Is this faster?

[@webinatic216]

I like the first method better. Imagine that the boss or designer says "Nah, make the handle it a bit smaller" or the cup. That way you don't have to touch the whole mesh but only work on the parts needed.

[@fablewalls]

I don't work in that world anymore but yes - it's usually the boss or client saying that. Reading all the comments posted before and after you - there are faster methods but when you need to change things because of some arbitrary client decision - faster isn't always "faster." Especially if you have to rebuild everything just because of a small change request.

[@jeromeprice9952]

The previous option was closer to nondestructive. It could be very useful. But great to see both approaches. 🎉

[@timcameron9023]

Great topic - I've often thought that combining shapes was a waste of time when the join is not going to be seen, close up, and I stand by that. Your method is a much more flexible approach.

[@zeeshanmurtza4709]

Both ways are important to learn, thank you so much man for teaching the new things, lot of appreciation, a true genius doing a great job, would love to see more content like this

[@gordonbrinkmann]

You did not goof having an extra loop which you didn't need, you goofed when you rotated the profile because your Transform Pivot Point was set to Active Element instead of Median Point. Therefore you rotated the profile off the origin and your profile was offset downwards on the curve. That's also why the lower extra loop is missing, it is the one where you connected the handle to at the bottom.

[@theplouf5533]

With experience, I know that speed is never an argument. The main thing is to love what you do.

[@AdamJensenReal]

Both ways are great thank you.

[@PCgmesforever]

Really interesting comparison and showcase of 2 techniques. Personally i suck at topology but i know how crucial it is in many cases. Therefore the data transfer seems to me like the easy way ot but i can't shake the feeling it would somehow bite me later which brings the question, when would it be safe to opt in data transfer method and when should i choose propper topology connection instead ?

[@RomboutVersluijs]

I believe, whatever is easier for you and quicker to accomplishm yet have some understanding of the basics will help getting this "properly" modelled. The plus side with the data transfer method, it's kinda none destructive. You can very easily adjust things. While when you really model the connection, you have much more work to do and can be very very finicky to get around it

[@gottagowork]

It also heavily depends on the use-case. Doing proper modelling is advised if it's a major actor and/or it's a piece that will be deformed during animation. If it's a background static piece used in Blender, then data transfer may be the way to go, although it may not be the chosen way to do it if applied modifiers is a thing since it generates custom normals. Myself, since I just often can't be bothered messing around forever with minor set pieces to make them "perfect", I just merge two intersecting bodies and smack on a Bevel node in its shader - job done. Also, it's a bloody simple coffee cup. The end result in this one becomes far too heavy geometry for the minute thing its trying to do. I honestly think a better tutorial would be to discuss around several techniques when the objects involved are too complex for these kinds of simple solutions. I.e. much more varied top and bottom sizes for the main cup with a spiral groove pattern, to flow into a handle also with a spiral grove pattern but with different density, whose size varies the other way; thin top of handle mounted to thick top of cup, and thick bottom of handle mounted to thin bottom of cup. Yeah, the basic stuff is probably useful for beginners. But for real world application, things are never this easy.

[@gordonbrinkmann]

As with all things where you can have different methods to get a result, I think this is almost always a matter of personal preference and the particular requirements or goals. This method may be faster, at least for some people, and for some purposes it is perfectly fine. I'm usually using both methods, since sometimes I just need a simple, maybe not even really flawless object and just modeling it roughly is enough and of course very fast. But sometimes I need things to be adjustable in the end or in general I need different variations where modeling all of them explicitly would be much more work and time consuming.

[@jakubbrzozowiec4439]

Is there any difference between Agx base sRGB and sRGB color space in image texture nodes? If I use AgX view transform should I also be using AgX base sRGB color space to preserve true colors?

[@Ratiosaurus]

It literally is faster though, because the first half of this tutorial is just recreating the starting point of the previous one ;) But of course everyone PREFERS different ways of working. For me this method is also easier because it's just solving geometry, I don't have to remember x number of steps, modifiers, creating vertex groups etc. Right after watching your previous tutorial I remember it, but then if I have to do it in a year I will be struggling to remember all the steps, or waste time looking for this tutorial. So for me - faster solution is always the one that requires less tools.

[@christopher3d475]

But my ultimate point here is to demonstrate that there are multiple ways to achieve something, with some people saying one method is faster/better. In the modeling approach the modeling the handle was integral to the integration with the tumbler body, so I included it as part of the process.

[@FeRReTNS]

Now for the fastest way! Bevel Shader.

[@christopher3d475]

Yes and no. I'm recording on that option tomorrow. But it's kind of flakey at times and doesn't always produce a predictable visual. But it's worth trying out.

[@CharlesLijt]

faster way, SDF volume

[@moonstrobe]

First method is a spell. This one is laying bricks. Both work, but I like the elegance of the first method better.

[@BrentonWoods774]

Man, you inspire me to become better at modeling. This makes me realize that I'm such a hacky modeler :/

[@StiekemeHenk]

Could've used snapping and done this with no modifiers in half the time and steps.

[@Nik_Beestin]

great tutorial, I learned a lot. but it doesn't stand as a far comparison to the shrink wrap method because in that video u had already made the handle. id say this method is quicker. but i like the other method more because as u said it would be easier to move the handles position if needed

[@RomboutVersluijs]

Really wouod love to see the bevel bode approach as well. That would make a great comparison between all methods

[@christopher3d475]

I might do a video showing it. It does work, but sometimes gives weird visual results.

[@RomboutVersluijs]

@@christopher3d475 i had not find the time yet to test it as well. Haven't used it that much.

[@paxwort]

It could be faster on a single mug, it's sure as hell not going to be faster on, say, a repeated element on a building

[@satglob4839]

Hello Christopher Hello Christopher I am a follower of your valuable channel from which I have learned a lot. I would like to show you a model I made. It is a fighter plane similar to the American F-22. It is a Korean-made model with some errors. If you are interested, I will send it to you via email. You can evaluate the work and give some advice on the modeling. Thank you in advance.

[@nicholaspostlethwaite9554]

Personally, much much better way to do it.

[@christopher3d475]

The advantage of the Shrink wrap method is it's easier to change the position of the handle, or shorten or elongate it, at least on this model because of the taper.

[@gottagowork]

For distance set piece dressing, I'd just keep them separate intersecting meshes and smack on a Bevel node. Keeps the geometry minimum for viewport performance reasons, and a couple of subdivisions on a basic mesh would be enough. 80 divisions with subdiv on top is just madness for this kind of prop. Unless it's a high detail product shot, in which the geometry would probably be more complex to begin with, or animated deformations was a thing (on ceramics?), I'd probably avoid this kind of modelling. Similarly with data transfer method; it's a very good approach if you can allow the modifier to not be applied. It's the same thing with i.e. simple deform modifiers; you can't apply them if you intend to exploit the generated coordinates they affect. Proper modelling and UV unwrapping is a good thing to learn of course. But I'd argue the same thing applies to knowing when *NOT* to do it.