This is a Blender companion video to my 3dsmax tutorial of the same model.  In this tutorial, we will model a  voronoi-style bangle bracelet; suitable for use as either a high quality digital prop, or real-world 3d print, using basic polygonal modeling strategies in Blender 2.74.  There are no addons required, but I do have pie menus, and the dynamic spacebar addons enabled for this demonstration.  These are completely optional, of course, and should not affect the techniques shown in this tutorial.  Hope you enjoy!

JUst marvelous work once again!  Thanks for making a Blender version of this one, Luxxeon.  It's a very easy procedure, as you say, but the end results looks totally awesome, and I wouldn't have known how to go about doing this on my own.  Using the smooth vertex trick makes all the difference in giving it that skeletal or bone type of look.  I really love these kinds of objects, but never understood quite how to make them.  It's clear you have a very good working knowledge of both software applications, so without trying to cause any kind of software debate here, I'm just very curious why you continue to use 3dsmax as your primary software, when you are able to make all the same stuff in Blender?  Not trying to knock you for it, just wondering why you personally prefer the higher priced app?  I'm assuming you work for a studio or something where you need to use it?

This might be the first time I've seen someone release "twin" tutorials for the same model, for two different software apps, at the same time.  Great job.  I followed both of them today, and enjoyed creating this model in both apps!  Blender has some very good tools for measuring stuff, Lux.  You should check them out.  The only thing I miss so far is the Tape Measure helper object.  That came in very handy for me when modelling to scale in Max, but so far I haven't found the same kind of tool in Blender.  Still, Blender has got some really handy measurement features too, you just need to find them.

Merci!  I will use it bijoux for a character I work on in the Blender.  C'est belle!

I might try to get this 3d printed. I'm afraid it's going to cost a small fortune though, because those skinny parts look like they could make it tough to create wall thickness, to save on print cost.  This could end up being one expensive 3d printed bracelet.

I might try to get this 3d printed. I'm afraid it's going to cost a small fortune though, because those skinny parts look like they could make it tough to create wall thickness, to save on print cost.  This could end up being one expensive 3d printed bracelet.

Maxxxmodelz, you might want to check out this ongoing thread over at Shapeways, where Unkerjay and I are currently discussing this exact issue.  If you scroll down to the bottom of the thread, you'll see our discussion regarding this latest object and tutorial.  Unkerjay has created a fascinating, and more complex, version of the object, using this tutorial as a basis, but had some problems creating wall thickness which would pass the printable standard, and keep the cost down.  Currently, he was able to get a version which would print, but had to increase the thickness significantly.  If you stick with the original shape, you should be able to add another instance of the Solidify modifier to the finished object to create wall thickness, as in my example there.  I haven't tried to upload the product to Shapeways yet, and test it there, but I did run it through Netfabb, and it passed all tests as a printable object. I would estimate the cost, if you implement a printable wall thickness, to be around $20 for the original shape.  Then again, if you try printing it without walls, it would be significantly more. https://www.shapeways.com/forum/index.php?t=msg&goto=117095#msg_117095

Ok, Lux, am I understanding you right that you are suggesting the Solidify modifier as a way to add wall offset thickness, instead of using something like Meshlab or Netfabb? Is it just a matter of applying the Solidify to the top of the finished model, or is there any extra steps involved?  What settings are best to use for this?

Nevermind... I tried it as I was writing this, and I see what you mean!  Once you have the complete, solid model, with all modifiers collapsed, you can apply another Solidify modifier to the object, and it creates a surface offset to the object, which I assume the 3d printer will interpret as inner walls.   Bingo.  This seems to work similar, but even better, than the "Create Shell" command in Netfabb Pro.  Any tips on what settings are best when creating wall thickness with this modifier?  I assume the same thing applies in 3dsmax with the Shell modifier?

Such an engrossing thread so far, guys.  I've never done a 3d print of anything yet, and to be honest I never even considered it, but this got my wheels turning.  It's exciting to see Blender being discussed for things like this.  I did the model tutorial too, and it came out perfectly.  I might use this as my first ever 3d print too, so I'm gonna keep a close eye on the results to this thread, guys.  Keep it going, there's some good info in here.

Luxxeon, please disregard my original questions earlier.  I don't want them to detract from the progress of this thread.  I might end up having more relevant questions eventually anyway.

** Sits quietly in the back row, taking notes, and absorbing it all. **

Ok, Lux, am I understanding you right that you are suggesting the Solidify modifier as a way to add wall offset thickness, instead of using something like Meshlab or Netfabb? Is it just a matter of applying the Solidify to the top of the finished model, or is there any extra steps involved?  What settings are best to use for this?

Nevermind... I tried it as I was writing this, and I see what you mean!  Once you have the complete, solid model, with all modifiers collapsed, you can apply another Solidify modifier to the object, and it creates a surface offset to the object, which I assume the 3d printer will interpret as inner walls.   Bingo.  This seems to work similar, but even better, than the "Create Shell" command in Netfabb Pro.  Any tips on what settings are best when creating wall thickness with this modifier?  I assume the same thing applies in 3dsmax with the Shell modifier?

Yes, the Shell modifier in 3dsmax works the same way, and could be used for the same purpose, to lower the cost of a 3d print.  The Create Shell option in Netfabb is very good as well, but I believe it's only available in the full version, which costs around $900. The Solidify modifier in Blender can do the job just fine, and in most cases, do an even cleaner job of hallowing out a model with wall thickness.

Well, I'm definitely going to get this thing printed.  I have a model which would fit my wife's wrist, and she loves the design.  Now to find out the price.  It will be an anniversary present, and even if the cost is $100, it's still less money than a bracelet from the jeweler, and there's the fact that I made it myself of course!  I'll post the results here.

I see in that Shapeways thread that Unkerjay guy is going to order his print of your starball on Friday.  I wonder how that will turn out.

I'd like to take a moment just to revisit this thread once again. Since the website redesign had disabled or removed some of the embedded video links in threads like this one, I thought I'd provide a direct link to this video tutorial again. You can find the video here:

Model A Voronoi Style Bracelet In Blender 2.74

Moreover, the real reason I wanted to revisit this thread is to invite some of you to check out this inspirational video presentation by talented designer, Bernd Haier, who used this tutorial to create the base model for his exquisite jewelry showcase renderings, using the Nvidia Iray engine in 3dsmax. I know this isn't a Blender-specific creation, but I'm very honored that he shared his renders, and since it is a tutorial which I've translated to Blender, I thought it could serve perhaps as inspiration to Blender enthusiasts who might follow the tutorial.

Jewelry Design Part 1, By Bernd Haier

Enjoy!

LuxXeon posted at 4:12PM Wed, 30 September 2015 - #4231570

I'd like to take a moment just to revisit this thread once again. Since the website redesign had disabled or removed some of the embedded video links in threads like this one, I thought I'd provide a direct link to this video tutorial again. You can find the video here:

Model A Voronoi Style Bracelet In Blender 2.74

Moreover, the real reason I wanted to revisit this thread is to invite some of you to check out this inspirational video presentation by talented designer, Bernd Haier, who used this tutorial to create the base model for his exquisite jewelry showcase renderings, using the Nvidia Iray engine in 3dsmax. I know this isn't a Blender-specific creation, but I'm very honored that he shared his renders, and since it is a tutorial which I've translated to Blender, I thought it could serve perhaps as inspiration to Blender enthusiasts who might follow the tutorial.

Jewelry Design Part 1, By Bernd Haier

Enjoy!

Wow. Bernd's renders of the model are incredible. I thought they were photos he did of a 3d print or something at first. Yes, it's very inspirational, Lux. Makes me wanna try some renders like that in Cycles, and see how real I can get them.

Is the Iray engine in 3dsmax the same one that is now in Daz Studio? I know they are both Nvidia Iray, but are they actually the same tech?

I'm not entirely sure about the similarities of the Iray engine in Daz Studio, compared to 3dsmax. It's obviously different in many ways, especially regarding the UI and material structure, but that's to be expected. I believe the core engine is the same, but Daz may have incorporated a different release version than the one currently in 3dsmax. Iray has been shipped as a standard available render engine with the 3dsmax package for several years now, and has been well integrated, but the Daz Iray implementation looks very good as well.

As far as features are concerned, they seem about equal. The material capabilities exposed to the 3dsmax UI, however, appear slightly more mature and complex than those in Daz Studio, but that's probably by design. I would imagine the Daz user base expects an easy learning curve, and a more simplified UI, which is likely the direction set forth in its development.

I just finished your tutorial on this. I am going through your YouTube channel one-by-one just to get some basic experience with blender. What I really love about your tutorials is that they are short and designed to accomplished a single task, yet within that task you are exposed to a wealth of features. I can tell this is your teaching background seeping through (either by design or by habit). There are a lot of tutorials out there by many self-professed industry experts (ie: blenderguru: great knowledge, poor teacher) but their tutorials fall short as a learning experience because they do not know the principles of knowledge acquisition.

Sorry, that was my preamble. My real comment here is about blender units. You stated the tutorial by describing that this project could be used for 3d printing, however, you were not aware what "Blender Units" equated to in the real world. I guess blender units are similar to Max units in that they are just a proportional relationship to objects within the app itself. However, Blender offers this unique experience that I believe Max does not. The ability to use different measurement in the same scene for different objects.

So, I experimented and each mesh object garnered different results. My hope was to place a cube at 1 blender unit and then add a sphere, let's say at 10 cm to see what it equated to. Each time I performed that action with different mesh objects I got different results. As an example cube and sphere seem to be added consistently at the same ratio in size. But a cylinder changes drastically when unit convention is changed. This makes it very difficult to estimate what a blender unit is compared to real world measurements.

The problem I am faced with real world measurements in relation to your tutorial, if I truly wanted to send it to 3d printing, is that will conventional units actually apply and when you used real world unit (imperial or metric) the objects are so small that the blender zoom feature can only get close enough if in orthogonal mode.

bandolin posted at 7:25PM Wed, 14 October 2015 - #4233624

I just finished your tutorial on this. I am going through your YouTube channel one-by-one just to get some basic experience with blender. What I really love about your tutorials is that they are short and designed to accomplished a single task, yet within that task you are exposed to a wealth of features. I can tell this is your teaching background seeping through (either by design or by habit). There are a lot of tutorials out there by many self-professed industry experts (ie: blenderguru: great knowledge, poor teacher) but their tutorials fall short as a learning experience because they do not know the principles of knowledge acquisition.

Sorry, that was my preamble. My real comment here is about blender units. You stated the tutorial by describing that this project could be used for 3d printing, however, you were not aware what "Blender Units" equated to in the real world. I guess blender units are similar to Max units in that they are just a proportional relationship to objects within the app itself. However, Blender offers this unique experience that I believe Max does not. The ability to use different measurement in the same scene for different objects.

So, I experimented and each mesh object garnered different results. My hope was to place a cube at 1 blender unit and then add a sphere, let's say at 10 cm to see what it equated to. Each time I performed that action with different mesh objects I got different results. As an example cube and sphere seem to be added consistently at the same ratio in size. But a cylinder changes drastically when unit convention is changed. This makes it very difficult to estimate what a blender unit is compared to real world measurements.

The problem I am faced with real world measurements in relation to your tutorial, if I truly wanted to send it to 3d printing, is that will conventional units actually apply and when you used real world unit (imperial or metric) the objects are so small that the blender zoom feature can only get close enough if in orthogonal mode.

Hi, Bandolin. I'll try to address a few things here, but first I'd like to express my sincere thanks and gratitude for the kind words, and taking the time to go through the tutorials, as you have. I will state up front that my experience with Blender's Unit system has been less than productive so far, and my experience is that some things simply can not be modeled to the same level of precision, in all creation parameters, in the Blender environment as we might be used to in 3dsmax. I feel that this is a relatively minor issue, which will soon be addressed in a future release of the software, but such is the case as it stands now. I have not personally used Blender to 3d print the models in my tutorials, but there have been several people over at Shapeways who have, and sent me photos of the results. Here's one example: Floral Star Ball 3d Print. So evidently, Blender's real world units can be used successfully in the production of real world objects from the tutorials, and a single file (according to documentation) can indeed contain multiple scenes of different units of measure, using the visible layers system. However, I have absolutely no knowledge of creating objects using different units of measure together in one scene, and I'm honestly not sure how it's possible. I know you are correct in that it isn't possible in 3dsmax; and while an object's linear units in 3dsmax can be accurate down to 6 decimals (engineering precision), scene/system units need to be chosen wisely prior to embarking on scene construction.

Again, I have not fully wrapped my head around the way Blender handles scale across the software (I won't get into inconsistencies I've encountered in some parameters), but I do understand that, by default, switching between Metric and Imperial units in Blender can result in some very drastic changes in the scene grid. Of course, this is because when using Metric, the system grid units are set to "Meters", but switching to Imperial, you will be working in "Feet". If a model is created in a 1x1 grid cell under Metric, changing it to Imperial will change the unit to a square Foot, which is of course dramatically smaller, and suddenly your model could be unintentionally scaled down to oblivion. Now, if you place another new object into the current scene, after units have been switched, it will conform to the currently selected unit of measure in the grid space, while the previous object may still occupy the previously proportionate scale from it's own original creation.

I'm not sure if this is the issue you were experiencing when switching scale in a scene?

This is a very good conversation to have, about scale in Blender. Blender's use of realistic scale has always made me confused. I know this is one area where even Blender guru, Andrew Price, has called the software broken. A lot of Blender users hate him for saying that, and I personally think he went too far by saying that, but in some respects, I understand what he meant. There have been a few times when I was modeling something to "scale", using Imperial or Metric. It's all fine and really good up until you need to do a modelling task to scale. For sake of example, depending on your scene scale, the parameters in Blender will display the units of measure as feet or inches, but not so in many of the modelling action parameters. What if we wanted to inset a face to exactly 1 inch. I suppose there's a way to measure that, but the parameters of the inset only show default numbers, and aren't counting by the set units of measure anymore. The same is true for other features in edit mode. I assume this is what you meant by "inconsistencies in the parameters", Luxxeon? Is there any way to fix this, or a way to accurately measure those parameters? Or do we just have to eyeball it when it comes to certain things? This has had me stumped for a while now, and frankly I'm a little surprised it hasn't been addressed in the software all this time. Especially now that Blender is being used a lot in 3d printing, and even very sensitive modelling like architecture.