|
I love the response in that thread from the president of Massive Black. Sounds like the guy who made those statements was a PR person(ouch) and not the actual person making policy. I'd like to hear the lead developer's response.
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2009 10:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
International Log posted:I heard from a guy at my local IT shoppe that intel wasn't going to make dual i7 boards, but then again, i hope he's wrong. ACanofPepsi posted:This is a waste of a quote, but I didn't know such a thing existed. I need to research more outside of the personal computing realm. Sorry to confuse, I meant the nehalem core xeon 5500 line, which is practically a rebranded i7 with added ECC support.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2009 12:32
|
|
|
Oh god, cgtalk has become THE most retarded place on the internet, I only go there when I need some entertainment, and maybe post on the max forums, the rest is just gold hilarity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2009 17:02
|
|
|
The only forums that I've been visiting mostly these days are gameartisans and polycount. Are there any other maya/max forums that are actually populated and active? I haven't seen many with some good activity.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2009 18:35
|
|
|
Handiklap posted:Sorry to confuse, I meant the nehalem core xeon 5500 line, which is practically a rebranded i7 with added ECC support. Yeah. As soon as you mentioned i7 xeons, I started doing research and couldn't find any (yet). I have run xeons for a while now and am ready for an upgrade. I have P4 Prescott xeons so they are just too hot and run too loud. Considering buying an i7 because I am not rich enough to afford the next gen xeon system, and not patient enough to research the sweet spot with the current line of xeons. You mentioning that the 5500 line is basically an i7 with ECC is very interesting however. Where did you learn this? Would it be wiser to go that route than get a new i7? 3d artists always need more power (despite whatever budget they may have) and this fulltower P4 space heater has got to go. A quick google check shows I am not the only one wondering about this choice for an upgrade. Although this perhaps isn't the right thread for this stuff, I figure enough 3d artists are eye-ing the i7s and wondering the same thing I am. The nehalem cores you mentioned still seem pretty prohibitively expensive. I figure if I can find a reasonable xeon, I can just pick up a cpu per pay period etc. and just build it up over a couple of months time. I would like to continue running a dual cpu rig but I wonder if that kind of thinking is archaic / not pragmatic. EDIT: This helps a little. sigma 6 fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Jul 15, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2009 19:04
|
|
|
sigma 6 posted:I figure if I can find a reasonable xeon, I can just pick up a cpu per pay period etc. and just build it up over a couple of months time. I would like to continue running a dual cpu rig but I wonder if that kind of thinking is archaic / not pragmatic. I wouldn't waste your money on it. I'm running an i7 920 at home and it's loving great, it rivals any dual proc I've ever used, and more, and they're getting a lot cheaper now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2009 19:22
|
|
|
The Register posted:Finally, in all the hoopla about the dual-socket Xeon 5500, the single-socket Xeon 3500, also officially announced today, received short shrift. Even product line manager Thorne referred to it as "essentially a rebranded Core i7" with added ECC memory support and enterprise-level validation. Link edit2: ok this clarifies it As for the procs, this first machine is only getting 80w E5520s. You can definitely spend as much as you've got on a xeon, but the price point doesn't go too south until you get to the 5540. Haha, just noticed the 130W Bloomfield core, spiritual successor to everyone's favorite Presc-hot. Ratmann posted:I wouldn't waste your money on it. I'm running an i7 920 at home and it's loving great, it rivals any dual proc I've ever used, and more, and they're getting a lot cheaper now. I can't really speak on the comparison, but consider that these new xeon 5500s use the same core architecture as the i7s. Although single threaded operations will likely run faster on an i7, multithreaded (any decent renderer out there) will be working with 8 cores vs. 4 (16 vs. 8 if we're talking ht), as well as a much larger (144gb large) potential pool of ram. Depending on your usage, that would probably be the deciding factor, because it's just about the only saving grace of the double tap you get when it's time to upgrade. If you're looking for value, which I'd guess most of us are in a personal machine, then yeah go with the i7. If it's performance you're after, there is a middle ground to be had with the xeons that is still a decent enough value to keep my interest. Handiklap fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Jul 15, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2009 19:35
|
|
|
double post
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2009 20:35
|
|
|
Ah The Register. Great site. Apparently you can get the 920 i7s at a Microcenter for 200$ so I was considering that. However I would ideally like to spend a little more on a xeon which I can pop into a dual motherboard, and then just save up for the second cpu. The i5s will be out in late august apparently and I am hoping they will drive down prices. However that means the i7 xeons are just around the corner too. VVV Oftentimes server boards (dual cpu) use ECC ram but I think the general costs of the highend xeons are the sticking point along with a good mobo VVV sigma 6 fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Jul 15, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2009 20:42
|
|
|
Isn't the dual proc mobo use some different type of ram that's always stupid expensive?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2009 20:43
|
|
|
Ratmann posted:Isn't the dual proc mobo use some different type of ram that's always stupid expensive? ECC ram actually isn't too much more than non-ECC, about 35% more. ($215 vs. $160 for 12gb of crucial) Wasn't always the story though. I'm not sure, but I thought I had read that the 5500s supported - but didn't require - ecc ram anyway. I might be just making stuff up now though. In the end, lots of ram + lots of active uptime, the more errors, which in a server environment where uptime is primary, the cost for ecc is well worth it. I'd like to see some figures on it though, because many of us use "servers" as workstations, so I wonder if the added stability is really justified in that kind of situation. Handiklap fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Jul 15, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2009 20:55
|
|
|
Thanks for all the info Handiklap! You are swaying me back from the i7 to the xeon camp. From the HardOCP forum. http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?s=46f618d5e70350e747a9c53d12075010&p=1034303882&postcount=6 quote:I do not know if the Xeon 55xx require ECC memory but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they did. However I do know for a fact that the W35xx series Xeon's do not require ECC memory. I also do not know if they support ECC or not. As you can see from the chart above the 55xx series Xeon's have a lower TDP than their desktop counterparts do and they support considerably more memory than the Core i7 CPUs do. If the Xeon 55xx series does not require ECC, that may save me a little change.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2009 21:03
|
|
 A lot of areas are a little out of wack, but I'm just messing around with a TF2 type style of sculpting. It's pretty fun.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2009 01:20
|
|
|
So I ran through the OP and everything, and only found a link to one book so I figured I'd ask here. Anyone have any recommendations for books that break down more advanced things in Maya. I'm going to be able to get a home PC that will be able to run maya, zbrush, and Houdini (if I get that far), and I want to get a heads up on techniques and such for the programs. I made a pretty lovely scene in maya in my intro to computer arts class, so I understand the layout of the program, but I'd love a book that focus's purely on texturing (lighting and rendering is ok as well since I know they're commonly paired) in Maya 09. I'd also love a book or two on zbrush and even maybe some recommendations on programming books (python?). I'm pretty sure I'm taking the year off school, so in the mean time I want to learn as much as I can. That and I love books way more then computer faq's, so when I can I'll drop the money on them. TLDR:I need recommendations on books for. Maya 09 Texturing, Lighting, and Rendering advanced skills/techniques Zbrush intro book and advanced skills/techniques book. Programming books that would be helpful for Visual Effects.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2009 01:44
|
|
|
Trintintin posted:TLDR:I need recommendations on books for. For starting out, I'd actually recommend out of the Beginning Maya books, I used one back when I started my first job, and it got me up to speed in Maya pretty quick, plus they cover a bunch of material. I'd recommend getting one of em, and starting slow, experiment with one or two packages and just learn the CONCEPTS , not the 3d software itself, much better way of learning. http://www.amazon.com/Introducing-Maya-2009-Dariush-Derakhshani/dp/0470372370/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247706481&sr=8-5
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2009 02:10
|
|
|
Why the hell is it so hard to not make characters look creepy as hell? I'm reworking Tinman and getting really frustrated. Edit: Thumbed for creepiness. 
Hinchu fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Jul 16, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2009 03:35
|
|
|
Ratmann posted:Oh god, cgtalk has become THE most retarded place on the internet, I only go there when I need some entertainment, and maybe post on the max forums, the rest is just gold hilarity. I am embarrassed to open CGTalk at work. It has now become a guilty pleasure website that I don't read any more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2009 04:22
|
|
Hinchu posted:Why the hell is it so hard to not make characters look creepy as hell? I think it's his human features. I'd make him look a bit more geometric like he was built out of sheetmetal bent plates instead of a weird cyborg mold or a collection of bowls. The human eyes definitely make the majority of it look creepy. Edit: Did a quick paintover that might help?  I rounded up his brows, pushed out/pulled up the cheeks a bit, and gave him a slight smirk I guess? Makes him look friendlier I think? Pushed his upper lip out a bit, and got rid of some of the ribs on the iron that made him look like he had 6 mouths. I also gave him like bolts/nuts for eyes. ceebee fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Jul 16, 2009 |
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2009 04:31
|
|
|
Hinchu posted:Why the hell is it so hard to not make characters look creepy as hell? I think it's human eyes on a mechanical body that are killing the appeal. They have that species crossover effect that happens with things like this:  Also look into general proportions of the head, it's pretty much always just an unappealing set of proportions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2009 04:33
|
|
|
When you are looking at a perfectly symmetrical face while modeling it will always look creepy, with dead eyes. I find that rotating the eyes up a little bit helps put some life into them. It's trivial but sometimes it gives you a better feeling for the character without being put off by the creepiness.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2009 08:03
|
|
|
EoinCannon posted:When you are looking at a perfectly symmetrical face while modeling it will always look creepy, with dead eyes. I find that rotating the eyes up a little bit helps put some life into them. It's trivial but sometimes it gives you a better feeling for the character without being put off by the creepiness. As soon as I read your quote I was drawn directly to your avatar. Creepy . . . but the good kind.  VVV Looks much better. VVV sigma 6 fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Jul 16, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2009 09:32
|
|
|
 Thanks for all the help. I just did a quick and dirty de-symmetrizing thing to him to see how it would read. I think I may play with the eyes a bit to see if I can't make them less human. I just want a character that I can make really expressive with lots of little tools available to get some dynamic poses and expressions going. I might scrap part of this design and make him less human looking. That was my original concept was to make Tinman more of a human skull but I definitely don't want him looking like Tim Allen. I've even been thinking about remodeling Scarecrow's head too...
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2009 14:36
|
|
|
You've got to be making GBS threads me guys this thread was on Page 2, COME ON! Edit: I wish poopinmymouth would post here more instead of on photography stuff 
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 00:19
|
|
|
For a while it sounded like he was looking to get out of 3D altogether. Not sure if the photography is going to remain a hobby or what.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 00:51
|
|
|
I promise to post more WIPs where barely anything has changed in the image then repeatedly ask for crits and crack the shits when nobody replies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 01:55
|
|
|
i really wanna get some personal stuff cracking so i can post in here but it just doesn't happen
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 02:54
|
|
|
I may be working on a big project I'll be asking for feedback on. Maybe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 03:11
|
|
|
I've been working more on my 2D stuff which is irrelevant to this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 03:20
|
|
|
SynthOrange posted:I've been working more on my 2D stuff which is irrelevant to this thread. Ditto here. Going to CGCON tomorrow though. Any goons going? Saw Andrew Jones today and that was pretty drat cool. Really nice guy, who really lives THE life IMHO.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 03:29
|
|
|
Is there a way to sort of redistribute the mesh to make it more uniform in mudbox? I seem to have some stretching going on which is affecting any stamp tools I use.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 08:49
|
|
|
I've been working on loads of stuff for 12 hour days. But it's boring as gently caress and not my design. Here's one I finished tuesday!  The station thing is like 95% done, just need a couple of hours to package it all up. But i cant until this job is done in 2 more weeks 
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 09:23
|
|
|
^^^ That's pretty sweet. How do you find ref imagery which matches your environment / lighting? Do you color correct or spend time compositing in the stock photos? Where can I learn more about making this work?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 09:29
|
|
|
When I did some similar work, most of the stock photos were neutrally lit. When they had shadows, I flipped them over and positioned them where the shadows made sense to populate the image. Wierd way to work, but it produced decent results.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 09:50
|
|
|
I saw the photos of the recent Sarychev eruption (and some St. Helens ones) and thought they pretty much looked like iso-surfaces of a smoke simulation with some noisy displacement on top, so I couldn't resist trying in Houdini: It's still at a pretty early stages, I'm just testing the idea. Probably it won't animate too well without some major extra thinking, but for a few second near-still devloped-stage clip it might work (these events take hours or days anyways). I guess my question is, does it still look like a reasonable massive ash column to you, or is it more like a bunch of weird noise?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 10:59
|
|
|
sigma 6 posted:Do you color correct or spend time compositing in the stock photos? Where can I learn more about making this work? All our people we use now we took ourselves - just went out into town with the camera and took pictures of people in the shade. The school kids we got kids from a local school, rented a sports hall and took a shitload of posed ones. For balancing it is just loads of general colour correction, but for fine details in photoshop you can hold alt & click the border in between 2 layers, making the top one only affect the one under it - with a few of those you can paint over new highlights, sunlight or shade on various blending modes - and colour correct those parts to add the right blues/yellows. They're pretty much essential. Some have 2/3 layers of colour on top and a couple of layers for shadowing too. I've not known of any tutorials outlining it though. (other than 'use distort transform to make shadows!') So long as you spend a fair bit of time on it, trying to get better and looking for details and ways to sit them in, you'll get better at it - not that I think i'm any good, I hate most of my people, but the skill is in recognition rather than technique so you've just got to pick it up over time. Take your time on every one, doing it quickly should be secondary. Also make your scene a flat white, render out a layer of red pillars at 1800mm high where you plan to put your people - overlayed in photoshop this will tell you where your shadows go, perspective and where strong highlights lie. cubicle gangster fucked around with this message at 12:31 on Jul 17, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 12:27
|
|
|
cubicle gangster posted:I've been working on loads of stuff for 12 hour days. But it's boring as gently caress and not my design. I've really got to get into the arch vis sector. You think that's boring? Try rendering the same structures over and over again. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of r&d/pipeline stuff that I do and enjoy, but man this is just not my kind of fun anymore. "Grass is always greener..." can only comfort one so much. edit: lovely job market, current stability, blah blah blah
Handiklap fucked around with this message at 13:59 on Jul 17, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 13:55
|
|
|
Archviz is a weird field. It's one of those things where you can make a really good living working out of your house alone or if you work at a top tier shop like Mr. Gangster. It's hard to survive in the middle. Right now is a bad time to get into the field, IMO. Before my company shut down back in May, we were having a hell of a time convincing architects and developers that an extra few thousand for renderings or animations was worth the expense. It seems odd that just a few grand on top of the total cost of a project would be such a dealbreaker, but that's the industry right now, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 14:52
|
|
|
sinc posted:I saw the photos of the recent Sarychev eruption (and some St. Helens ones) and thought they pretty much looked like iso-surfaces of a smoke simulation with some noisy displacement on top, so I couldn't resist trying in Houdini: Looks kinda bunch of noise, or for me it looked more like one of those underwater geysers, so if you're looking for a volcanic eruption, it might not hurt to put some sort of background sky image to give the idea a bit better. Also get ready for fuckall ages of rendering for this volume stuff in Houdini, oh and bunch up your Volume Step to 0.4-0.5 when testing in your ROP, or else you'll be waiting a while for your renders 
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 18:57
|
|
|
sinc posted:
To get more of a sense of scale I think you need some sort of background and some atmospheric perspective in there. Also the noise looks a little too crisp and defined overall. If you look at photos of volcanic ash clouds you only really see definition on the side that is away from the sun. The areas getting direct light tend to be much softer looking. Another thing that could help it is giving it a bit of directional shape from drifting in the wind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
Thanks for the comments. Yeah, the scale and context aren't very obvious at this point, because there's no attempt to model the surroundings yet. Also I'm planning to make it spread and skew at the top and to add a ton of secondary smoke floating around. So far I just kind of wanted to see if the approach of rendering the main plume as a solid has any potential. I'm going for an effect like this: http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Imgs/Jpg/MSH/Images/MSH80_msh_eruption_05-18-80_Krimmel_80S3-141_bw.jpg (warning, huge). At these sizes (even tens of kilometers tall) the smoke seems to have quite a solid and defined character, which would require a ridiculously small step size and massive resolution with the typical method. But I guess it'll still need stuff like translucency/SSS/etc to soften it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 20:22
|
|