I am looking to find or make a small amphitheater for an up coming project. I've studied Blender for years ... off and on and promote it as I find it easier to work with than some other 3d modeling software. I have however never actually made anything I would consider note worthy.

Something like this (only fewer levels)

But old and rugged like this:

with a covered stone stage. It is suppose to look ancient.

Am I in over my head?

I do not think what you want to accomplish should be to hard I see maybe 3 possible ways of doing it one is perhaps

Medieval Tower with Wall Factory I thought of this one first because the Wall Factory add on is already part of Blender and might have to use a bit of imganation and doing it as sections to achieve the look you

This is a full Tutorial on making the Colosseum in blender longer tutorial but nice detailed process

Creating a 3D Arena using Blender 2.81a Shorter video but for getting a concept idea as to how difficult which again I do not think it would be

Hope these help

Thanks Lobo, I will look into these!!

Boni, a simple way to start out might be to just make some elongated steps (there are tutorials on this starting with just a cube), then use the Simple Deform modifier in Bend mode to bend them 180 degrees. Just make sure you have enough segments so that they bend nicely. From there, you can add the stage and platform as separate objects. This way, the whole thing is very easy to unwrap and texture. I don't know how realistic you need it. If you need ultra-realism which hold up in close up rendering, then I'd recommend using actual blocks for the stones like Lobo suggested. However, you can get a lot of mileage for this kind of thing using textures and displacement or normal maps too.

One reason I suggested the Wall factory and building from there is that you can get some decent randomness to the bricks but could easily turn into a very high poly build but it has a built in feature to create the bend of course like LuxXeon suggested having enough polys to get a good bend when using the deform modifier look forward to seeing what you come up with

Lobo3433 posted at 7:07PM Thu, 23 July 2020 - #4395138

One reason I suggested the Wall factory and building from there is that you can get some decent randomness to the bricks but could easily turn into a very high poly build but it has a built in feature to create the bend of course like LuxXeon suggested having enough polys to get a good bend when using the deform modifier look forward to seeing what you come up with

Yes, I think the Wall Factory idea is a great way to get very realistic results. I would probably use that method first, then retopologize the result and bake the detail into a low poly proxy mesh.

I think if you start with something low res (relatively) as the stairs in my example, you may be a bit more limited in your options but it could be faster to achieve acceptable results. One thing you might be able to do with the low poly bent stairs is to model a few rocks or bricks as separate objects, then use the particle system or Scatter addon to randomly scatter them on the base mesh. Or, you could just paint a PBR stone texture on UV maps and use displacement or normal maps to fake the details.

Personally, I would use the Wall Factory and retopologize/bake the details from that model. You could even take the Wall Factory result into the Sculpt room and add more cracks and worn look to it if you wish.

I will look into all of this, and most likely ask for help in the steps along the way. This will be my first real model I will have made in Blender. I think my end to turn it into a Poser prop.

One bit of advice especially with Poser or Daz when you are ready to export from Blender to either Poser or Daz make sure you have applied scale and rotation to your model prior to exporting this has been one thing I have learned the hard way and spent hours trying to figure out why something is not working right plus it helps with UV mapping in the long run as well just one of those FYI

I was going to ask about rotation, format and scale to export and best UV mapping.

I have been experimenting with Poser and Blender this past week working on something I hope will eventually become Poser prop and thus far this is what I have been able to determine if you export lets say LaFemme from Poser using Colloada file format she will import into Blender not as tiny as normally would happen with importing OBJ but imports at just under 2m in height then I start modeling what ever prop I am doing with her as my scale reference. Now when exporting from Blender to Poser using the same Collada format I need to make one change in the export options by default Blenders Global orientation is Y forward Z up this needs to be switched to X forward and Y up See screen Shots bellow I am working on a room prop which is the last screen shot it is 3m height and 5.6 W x 5.6 L and LaFemme is center

I have my Blender set up to do that sort of exporting by default, BUT, I always have Forward set to -Z (or Z if you prefer). I've always had xTrans as side-to-side, as it is in Poser, not forward and back. Is that because you're exporting as Collada, rather than OBJ?

Miss B posted at 9:48AM Sun, 26 July 2020 - #4395280

I have my Blender set up to do that sort of exporting by default, BUT, I always have Forward set to -Z (or Z if you prefer). I've always had xTrans as side-to-side, as it is in Poser, not forward and back. Is that because you're exporting as Collada, rather than OBJ?

I have only recently started trying the Collada export and found I needed to make those changes with OBJ I do not have to make any changes to the global orientation at all usually with OBJ exports I need to change export scaling so it imports at a relatively proper size in that regard if I export LaFemme from Poser to uses as a scale reference I export eher at a 400% scale and what ever prop I model and export from Blender at a 0.4 Scale and that usually imports into Poser a relatively correct size that seems to work I have given up t the moment of trying import and exports from DAZ Studio that just never seems to work at all no matter how I try and do it

Wow, this is going to save me a LOT of trial and error!!

Boni posted at 4:15PM Mon, 27 July 2020 - #4395374

Wow, this is going to save me a LOT of trial and error!!

Trail and error is how I learn sometimes the problem solving to me can be a little more fun that actually getting to the end of a project lol

I'm interested in how your modeling turned out. What approach did you decide to use and how did the UV unwrapping go?

Haven't started yet. I am still working on a current scene. But it is next on the list and I am excited to start. I will share my progress ... sprinkled with plenty of novice questions!!

Look forward to it Boni

I want to have my permanent set up in Blender to match that of Poser of up/down Y, side-side X, and forward back Z. How do I do this. I've been looking it up inside of preferences and can't seem to find it. Thanks guys.

Ok ... using the stairs from Archimesh ... modifier, simple and bend ... well that didn't work no matter what axis I choose. Taking a few shortcuts, but I figure I can detail it later.

Hi Boni, you won't get a bend unless there are subdivisions along its length.

Well duh, that makes sense! Tomorrow back to start ...

As to your other question Boni about having your UI not sure it can be done at least I have never tried and except for Collada in Poser OBJ and FBX imports from Blender to Poser at least for me have imported with the right orientations 99.9% of the time so I can only stress making sure scale & rotation are applied before any exporting and importing

Boni, I don't know if you are interested in using this technique (VIDEO BELOW), but I find this just as easy as using other pre-fab methods like the Archimesh steps, and it will give you perhaps even more control over the look of the model and the UV unwrapping. Anyway, if the Archimesh style is what you want, then as had been mentioned already, the bending needs edge loop segments to work. CTRL+R. Good luck.

That looks nice and easy Lux. I'll definitely have to try that out.

Lux

Lux!! Thank you!! I will try this. The Archimesh wasn't exactly what I wanted anyway!!

@Miss B, @Lobo3433 Thank you both. I'm interested in how Boni decides to approach this, because the downfall with using some of the addons for this type of thing is that typically the addons, while somewhat procedural, lack editing control once you break the initial link to the mesh creation. In other words, if you use the Archimesh Steps or Stairs addon, the resulting mesh has several disjointed subobjects that aren't welded, so adding edge loops for the bending process requires a lot of editing. Also, the results of that, once you prepare it for the bend, are nearly identical to the example in the video I posted anyway.

I do like the Wall Factory solution, especially if you need that detailed, block look. However, that too results in multiple sub-objects which can be a pain to customize. I would probably create a retopology mesh and use the Wall Factory as a means to an end to get displacement or normal map on a single, lower poly geometry. I think PBR texture maps and displacement/normal maps can go a long way for a model like this one. Depends on how this model is intended to be used.

Was looking up how to create a ring loop ... said alt + ctl + LMB ... lost all my toolbars and menu ... have no idea how to bring them back. I'm so embarrassed.

PS couldn't find instructions on how to do it either.

I have been following your tutorial step by step Lux.

Cntl + Alt + space ... whew. Ok now to the ring loop. sheesh.

I could not have done this without you!!

Now I want to give it a rough stone texture with lots of cracks and chips ... then make a round platform with a band-shell at the base and even place the steps in a hill with grass and ground texture. Is this asking too much?

Which layout for the platform do you think will go better? I am leaning towards the second one.

first:

Second:

I am also thinking of putting a row of steps along the middle of each side as I have seen in some photos.

Quick question for the bandshell. Should I solidify a sphere ... then duplicate it reduce it and use it as a boolean to cut out the center of the shell then remove all but a quarter wedge? I use to do this sort of stuff in Bryce ... 20 some years ago.

P.S. Hea, could I add 2 boolean cubes to do the removal of the 3/4 part of the sphere?

P.S.S. I guess what I am asking is ... Is there an easier way, or is this a good way to make a bandshell?

Ok, I dove in ... here is what I have so far ...

Looking good so far, Boni. What version of Blender are you using here? I forgot to mention I was using 2.83 in my example, so the hotkeys may be different than the version you are using. CTRL+R was the hotkey for creating loop cuts, but I see you've already got that done. I would recommend staying away from booleans if you can unless there's truly no way around it. I think using a sphere as you have done in your example above is probably the most acceptable way to go. If the pole at the top becomes a problem for texturing, then there is a way to do this using a cube but I don't think it should be an issue. Let me know if you have any problems with it. I could show you a relatively simple technique to transform the standard cube into a band shell as well.

I'm in 2.80.

I'm accustomed to using booleans ... so it wasn't a major issue for me. I am enjoying this. I added the small steps ... uneven on purpose for a more rugged look in the end. Here are the steps.

I will avoid the booleans if you feel that is better. I bow to your expertise.

I will keep your advice about the bandshell in mind in case I run into trouble. You have been so very helpful!!

Booleans are fine in some situations and actually work brilliantly in CAD packages or other types of "solid" modeling software that use a Delaunay triangulation method for the mesh, Voxel modeling, or Nurbs based modeling. In those types of conditions, booleans work very well and could be retopologized into quad meshes. However, when working in a polygon software package like Blender, where most of the modeling features and techniques rely on quad based surfaces for the mesh topology, boolean operations can all but ruin the quality of the surface, and often require lots of clean-up, because they tend to leave behind isolated vertices, Ngons, and other issues which could give you trouble down the pipeline. Especially if you plan on transferring the object into other applications. If you are familiar with boolean "clean-up" then it's not really a big deal, but most of the time there's a much better way to create the same shapes.

In theory I do sort of understand the different modeling formats. I have used nerbs, and others but have found polygons easier to work with. Is there a way to retopulate so that this is one solid figure with no unwanted polygons?

Currently, it seems you have 3 major objects as part of the model. You have the steps (seats), the ground platform, and the pavilion or shell. They are all very low poly so far (you could subdivide them to help add more details, etc.). I would recommend keeping those 3 parts as distinct, separate objects. You can join them as one object, but they would still remain distinct sub-objects or elements of the model or mesh. Also the stones or bricks you've added to the seating could be joined all together as one model, but still separate meshes. I wouldn't recommend trying to "weld" all those elements together into one solid mesh unless you were planning to 3d print the object. There are many reasons for this. If you are concerned with excessive polygons which will never be seen, those are issues you can handle later on if need be. You can delete polygons which are intersecting other polygons or which are beneath the model out of camera view, etc. Since you mentioned this is your first real production model, I wouldn't worry too much about polygon count or hidden polygons. Those are more advanced things that either require pre-planning and a bit more experience to avoid.

For now, I think you're on the right track here, and as long as you aren't expecting too much out of your first attempt, I think you'll have a very easy time with this one. Unwrapping and texturing might be the hardest parts. For now, I would suggest finishing all the modeling first. Then you can join all the parts into one single mesh (no retopology required).

Joining the models will make them all one object, but they will remain separate elements in edit mode. To do this, you can select all the objects, then CTRL+J on the keyboard will join them into one model. Then when you go into edit mode, you can work on each part as a separate piece. This can come later on, depending on how many objects will be in this model. You may wish to unwrap some of the elements before you join them, but it isn't necessary.

I hope that wasn't too confusing. I may be rambling a bit. I could show you what I mean in a sample video if you need it. Just let me know.

I believe I understand, but a video would be appreciated, that is what helps me the most.

I'm liking what I'm seeing Boni, so please do continue to show us screenshots as you progress.

Boni posted at 12:10AM Thu, 30 July 2020 - #4395523

I believe I understand, but a video would be appreciated, that is what helps me the most.

I'll put together a video showing how to join the objects together into one mesh tomorrow (it's late evening here now). In the meantime, keep us posted. Good luck.

Thank you so much Miss B, Lux and Lobo too. This is so encouraging!!

Wow missed allot first Boni it is look great as to using Boolean since you did earlier mention that you were going to take this into Poser I have run into numerous headaches where they are concerned in Poser and having to go back and retopo or look at achieving the look I want using basic box modeling which in my current project has made me think harder to achieve the look I want in the long run. I really looking forward to seeing your progress as you are going thru this and I do agree with something LuxXeon said earlier the use of displacement or normal maps will very helpful as you take this project further

I will use normal maps, but feel I cannot depend on displacement maps due to Poser's Superfly limitation. Sadly I will have to do some real texture "modeling" with the brushes I believe to get the roughness, chips and cracks I need to make this look ancient. It is suppose to be a structure discovered on a deserted Greek island that dates back to mythological times.

Here is a question. Can or should I take this model into ZBrush for the surface texturing or does Blender have enough varied modeling brushes to do that?

Boni, I don't know if you still need this or not, but I put together a quick video showing you how to join all the objects into a single mesh. This does not weld together the parts, but it will make everything into just one object. Each part is still individually editable, and this process can be reversed.

If you have access to Zbrush and are familiar with using it, then Zbrush is what I personally prefer to sculpt details with. However, Blender sculpting does have the ability to detail objects like this one just fine. So that's up to you. Either way will work, but doing it in Blender will save you a round trip.

A little background ... I started using 3d programs 1996 when Jo's son-in-law gave me his old Mac with Bryce3d on it ... from there it was Poser and Bryce for quite a while and I tested others when I got free versions from vendors when I worked as a software sales associate at Fry's. I have used: Animation:Master, Wings, Milkshape, Hexagon, Amorphium and the most success of these Lightwave (which I no longer have access to since I had a student copy when I took a course in it), and ZBrush which I really like, but have issues with the interface. I never stuck it out for more than a few weeks with all but LIghtwave, ZBrush and Blender. Blender since the 2.8 interface has been fascinating to me. I look forward to using it more. (as well as ZBrush).

Boni I found this a bit ago it might help with sculpting the type of look you may want with in Blender plus has a link to a set of free Sculpting Brushes

Sculpting Stone for Beginners in Blender 2.8 [ + FREE BRUSH SET]