My Scribing Angle

Today i present a modelling and texturing exercise and study of a traditional scribing angle from my workshop… It must be at least 50 years old, - so, the scribing angle - now it exists in virtual reality… maybe forever…
I don’t quite like the topology yet (see wireframe…), but I think the result is worthy of any virtual toolbox! But it wasn’t intended for use in a AAA game anyway… Not a weapon, eh…
If you’re interested in how I approached the project, please get in touch!


That is an… impressive… amount of topology. Is there a reason for it?

The Square (or right angle or scribing angle/square) has existed for at least five millennia and is still used today. I have one in my toolbox right now that I use regularly.

The modern version is called a “speed square”. (I finally bought myself one last year. Very, very useful).

It kind of hurts that the tool in your image hasn’t been better cared for (I’m a stickler for that), but it’s beautiful!

Very nicely done!


Thank you very much for your feedback, which I would like to answer in more detail.

The amount of topology… well, that’s just because I’ve worked with booleans and don’t really get remeshing… (and there’s no real reason for me either…) But: if anyone has any ideas or tips, please feel free! I would also be happy(er) about a clean topology! (Actually, I would have preferred not to show the topology, but otherwise everyone would think it was just a photo, wouldn’t they?) :wink:

There is a lot to say on the subject of ‘angles’. I personally use a ‘carpenter’s square’ and have never used the digitised piece. It’s actually just an heirloom that I can’t part with. And the maintenance… well, it was in use for decades in the workshop and on the building site, which leaves its mark… And these marks are what make the tool! :slight_smile:

However, thank you very much for your opinion, story and positive review!

1 Like

Booleans are Evil. You can often get excellent effect without them. For example:

Make that 40 vertices if the thumb groove exists on the other side too.

EDIT: Looking back over, I realize that I modeled (badly) the shape of my own Square, which follows straight, whereas yours has the 45° angle between the handle and the blade. That is an easy fix:




Booleans are to blame! (or ngons, triangles… whatever suits you).

Saying things like that is the 3d equivalent of repeating a racist joke without realising it.
It makes you look like a fool twice over.


I featured you on BlenderNation, have a great weekend!

1 Like


:thinking: This discussion leaves me a little doubtful …

IMAO, this reminds me a lot more of photogrammetry than Boolean !

@Duoas Interesting “Base-Mesh”.

Good :blender_logo_64_png:


Hi, thanks for stopping by and commenting… do you have the feeling that I am presenting a photogrammetry as a model created by me?

Thank you very much, @bartv! Although it seems to me that the last word has not yet been spoken about this work… The discussion is hotting up… :face_in_clouds:

1 Like

Thank you very much for the valuable tips @Duoas ! (Although of course we no longer say that Booleans are ‘evil’…). I’ve put it into practice and will upload something to present the result shortly.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with your work. It’s gorgeous!

Just wanted to offer a few hints for future modelling. I don’t think picto’s comments usefully contributed to the conversation. (I think he was just trying to make a joke?)

Saying “X is Evil” is an old programmer’s way to offer a droll hint that something is often not a good choice of tool, nothing more. Booleans are cool; I’ve used them. But you will almost always get better, cleaner geometry without. There are tons of YouTube videos about how to achieve clean geometry without booleans.

The consequence is a lighter scene, no weird distortions from stars or n-gons when you least expect it, and a whole lot easier time doing things like uv-mapping.

1 Like

Woah! I have two of those out in the shop, and it looks as if yours are an exact copy of them!
Just the right amount of grunge also!
Great job!

1 Like


There is no reason to feel offended, for me you could say that by carrying out photogrammetry or scanning, it is you who is modeling !

By conviction, I created your model with blender, the deformed base cube and multiple Booleans :

As you can see, the result looks very different from what you present.
While a scanned object presents this kind of morphology :

Looking at these images, what would you conclude ?

Practically, in this object configuration, it is just as irrational to use one as the other (Booleans / Scanning-Photogrammetry) !

But as you did it as an exercise …

One might think that this presentation is just negative advertising for Booleans !

Yes, please can you tell me more about your approach …

Good :blender_logo_64_png:

1 Like


The @picto message speaks to me because, I think it’s boring to always read the same remarks about Booleans and N-gons, again and again spreading an obsolete and anymore realistic “reputation”, given the fact that this is no longer completely true, particularly for “Hard-Surfaces” and which is, in fact, simply the opposition of several ways of working (assumed or not).

Isn’t it :

Good :blender_logo_64_png:



Topology aside I would say you could add a bump texture to the handle, and possibly the metal part too. Handle texture is a bit on the low res side when viewed in full size.

Anyhow, it is a nice exercise you’ve done here. Congrats.

1 Like

Hey everyone, thanks for the intensive discussion here! Even if it got “heated” at times, for me there was only valuable advice and questions here! No attacks or anything! I have decided to upload the .blend file. Then everyone can see and understand what I did or didn’t do. It is the version with the alternative modelling (@Duoas), so no booleans in this file. Perhaps an important note: in the first published mesh you can actually see a wild topography that reminds of a scan, @JaAlVir657, I absolutely see what you mean. But this comes from an (obviously misinterpretable) retopology attempt… :wink:
What is still bothering me is the question of how I can a) achieve good texturing with few quads and b) at the same time reproduce the details, for example ‘round edges’… Sometimes I had to add geometry for this…

And one last thing, I built the texture from photos. I’ll share that too, even if I’m not necessarily proud of the execution, I’m not a Gimp pro. But that’s also why the details are lost in close-ups, @JoolsMcFly.

So now everyone can see for themselves and maybe give me a few tips. I would think it would be mega cool if you could add textures to the meshes you have ready. I bet you make really cool scribing angles! Stay tuned, @bartv, there’s more to come :wink:

PS: This whole discussion sums up so much why I love this blender community so much! Stay safe guys! happy blending! :smiling_face_with_three_hearts:

Scaling_Angel_Scene_stripped.blend (1.6 MB)


What exactly is your objective?
I reread what you said above and had a look at your file, but I’m still not sure whether you want to make a game prop or model in more detail in sudb…

1 Like

My goal, because you asked for it: Have fun with Blender. :blender_logo_64_png:
For me, this happens by creating good renderings and learning a good workflow. For me this means that the models are as well constructed as possible and necessary (for my purpose), have good textures and UVs and that the composition and lighting are right.
I don’t make game props. I create worlds and models that I like and hope that others enjoy them too. If - like this time - a discussion arises, I get into dialogue with other Blender enthusiasts, learn things, try them out, improve them, then my goals have been achieved.
In the discussion about how I created this particular model, about the use and evaluation and pros and cons of Booleans and whether it was a scan or not, questions arose. People gave me tips. I responded. Things became unclear. I decided to provide transparency. Hence: my files. Clarity, happiness, community. :v:

I was only talking about your model, not about the all meaning of life.
There is no good workflow without determining a context of use.

If I had to model this thing as faithfully as possible and just for rendering, I’d separate each part into different objects (which you don’t do in your scene), make a fairly dense mesh for the wooden part and deform it using scuplt tools (for the damaged angles).

There is a good workflow, for me, (not for everyone!) if you look at my goals. That’s why I’ve listed them: to work as precisely as possible in order to have fun and enjoy the work and its results with the best possible effort. :slightly_smiling_face:
On the subject of “individual objects”: Ctrl-J was my friend there…
And yeah. Sculpting could have been nice. Never got comfortable with that… dunno why…