How do you create mathematical models?

Sorry guys was in a bad mood .

I saw the tutorial when Luxxeon used a plugin called bevel something and I tried to replicate the shape in Blender.
Here it is.

Hey! I never got a chance to read what you originally posted here. Just so you know, I'm always interested in what you have to say.

As best I could tell, it looked like a starball, per your tutorial, with a slightly extruded inset.

VERY nice.

It's on my list to try.

Not even sure if I have that right, but, as with everything Ramboblender's contributed,
beautiful to look at, sometimes a challenge to create, until he explains how he did it,
then you (I) wonder why we didn't see that all along.

Guess you might call him (you, Luxxeon) the Enrico Fermis of Blender.

Your solutions are sooooo Fermi-esque.

Regarding - Torus Outlines.

Sometimes they work. Sometimes they don't.

Some require MORE tweaking than others.

Here's a blender file with extensive notes on
my experience.

Hope if proves useful.

(Of course you don't have to go through ANY of this. You can just
use the original Torus Model and build from there. This just seems
like an interesting alternative - when it works)

Sorry Guys. Updated that post.

Blender has a plugin called multiextrude but it's missing rotation in local axis it has only global axis rotation so no use in linking star object.
Long story short I extruded/rotated 3 times to get the shape basically every step was same as 3ds Max.

So you missed nothing from my deleted post , except you did not have a Blender tutorial for this shape.

RamboBlender, I'm going to give this a go this week.

I'll keep you posted as to my progress.

Wasting time in Topmod.
Old model still remember how to do it

Interesting. Coincidentally, I'd been working out something similar for 3dsmax, which I was going to convert to a tutorial. Very nice render as well.

Wow!

Ramboblender:

Progress Report.

Here's where I'm at so far.

Extrude and Rotate.

Need more info.

Am I even in the right place in the right way?

So far, as best I can tell, consistent with Luxxeon's tute.

In think Ramboblender is referring to this tut:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7H4TXgCk9w

That's a starball tutorial I did using a free addon for 3dsmax. You can see the similarity in this object to the example Ramboblender posted above. It's a different visual result from the floral starball, which you've already done, and printed. This blend file appears more like the floral style than the starfish style result. I never posted a tutorial for the starfish style starball, so I believe that's the one Ramboblender reproduced.

Yes Luxxeon is right. I did the model from that tutorial.

Looking around here at Mathematical Art and at DevianArt I can see that every imaginable design has been created.
The one I posted above is from a 9 year old paper that is still online.

The Linked StarBall looks very much like it could be done in part or
in entirety in TopMod.

Have either of you, luxxeon, ramboblender, looked at that.

(See the attached. It's only as far as the extrusions and isolation
of the extruded pentagons.)

The only thing I'm missing is the connections from one pentagon to
the next.

I would think the process would be comparable to that used in
the

Intermediate Tutorial - Starball
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=266&v=8SUjZITJIOw

video.

Hi, Unkerjay. Yes, I've seen most of the Topmod starball tutorials; there's probably dozens of them out there, all based around the same technique. Topmod is probably considered the original polygon-based, mathematical modeling package, and became widely popular for that reason. It models everything as dual-manifold solids, for water-tight mesh printing. The idea of creating most of these objects in 3dsmax and Blender came from those early starball tutorials in Topmod. For years, it seemed no one was showing how these models could be made in other packages, and therefor most people felt it must be something only Topmod could do, which of course isn't true.

In most cases, the model creation process in Topmod is a slow process. If you move too fast, the software tends to freeze up, and it often takes a long time to process certain commands. The advantage of Topmod is the easy "handle" creation, and the lineage it has in the mathematical modeling and 3d printing world; there's a lot of information out there for doing this kind of thing with Topmod. No other software package has that same "handle" creation tool. While creating handles may be faster, I haven't installed Topmod on my latest workstation, because of how slow it can be for everything else.

@ Unkerjay I've attached a large pic to show how I did it in Blender.
I had to redo the object since your OBJ file was rotating funny.

I guess trying to replicate the shapes that were done with topmod in 3dsmax or blender it's a way to gain knowledge plus we have to bring the coolness of topmod in programs that are still being developed, topmod has been dead for a while.
Anyway too much rambling .

Thanx.

Well, sort of.

See attached.

I don't think I did what you did. I didn't get what you got.

What do you mean ?
You got the same result as me, you just need to go in Object Mode add Subsurf modifier followed by Cast modifier followed by Solidify modifier.
If you mean the extruded inset you just select edge loops and bevel them then extrude the faces.

And you need to correct the normals Ctrl+n

I used Ctrl-N to correct the normals. That helped a LOT. Really.

Still have some problems though.

The edge loops don't go all the way round. I'm having to do a LOT manually simply
because what I'd like to be, for example a global select using Shift-G, isn't working.
I solve one problem and create two more.

The problems can be solved but at the cost of a LOT of manual effort because the
more global solutions just aren't working.

(see the attached)

How did you know that I needed to apply Ctrl-N? What were the indicators?
What will be my clues going forward? What should I look for to know to apply
Ctrl-N? Like "Remove Doubles", I'm not always aware of THAT problem either.

They seem like more standard safety precautions to me than something SPECIFIC
I can look at and say THIS is a "Remove Doubles" problem or a "Recaculate Normals"
problem.

---

Editorial Comment (Feel free to ignore)

Furthermore, I would LOVE to have a REDO option. Go too far with UNDO and
you're stuck.

Not to mention what does Blender have against RIGHT-Click? All those key combinations
are useful, but, did it ever occur to anyone at Blender that there's only so much capacity in
the human memory? Right click would go a LONG ways towards adding functionality simply
because there wouldn't have to be so much that HAS to be remembered because there's NO
other way to get to the functionality other than the keystroke combination (which they keep
INCREASING every update).

But, I digress...

I think it's reaching bloat level. There are probably some sensible ways in which to reduce
the bloat that could actually improve the Blender experience.

I just watched a video - 51 shortcuts::

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWgKrFk5gU4

in which the first comment was:

"An excellent example of why Blender sucks"

(The comment is gone now, perhaps the truth hurts. There are a LOT of ways to get it
RIGHT in Blender - no question. There are also a LOT of ways to get it wrong. That that
may be true of ANY other program is no excuse. There's LOTS of room for improvement
in Blender (BEGINNING with the user interface design - Andrew Price - Blender Guru has
gone into detail with examples. It's not just whining or not being familiar enough with Blender.
Andrew Price has got street cred on familiarity. He's a credible source:

Improving Blender's UI:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aIA2LaB2Iw)

What I like MOST about TopMod is it's potential for Topology design.

What I dislike most about TopMod is that, yes,it is unstable, there's not a whole lot of examples of HOW to use TopMod, and, it's pretty much ceased
development (dead software in that regard).

Useful with extreme limitations.

Kind of like a Model-T Ford (if you can even find one).

Unkerjay, you can tell if you need to use the CRL+N to unify normals if the shading of your model is not entirely the same. For example, some polygons will appear darker than the rest. This usually means they are "inverted", and need to be unified. Remove doubles is a little harder to know. Basically, if you perform an operation where two vertices meet, but do not weld, you'll need to remove doubles. Remove doubles is simply a universal welding option, whereby overlapping geometry is "average" welded together at the center point.

SHIFT+CTRL+Z will REDO the last operation. Plus, you can use the History options to choose any point in time to go back to, or go forward to. You can also Repeat your last operation, so you don't need to keep doing the same command over and over. On the left panel, in your Tools tab, you'll see a History rollout. Explore the possibilities in there.