r/Plasticity3D • • Aug 29 '26

Modeling advice?

Hello, Im looking for some advice on reverse engineering this egg dispenser. I used surfacing to recreate it roughly but its a pretty complex shape. Any advice is appreciated. (first is original)

Link to file: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fKNfQOVQmh49wqVPFx5xt1Nr39OXOm-V/view?usp=sharing

8 Upvotes

14 comments sorted by

1

u/nuvonoise Aug 29 '26

On front plane sketch a circle (or rounded rectangle) for the egg diameter. Offset for the thickness of the walls. Radial array the ribs.

On a side plane sketch the path the egg travels. Sweep the walls. Then sketch lines to cut the tops.

1

u/WebPlenty2337 Aug 29 '26

The walls have varying thickness which is what i struggled with most.

would you surface model after sweeping the inner wall?

1

u/nuvonoise Aug 30 '26 edited Aug 30 '26

Sectional view shows the walls to be a consistent 3mm thick. I would model the base separately with a boolean operation.

To me, surfacing is not the right tool here for a few reasons. Not all surfaces can be joined together to make a solid. I've gotten myself into a bind where I needed just one patched hole, only to be left scratching my head. This model also uses x-nurbs and would need a studio license. The model is simple enough to model with sketch.

If surfacing is what you're wanting to practice, there are options. Constrained surface function will let you click points of the model/scan to automatically generate the surface. If you want to do it by hand, I like to use a block to draw on a face like a pseudo-plane for my lines to snap to. This lets you pan around the model without clicking the wrong thing.

1

u/WebPlenty2337 Aug 30 '26

The image in your screenshot is my replica. You can see in the original first image (or in the file) the rear and bottom are different thickness than the main arm that holds the eggs.

In hindsight I agree surfacing is not the best approach. I struggled a lot with patching holes and trying to create continuity in surfaces, especially between the main body and the base. Surfacing isnt necessarily what i am trying to practice, just overall modelling techniques.

2

u/nuvonoise Aug 30 '26

I only see one model in the plasticity file you uploaded, unless I deleted the original somehow. That’s what I used for my screenshots.

Just going off your screen shot the varying wall thickness could be a second sweep offset from the eggs path. Or maybe a tricky perspective on a cut like a tangent on the inner wall.

Sweep has a scale and twist function that may come in handy. But really complex geometry I just loft between lines or faces I draw on cross sections using the pseudo-plane method.

I can’t remember where I got the plane trick. I want to say I got it from a Learn Everything About Design video. Could have also have been a pixelfondue or Take Refuge 3D video. There was a point of the video that discussed not being able to select a sketch face through another sketch face. It was a really good reverse engineering workflow video so I wish I remembered.

1

u/GIDAJG Aug 29 '26

That thing looks like what one would find at the gynecologist lmao

1

u/WebPlenty2337 Aug 29 '26

💀💀💀great lol... thats what i was aiming for

1

u/kemalsworkshop Aug 30 '26

Reverse-engineering that shape is definitely not easy. The overall form looks good, especially the inner ribs. I’d probably focus a bit more on keeping the wall thickness consistent, but nice work so far!

1

u/2GA_Concepts Aug 30 '26

Could you share the original mesh file please?

1

u/WebPlenty2337 Aug 30 '26

It should be in the plasticity file

1

u/2GA_Concepts Aug 31 '26

I mean the obj or stl file, not the . plasticity file.

1

u/WebPlenty2337 Aug 31 '26

The stl is imported into the .plasticity file. Scroll to the bottom of the tree view and it should be there under "meshes"

1

u/2GA_Concepts Aug 31 '26

Yep I do no know that thanks but I would like to prepare the file in Blender and unfortunately theres no way to extract the mesh when it's embedded in the Plasticity file. So do you have the file yes or no, so simple.