I'm having a problem similar to the one in a previous thread, invisible surfaces when exporting to Poser. I've tried recalculating normals, exporting by writing normals, exporting by not writing normals and various normals settings on import. Same problem.

Looking at the model in Blender all the normals appear to be facing forward. Could there be one wayward normal that I can't see messing up the whole mesh? The part giving me a problem is the only one that I used the mirror modifier on. Could that be the problem? Wondered if anyone had any ideas before I remodel the wayward part.

Hello False1

All your normals are not facing the right way from the 2nd image looks like many of your normals are facing in and not facing out. In edit mode select the whole item and since you have a mirror modifier (did you apply it?) if so remove doubles then flip normals so they are all facing the right direction think that should resolve the issue when you import it into Poser

Lobo3433 posted at 10:05AM Fri, 20 November 2015 - #4239757

Hello False1

All your normals are not facing the right way from the 2nd image looks like many of your normals are facing in and not facing out. In edit mode select the whole item and since you have a mirror modifier (did you apply it?) if so remove doubles then flip normals so they are all facing the right direction think that should resolve the issue when you import it into Poser

Lobo is right. There's double faces in there somewhere, as indicated by the darker lines. Hit W on the keyboard, then select remove doubles from the specials menu. Adjust the threshold until the double vertices have been collapsed appropriately. Now you select all faces, and CTRL+N to unify normals. I would export with all normal information removed from the OBJ, then import to Poser.

Thanks for your help. I removed doubles and it deleted 32 vertices. I don't know where the threshold setting is though. i'd already removed the mirror modifier but not the sub surface modifier.

false1 posted at 12:06PM Fri, 20 November 2015 - #4239780

Thanks for your help. I removed doubles and it deleted 32 vertices. I don't know where the threshold setting is though. i'd already removed the mirror modifier but not the sub surface modifier.

When you click on "remove doubles" in the Specials menu, the Merge Distance will appear in the Operator Panel, at the left side of the screen, under the Tools tab menu. The Merge Distance is the same as threshold. I'm just used to certain terminology carried over from other packages, etc. Adjusting this value will increase or decrease the distance that is used to average weld the vertices of the object together. Too high, you will lose the profile shape of the object. Too low, you may not weld all the necessary points. Most often, the default setting is the best one to use, but in some cases, it needs to be adjusted slightly.

OK I'll have to check that in a few hours when I get off work.

Never could get the one part of the object to work properly so I just remade it. It's a fairly simple shape after all. Right now each section is a separate object in blender that I'm working to UV map. Pictured is a quick texture job in Poser applying the same texture to each material zone. I ultimately want the grain to go the same direction in each part and be able to texture an exported UV map to add patterns and decoration.

I'm getting there.

Looking good so far. One thing to keep in mind about the textures is that ornate wooden pieces like this usually get cut and carved along with the grain. Just something to keep in mind during texturing.

Does look good so far keep up the good work look forward to seeing final render

maxxxmodelz posted at 8:53AM Mon, 23 November 2015 - #4240260

Looking good so far. One thing to keep in mind about the textures is that ornate wooden pieces like this usually get cut and carved along with the grain. Just something to keep in mind during texturing.

Thanks. That's good to know as I'm totally unfamiliar with woodworking. How would that translate to the model though? The real pieces like this I've seen seem to be one piece of wood. I'm loosing that effect by not having shaped the whole thing from a single mesh. My thought was that the grain would be vertical but since the piece is basically horizontal maybe I should rethink.

Lobo3433 posted at 9:05AM Mon, 23 November 2015 - #4240339

Does look good so far keep up the good work look forward to seeing final render

Thanks for the thumbs up.

false1 posted at 4:20PM Mon, 23 November 2015 - #4240426

maxxxmodelz posted at 8:53AM Mon, 23 November 2015 - #4240260

Looking good so far. One thing to keep in mind about the textures is that ornate wooden pieces like this usually get cut and carved along with the grain. Just something to keep in mind during texturing.

Thanks. That's good to know as I'm totally unfamiliar with woodworking. How would that translate to the model though? The real pieces like this I've seen seem to be one piece of wood. I'm loosing that effect by not having shaped the whole thing from a single mesh. My thought was that the grain would be vertical but since the piece is basically horizontal maybe I should rethink.

Do you happen to have a good image of one of these ornate pieces? If so, you can examine the wood grain patterns in it, and try to texture similarly. I think only very rare pieces like this would be carved from a solid wooden block, but here's a website that shows furniture that has been carved as a single piece. You can see how the grain behaves when it comes to curves, and how all the shapes follow the grain. Again, I think in your piece, the bottom platform, at least, would be a separate piece. If you want it to appear as one solid block, then the images on this page are good reference.

http://dornob.com/solid-wood-furniture-set-sculpted-desks-tables-chairs/

One thing that the human brain is really good at is pattern recognition so try to avoid tiling your texture, as repeatable patterns become very obvious.

Great job, false1! Looks better than I could do for sure. I can't texture anything worth a dang.

Great looking furniture Maxxxmodelz, I'd love to have some in my home (real or virtual)

Here's where I'm at so far. I'm pretty happy with the UV mapping and texture even though it's a repeating pattern. The pattern is pretty even in size throughout and in a consistent direction. Difficult to see it repeat. I don't like how I cut the seams on the base but I probably won't change it at this point. I still want to experiment with painting directly on the UV map to add some displacement patterns if I have time. The candles are from an old set I bought for Poser which I modified materials. Still needs some work.

There are a couple of issues though. The form in the center was created from a SVG file, extruded and beveled. I replaced the original shape but may change it back. I don't want to have to rework the UV map though. Spent a lot of time on it. When I changed the curve to a mesh for unwrapping, it created some pretty ugly topology. Wondered if there was a way to create a cleaner mesh.

I'm also having some strange texturing issues depending on whether I save out the obj with modifiers (SubD) applied or not. This version was saved without SubD and it was added in Poser. Otherwise I would get weird stretching at the seams. I see that Blender allows you to unwrap with or without the modifiers. Tried a couple of combinations of unwrap and export. Is there a preferred workflow for this?

Thanks for the info and comments all.

Good job with the UVs.. I feel like the seams on the base texture actually add to the realism; it looks as if the base was created by joined parts, which would be quite likely in a wooden furniture piece of that nature. Considering how most wooden furniture pieces are created, you'd not only expect to find the grain following the contours of the shape, but also some parts to be fastened together in some way (dowels, wood glue, wood screws, etc). So typically you would want to create your texture seams in areas where such joined parts might occur on such an object. In this case, i think you did a decent job with that.

Just for future reference, you could theoretically save on some polycount by removing the faces of the model that are hidden by overlapping geometry. For example, that circular element in the middle is halfway covered inside the curved object above it. If you ever decided to revisit this at a later date, you could select all those polygons that are inside the curved object, and delete them, as they would never be seen by the end user, and serve really no aesthetic purpose in a render. Overall, very nice piece. I love the candles.

I appreciate your advice LuxXeon. My first thought was that I'd want to remove the hidden geometry and somehow weld it to the overlapping pieces to make a single mesh. Are you suggesting to just delete the faces and leave those portions open. I think that's conflicting with my logical left brain, but I was certainly aware of the unnecessary geometry.

false1 posted at 1:24PM Sun, 29 November 2015 - #4241477

I appreciate your advice LuxXeon. My first thought was that I'd want to remove the hidden geometry and somehow weld it to the overlapping pieces to make a single mesh. Are you suggesting to just delete the faces and leave those portions open. I think that's conflicting with my logical left brain, but I was certainly aware of the unnecessary geometry.

In order to weld those objects together cleanly, you'd need to be sure you have a matching, even number of vertices on both objects, which probably isn't the case. Connecting them together in a boolean type of operation will end up with some triangles, and poor topology in that area, which may affect your unwrapping, and also interfere with smoothing or subdivision. In this case,I would consider simply removing the unnecessary geo that is hidden inside the other object. You can loop cut the surface along an edge loop, detach, and then simply delete the hidden portion from the scene. This would/should give it a nice clean cut, and actually make it easier to unwrap, while keeping the visible topology clean.

It's important to realize that not all models need to be welded together as one manifold piece (unless you're going to 3d print, or animate in a particular way). Typically, you would want to model an object the same way it might be built from parts, or fabricated in the real world, assuming the object is a real world replica. However, in all practicality, that may not be possible, or may not make sense for the situation you are intending to use the model. The best way to model is to always think of the most efficient way to achieve the look you want, while conserving polycount, and keeping clean topology.

Just a quick tip about topology too: A few triangles here and there may be unavoidable, and shouldn't pose a problem if they're limited to flat surfaces. Ngons, on the other hand, can be problematic in a host of situations, and should be avoided in the final topology. They are useful sometimes during the modeling process, but if your model is intended for redistribution, then ngons should be fixed.