Hi, everyone.  This tutorial is in response to a user on the Shapeways 3d Design forum, who wanted to know how the techniques used in my Floral Star Ball tutorial for 3dsmax would translate to Blender.  The process here is virtually the same as my 3dsmax version, with only some minor differences in workflow and tool function, naturally.  Be sure you have the Add Mesh: Extra Objects add-on enabled in User Preferences.  This tutorial depends on the Math Functions > Solids script in Blender to follow along.  The result can be used for 3d printing, or as a sculpture or jewelry prop in any 3d scene.

The video contains full audio narration.  Let me know if there's anything I can clarify, or help you with.  Please let me know if you have any questions about the process.  Also, be sure to subscribe to my channel for more tutorials.  I'll be adding new Blender tuts in the near future.  Thanks!

.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge and techniques with us 

Oh wow.  This is real neat.  Thanks!

Lux!  I saw your 3dsmax tutorial for this the other day, and didn't think this could be done the same way in Blender, even though you mentioned it could be.  Seeing you do it in action is great.  Definitely picking up some ideas and Blender workflow tips here.  What theme are you using there, by the way?

Merci, Luxxeon!  A very good video.  I create this image for you.

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=2614849

I am impressed to find this style of model.

Saw this in a thread over on blenderartists.org.  Unkerjay was trying to reproduce your Max tut, but then you did the Blender version.  Was he the one you were talking about at the start of the vid?  It's an awesome tut, man.  Lots of room to customize it too, and come up with something different each time.  Good one to get 3d printed.

Thanks for this tutorial LuxXeon. The shape of the Floral Starball gave me an idea on using the finished model in another way I do like doing abstracts and funky renders

So here is what I came up with http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=2615788

Thanks for this tutorial LuxXeon. The shape of the Floral Starball gave me an idea on using the finished model in another way I do like doing abstracts and funky renders

So here is what I came up with http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=2615788

I posted a comment.  That's really cool.  Very impressive variation on the shape, and great abstract render.  

Thank you LuxXeon for the comment I had done a similar one before with shape tutorial done by David Brinnen for wings and then took the shape into bryce and using some reflective materials to create and abstract effect. But your floral starball offered a few more options to play with due to its smooth and unique out and inner shape. I am glad you liked it 

Thanks 

Lobo, that looks trippy!  Reminds me so much of the hippie art of the late 60's, which I always found fascinating.  I haven't thought about Bryce in probably 5 years.  Is it still free?  You might be able to get similar using BI renderer too.  Not sure bout Cycles.

Lobo, that looks trippy!  Reminds me so much of the hippie art of the late 60's, which I always found fascinating.  I haven't thought about Bryce in probably 5 years.  Is it still free?  You might be able to get similar using BI renderer too.  Not sure bout Cycles.

I have always had a like for the sort of the "psychedelic" of the 60's had an uncle who was dear to me and was epileptic and after attacks and he always mentioned after an attack he would calm himself letting himself visualize similar psychedelic images to get him thru and episode and it sort of took hold on me so when ever over stressed out I try and do the same. As the Bryce I think you can still get Bryce 5 for free from download.com and Daz still has some free content that is based on Bryce 5. I used Bryce Pro seven for the render but the technique can be done in Bryce 5 just will take longer to render 7 seems to render a bit better this render actually took 29 minutes 

Wooo!  I'm officially back to the sixty's!  That's great, Lobo.  Hey, I gotta ask, is there any way to create some of those math function objects without using the addon? Might be a good modelling challenge to create some of those shapes without "math".  Like the one called Z math surface looks like it could be made with just a plane and some modifiers.  Am I wrong?

Thanks HMorton and I am not sure abojut trying to model similar things with out the math function I know it was my first model using the math function and will look forward to trying to make some other models using it the math function. Perhaps LuxXeon will have an answer to your question 

Math models like that are very tricky to model without function input, obviously.  Suffice to say, that's why it's done most often with direct mathematical equations.  I guess for that first one, HMorton, you could try subdividing a plane, with the outer edges hardened, then apply a bend modifier, or cast modifier, to bend it?  Just guessing here, but I'm thinking that would be the only way to come close.  I'm sure Lux will have the true answer if he sees this, but just remember there's a reason they invented the addon.

I guess luxxeon hasn't read this yet.  Anyone heard from him?  His youtube and other pages are quiet.  The last model he released was over a month ago too.  Hope he didn't disappear.

I guess luxxeon hasn't read this yet.  Anyone heard from him?  His youtube and other pages are quiet.  The last model he released was over a month ago too.  Hope he didn't disappear.

John (luxxeon) is around.  I saw him posting in the 3dsmax forum, and other forums. I know that he just had surgery, and is recovering, so may not be online often the past week or so.  I'm sending him a pm to see how he's doing, so I'll remind him to check this thread too.

I didn't know he was having surgery.  Not a problem.  Send him my best wishes for speedy recovery, and dont worry about it.  Thanks!

Hi, guys.  @Hmorton:  The mathematical surfaces offered in the Math Function addon are certainly possible to create with standard polygonal subdivision modeling techniques.  In particular, the use of Catmull-Clark Subdivision makes most of the shapes attainable from the most basic surface modeling procedures.  However, they can be complex to achieve, and  in most cases, it's best to simply use the math function addon, since the output is of orthodox quad surface variety anyway.   For example, the first of the several mesh options; the Z Math Surface, can be done simply by modeling a basic planar surface, and then using Catmull Clark subdivision to smooth.  You'd need to mean crease certain edges in order to get the sharply pointed ends.  An umbrella is a good example of a model which can be done in a very similar way.  The other mesh options in the Math Function addon, however, would not be quite as simple.  For example, the snail shell.  The downfall of doing it manually, obviously, is that you lose out on the parametric features of the Math Function primitives, and the ability to quickly change types with simple mouse clicks.  I personally would not see any advantage to being able to reproduce most of these surfaces by hand, other than the personal challenge of being able to do so.

Some mathematical surfaces, on the other hand, can be very beneficial to know how to model by hand, because there aren't any addons which can reproduce them, and the basic objects can help improve your knowledge of the software, and be used as a basis for much larger, more complex objects later on.  I've spent the first several years of my modeling career learning about mathematical surfaces and objects.  In the end, everything we do in 3d, be it hard surface or organic, is based in trigonometric or algebraic equations one way or another, and of course math plays a role front and center in every geometric function.  I have some "math" modeling tutorials on my Youtube channel, and several renders in my gallery of some well known algebraic surfaces.  I just find them so beautiful in every way, and it fascinates me endlessly how nature itself uses math in it's own evolutionary "artistic" endeavor.

Luxxeon, welcome back.  How you feeling?  Healing up well I hope.  Your starball tutorial here is becoming quite popular.  I've seen it pop up in another Blender forum post, and shared in at least two Facebook posts by other users.  Congrats.  As fascinating as these shapes may appear, I think it's not as easy as you make it sound (no offense) to model most of them. Looking at your tuts, and some others I had seen around before this, the process to creating even the most basic math based models seems very much a process against our basic instincts as modellers, most of the time.  At the very least, they are techniques you MUST somehow specifically learn from a source, rather than find on your own through experimentation and practice.  Unlike most other subd objects, which the intermediate to advanced user could almost discover on their own, these models are different in that there seems to be a FORMULA to modelling them every time, or else it won't be correct.  Am I right in that assumption?

Sorry, I'm not quite sure I understand your meaning, maxxx.  Like most other modeling tasks, there's various techniques one can use to achieve a result.  So-called math modeling is no different than modeling any other object in 3d space really.  For example, I know of at least 3 different techniques to achieve a starball, like the one in the original post of this thread.  Some methods may take a little longer than others, so I usually share the most efficient route I know, but there's always another way.  The steps involved in modeling can be considered formulaic I suppose, but then the same can be said about modeling a human head, a house, or a car. There's at least 3 or 4 different techniques a person can follow when trying to achieve any three-dimensional object;  everything from box modeling, to edge-extrusion techniques all involve their own steps and methods to creating the polygons, depending on the artist as well as the software being used.

Hi, everyone.  I just wanted to share the exciting result of a proof of concept 3D print of the Floral Star Ball in the real world.  Unkerjay created this incredible looking 3d printed Floral Star Ball after following this tutorial, as a proven example of how the object could be translated to a real world object.  Congratulations, UnkerJay!

See the thread over at Shapeways forums, for the entire discussion which led to this final 3d print.

https://www.shapeways.com/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=24211&start=0&

Hi, everyone.  I just wanted to share the exciting result of a proof of concept 3D print of the Floral Star Ball in the real world.  Unkerjay created this incredible looking 3d printed Floral Star Ball after following this tutorial, as a proven example of how the object could be translated to a real world object.  Congratulations, UnkerJay!

See the thread over at Shapeways forums, for the entire discussion which led to this final 3d print.

https://www.shapeways.com/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=24211&start=0&

Oh man, that looks cool!  Can't believe how tiny it is too.  I'd definitely be proud to see someone make something like that based on a tutorial I made.  Congrats to unkerjay, and to you for an awesome tutorial, lux!

Just commented on this over in the modelling forum, but I'll say something here too.  Really great work on that 3d print.  It's a testament to a great tutorial.. Congrats, both of you guys.  So the object is less than 2 inches, and about $15 with the least expensive material available?  Yikes.  Sounds pricy, but I imagine it's worth it to actually hold in your hand something you made yourself in 3D!  I'm sure there's people who love collecting shapes like that too, because I see a lot of 3d prints of complicated math stuff all over.  It's a beautiful object, luxxeon.

I'm gonna follow UnkerJay, and get a print of my own star ball.  Now that I see the price, and what size to shoot for, I'd personally love to have my first 3d print to show off to family and friends, and this seems like an easy and cheap starter model.  I was going to do the bacelet, but I think I'll hold off on that until after our anniversary, and surprise the wife.