to good streamlined Modeler like NVil and start to learn Sub-D it is the way to go. Why NVil? Because it is like MoI but for Pollys, the best ever simple streamlined Modeller. Why not nurbs? Because it is good for Modelling but NOT good for Concepting and Alias is VERY expensive but NVil only 80 USD. So it is obvious.

So do not be deceived, MoI is great but not universal and if you are intrested in models like Bulgarov or Daniel Simon you better go to Sub-D. There is no simple ways and you will have to spend a lot of time learning Sub-D or Nurbs.

Hi again:
totally agree with Andrei ! :)
I did few cars in the past 100% inside MOI(body,details,etc.)





Front part of first one was really a big effort...if i look back i just say i was silly because that's sub-d stuff.
I found that most difficult thing to achieve are right proportions observing from many points of wiew(front back perspective and rotating and so on..)
In MOI you can't go back and change lenght of a curve because is part of the loft or sweep you used,then you done booleans or trimmed or blended..
In sub-d you can select group of polys and scale,move up and down etc..these simple tools allow you to get right proportions
Now i'm in deep MODO-801's learning just because i'm planning to do a car(and more) that in MOI i can't.
The Foundry offers an affordable Indie-version on Steam.

M

Andrei Samardac
>>on complex models it will not make good work
Who told you that?

>>at least it will not join all polygons
It doesn't join surfaces of a complex model because it can take a lot of time until Moi joins all polygons together. Especially if somebody tries to import a model with thousands of polygons. It's some kind of a foolproof function. You can enable autojoin for any number of polygons if you want.

Max, so how to work with import obj with complex models?
Wait a lot? Or use it Unjoined? I do not think it is good work.

Hi Blindfoldjump,
It may have been about 40 hours per model. Which is really a lot, I know…But for me that time was spend learning and modelling all together. When I get even more used to the tools, it will certainly take less time.
I found out that creating the rough model in MoI to check proportions of the whole concept is very important. As long as you keep the rough model simple and not detailled at all (do not bother about smooth surface transitions in this stage), you can use MoI for tweaking the model. I unfortunately have not saved any of these files, otherwise I could show you. I have no idea if sub-D will be easier in this stage. I have very little experience with Sub-D . Just did some tests with Silo, but found out that it was not my cup-of-tea. (Perhaps because of my daily work with Geomagic design, for me completely on the other end of the 3D world).
The rough model is so important because when you get further into detailing, the way back to changing major proportions is a hell of a job.
Both during creating the rough model and during the final modeling, I save many versions to be certain that I can fall back to an already created surface or curve.
The spots where I needed Rhino + AD shape modeling most are there where the surface transitions are. I marked these. Rhino and especially AD Shape modeling has the tools to get these transitions smooth.
Hope this helps you further on.

Kind regards,
Raoul

Well...leave apart if ImportObj works or not...
My workflow will be modeling the shape in sub-d,then import in MOI as obj just like reference for modeling tires, rims,wipes,handles,logos and so...
In this stage MOI is perfect :) so I'll export these parts into my sub-d app to complete the car and render
You talk about concept,but if you want to make this concept believable you must add details on it,or it will remain a "3d sketch"

M