Here is my Myan Structure in all its subdivision glory. I had to redo my structure from my original couch and table one because I got “clever” with it, and clevered myself into a clever corner. So I went to rule number 1: stay simple. Rule number 2: if too detailed, refer back to rule number 1.
5 Likes
Those are good rules for modelling! I would add rule 3: if you really, really need to add details - make a copy of an object so you can always revert back to lower poly version.
3 Likes
Fine approach. There are times not to get pulled too far off course at the beginning. It is fine if you can find out the how to, but may well take a lot longer than when the basics are explained in a structured way through a course like this.
3 Likes
I often like to work in three’s, not in an obsessive manner, but there is something complete about it. I was looking for a rule Three to top it off, and you just provided me with that rule :).
The Three Blender Course Rules for staying on track and not overworking yourself:
- Keep your project simple- these are akin to art class sketching exercises meant to build up and develop your skills: not masterpieces. Only add the details necessary to convey your shapes and form.
- If details are necessary, save a copy so you can revert to your original simplest form if you need to return to Rule 1.
- If too detailed, refer to Rule 1.
Sound about right?
I use Rule.3 often.
2 Likes
Sounds about right 
. And with practice you will not need to invoke rule 3 as often 
Another related 3 step rule for adding details:
- Start with low level of detail
- Add medium level of detail
- Add high level of detail
Of course saving backup of a model between each step and not going to next step before finishing the previous
2 Likes
Sounds about right, Nameless One (I am looking at your icon).
1 Like
Oh, I see you are a man of great taste! 
(a.k.a. the one that still remembers plansesacpe :D)
1 Like
Yes, it used to be one of my favorite games along side of Fallout 1. Both made by Interplay: for gamers by gamers, but now we are talking gaming history!
After majoring in Classical Philosophy (and classics in general) I was corrupted by becoming more analytical and system orientated, making it harder to enjoy Planescape as I found it both logically and philosophically inconsistant. It welded ideas together without actually trying to consolidate them, making its underlying mechanic not feasible within its proposed parameters (Which most philosophers tended to do to some extent in any age, save a very small few). Fallout 1 did make sense: it was a nice neat balanced little sandbox, just about the right size and features, and did not grasp for too much unlike its offspring.
However, now I see that this eclectic nature of Planescape was probably its charm- it considered different unconnected yet interesting ideas, like a book of reflections: just don’t try to make a sensible system out of them!
1 Like