Yet another example for a bad design decision where the variable radius fillet next to the Mercedes-Benz logo appears too harsh and unnatural, especially the lower portion. A proper G2 blend would make that particular area of the grille so much better…
Another example for a bad surfacing implementation are the bumper buttons of this game controller. The triangle surface is noticeably concave in the middle, most likely due be being created via some patch tool with less optimal settings.
I regularly notice bad surfacing on various appliances and tools, but forget to post examples here. However, this one is in my hands now and one particular automatic fillet is quite obvious. I drew some lines that follow the surface structure. The fillet on on the left side has a slightly smaller radius, which results into some distorted triangle fillet in the corner. That area could have looked way better with a regular 4-sided surface.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone else on this forum pick apart poorly modeled consumer products with such a keen eye! Ever since you pointed out the problems with the PS4 controller, I can’t help but notice them. I’ve even begun to notice it in my life, I have a unit bathtub in my living space which is obviously a mass produced item. I can actually see what looks like very SolidWorks-like fillets in the transitions of the tub. A little mundane perhaps, and bath units hardly need to be class-A, but regardless I might have the snap a picture later as it amuses me
There are plenty of products that try to mimic popular brands, including appliances, tools, furniture, kitchen stuff, etc. Some are nearly 100% replicas, but they differ mostly in the fillet department, which ultimately makes them look utterly cheap in comparison. Solving these typically takes a few extra seconds per fillet, or mostly a minute or two for the more complex transitions.
However, I have seen even very expensive product designs with so-called “cheap fillets” that look forever bad as a result of the finish-it-as-soon-as-possible approach.
My uncle has an old metal “Hilti” from the 90s. I used it for a day about 19 years ago. However, it’s super heavy and difficult to work on ceilings or the upper portion of the walls on a ladder. It’s a professional tool for heavy work, but not suitable for small home projects.
That’s the reason why I bought the cordless, compact and lightweight “Parkside” hammer drill. It’s very convenient and can be operated by a single hand. The price is just 46 Euros for the hammer drill and the 5 mAh battery. The weight without the battery is 1,42 kg.
To come back to the original question: because modeling in architecture is 98% drawing and arranging boxes in one way or another, unless you are a university student or work for Zaha and the like, which is a tiny tiny minority in the field. Why is it mostly boxes? Because of money, obviously. Because the people who finance the large majority of construction do not live in the structures, they minimize cost along the whole process, maximize floor space and thus the bottom-line of the project. And this means boxes, most of the time. Sometimes arranged in a creative and surprising fashion, in the best case scenario, but still boxes.
There are some exceptions, like refurbishing, additions in historic buildings, sometimes site and zoning limitations that require non-rectangular faces. But nothing that would need class-A surfacing like a car or in product design.
The modern architectural projects, even if they consist complex curved shapes, are typically finished by hand, with ton of manual or machine grinding. The manual and power tools provide “the Class-A surface finish” even if the raw materials underneath the facade were rough and uneven. Even the shiny statues made by chrome, stainless steel or another weather-resistant metal are grinded and polished by tools to receive their final mirror-like finish.
In contrast, product design and especially automotive design mostly rely on injection moulding, stamping dies and high glossy surfaces provided by the material or a paint coat. These must follow consistent shape and quality, manufactured quickly at a large scale, and optimized for maximum profit margins, hence the manual finishing and human labour must be reduced as much as possible.
The human eye does not like noticeable imperfections, which is why any ugly shape or area of the product design may cause a subconscious visual perception for a compromised quality.
It’s totally possible. Even “Ferrari” outsourced the design of their new EV car Ferrari Luce to the design house owned by the designer of the original iPhone. The result is as expected.
The Ferrari Luce case is quite pathetic. They entrusted the design of an iconic Italian excellence brand to someone who spent their entire career designing rectangles.
Enzo Ferrari would have fired every single one of the current managers.
Even the showcar meant to be as perfect as possible for the official reveal has plenty of areas that are not Class-A. In fact, they even don’t meet the G0 continuity and certain body panels and rubber sealing strips have a huge deviation up to 10-12 mm. For example, the left side of the trunk panel is noticeably lower than the left rear fender, because the person who mounted it forgot to use real-life “Match surface”.
Their door glass exhibit an unusually strong waviness that’s caused by the use of fewer rollers (no more than 4) than normal in the industry. I won’t call this a minimalism.
Luca Cordero di Montezemolo ha detto:
“È una macchina che almeno i cinesi non ci copieranno.”
“Se dovessi dire quello che penso, farei del male alla Ferrari.”
“Spero che si tolga il Cavallino, almeno, da quella macchina.”
Luca Cordero di Montezemolo said:
“It’s a car that at least the Chinese won’t copy.”
“If I said what I really think, I would damage Ferrari.”
“I hope they at least remove the Prancing Horse badge from that car.”
This thing is awful. I’m almost ashamed to be Italian because of this mess.