Hi,
I realize that many online e-commerce sites that sell 3D models sell to consumers and studios having an expectation of buying high-poly-count models. Some expect labels, movable parts, and more.
The closest I probably get to meshes is via SharkCAD's pasted surfaces that, when control points are turned on, expose quasi-mesh-like manipulation experience. However, once a surface painstakingly created (a surface in which the control points feature is not yet accessible or meaningful until the surfaces is first copied and THEN is pasted) it is no longer associative to the parent surface from which/whence it came.
One reason I've not used meshes is it feels too much like playing with clay, shaping monsters, extruding rocks from thin air, and so on. It doesn't feel like "constructing" to me. It feels like chewing on gum and spitting out something that is formed by chewing and getting lucky (yes, a bad analogy for actual hands-on sculpting, or extruding, pushing, pulling) whereas manipulating a surface by (in my workflow) creating foundational control/input/shaping/fairing curves feels more like bringing plates and forms together, erecting a hull, snd working within the confines of a subassembly.
Another reason I haven't openly or willingly taken to meshes is there's no easy back and forth between the conversion of a nodes-rich surface to a surface and then back to a surface, at least within SharkCAD. There's a limitation on the complexity or the node count, or both. I don't know if it's contractual, technological, a hindrance or encumbrance of patents, or a combination of the three, or other factors. If I have to modify for cleanup of mistakes in the model, or want to fork for purposes of making my own self-made derivation works of the model, I quickly hit imposed walls that slow me down. That was my pre 2018 experience, even with add-on pack.
Another reason reason is I haven't made much effort to revisit turning meshes into solids. I don't know if people who sculpt and rig monsters, buildings, cars, roads, hills, and more actually try to extract or report on mass/massing properties, but of my ship models, I definitely every step of the way constantly evaluate masses and centers of gravity, paintable surface area, and such.
I do realize there are a number of advantages to using free-form meshes versus overly engineered curves, surfaces, and solids. I just don't see them or know much of them because I need my work to feel "engineered, architected", not sculpted.
I realize I could also just:
— go buy Rhinoceros, and get free or paid add-ons such as Grasshopper, Seanaptic, Orca, Swordfish, Nemo, and others;
— go to a pricey school and spend time under instruction;
— hire an actual professional modeler or designer of ships, or;
— buy time from consultants;
— etc...
But, I don't have the money to buy Rhino, I am too hooked psychologically on SharkCAD's simpler interface, and I'm not yet ready to stop using SharkCAD and invest the numerous weeks, or months, or years just to get where I feel comfortable.
(However, if I had enough money to live on and NOT feel a sense of urgency to make and sell my models, and said money afforded me up to a year to acclimate to Rhino, I'd probably bite the bullet and rebuild all my possibly sales worthy content. But, Rhino would cost at least $1,000, and certain commercial or fee-supported add-ons also coat nearly as much, tho some free/donationware add-ons seem to do aeound 80% of what is done by the for-fee add-ons.)
2024
Edited by user Saturday, May 24, 2025 9:31:53 PM(UTC)
| Reason: Changed sueface to surface
