|
Musical_Daredevil posted:There's a shell modifier in Max which will thicken any surface either forwards or backwards, starting with your curved plane. Try not to go to thick, though, as each layer takes time (as you probably know). This is a good point. Ask the engineers what thickness base they want. I would probably go around 1/4" or so, but I don't know the system.
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 17:56 |
|
|
Worst case scenario: he could buy a piece of wood and place the model on top if it's too thin.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Musical_Daredevil posted:Worst case scenario: he could buy a piece of wood and place the model on top if it's too thin. If it's too thin the surface will warp. Another thing people don't realize is that the model is actually welded to the metal plate underneath; parts are typically cut off with a bandsaw or wire EDM.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Gameloft are having big layoffs right now, I was in the batch today but i'm feeling pretty good about it as I was feeling like it was time to move on for a while now. If you guys know of work in games in Montreal i'm listening! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
In 3DS Max, is there a way to get more vertices after you've made it an editable poly? The only way I know how is to set the number of segments when you create the object and sometimes I find myself wanting more or fewer to work with. My other question is if I can work with two modifiers at once. Like when I'm messing with vertices on an object I intend to be symmetrical, can I see that in real time or will I always have to make changes then click Symmetry before I can visualize it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
You can add/remove edges by adding edge loops with just cutting or the edge loop tool or similar. This took me a little to work out but you can view symmetry while working realtime by hitting the lightbulb on the stack, it should be something like "show finished stack" or similar.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
Awesome, thank you. 3DS Max seems very artistic coming from Solidworks. I always thought I'd be good at it even though I'm a lovely drawer but that remains to be seen. There's some incredibly impressive stuff in this thread though. It's fun to look through.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
You can also go into edge mode and click vertices onto poly borders. Be sure to connect them to something before moving them though. e: might be in vertice mode. There's def a button where you can click randomly over a model and add a vertice wherever you click though, I just don't have max handy to see where.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
Hey everyone, I'm taking a CGI class in school right now and this is my first attempt at modeling. I'm supposed to texture this...thing, but I'm not sure where to begin. Should I be texturing in low poly mode, or rendered? Also, if the other half of the vehicle isn't going to be seen in the final version, should I worry about details/textures on that side?  Any pointers, critiques, tips or jokes welcome!
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
Taking a break from FX work to focus more on matchmoving as there might be a job going for me, but I know the company I'm applying for will ask me to do a test. I'm pretty confident with basic camera tracking and have found some plates to brush up my object tracking, but does anyone know anywhere to download some decent body tracking rigs? I can't find any for the life of me and it's a skill I need to have at least a basic understanding of if I'm to be considered for the job.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
BurtLington posted:Taking a break from FX work to focus more on matchmoving as there might be a job going for me, but I know the company I'm applying for will ask me to do a test. I'm pretty confident with basic camera tracking and have found some plates to brush up my object tracking, but does anyone know anywhere to download some decent body tracking rigs? I can't find any for the life of me and it's a skill I need to have at least a basic understanding of if I'm to be considered for the job. Maybe some of Hollywood Camera Work's stuff would help for training?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
Travakian posted:Maybe some of Hollywood Camera Work's stuff would help for training? Thanks, yeah I'm using that stuff for the actual plates, but my problem is I'm unable to find a decent rig to use for the actual body tracking.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
keylez posted:Hey everyone, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'low poly mode or rendered', but I'd start by finding and getting rid of any n-gons (faces with 5 or more edges). I think you've got a few in the nose, but it's hard to tell with the subdiv preview thing on. You can find all of those easily by going into face selection mode then going to Select > Select Using Constraints and setting your options like so. That will only allow you select faces with more than 4 edges. The Close and Reset button will let you select faces normally again. If you're not horribly pressed for time I'd say to texture the entire thing. Practice is practice, and if I'd be surprised if your teacher didn't want to see the model itself instead of just a final render. You might be able to get away with hiding any seams back there if you can't find a better place for them, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
Canned Bovines posted:I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'low poly mode or rendered', but I'd start by finding and getting rid of any n-gons (faces with 5 or more edges). I think you've got a few in the nose, but it's hard to tell with the subdiv preview thing on. You can find all of those easily by going into face selection mode then going to Select > Select Using Constraints and setting your options like so. That will only allow you select faces with more than 4 edges. The Close and Reset button will let you select faces normally again. Thanks for the tips! I was slightly confused on the terminology when I asked about texturing in "low poly mode, or rendered". Don't worry about it. I'm currently scouring my model now for n-gons...and I'm not pressed for time, so I'll texture the entire thing (still have 2 weeks to have this model textured, and work with the lighting). I need the practice desperately.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
Oh lordy. I have a gamma question, and I want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly, so if I'm wrong, help steer me. Let's say I'm looking at a full 0 - 1 gradient image on my computer screen. Now in reality, what I'm seeing on the screen is not what is actually contained in that image. Monitors are calibrated with a gamma push of pow 2.2, so when I see 128 grey in the gradient on this texture, in actuality it's a linear value of 187 grey, because the texture is stored as pow 1/2.2 (or pow .45ish). My question is as follows. Say I want to make sure that a texture has exactly 128 grey. Since I'm in an sRGB color profile inside of Photoshop, I'm assuming that it's essentially doing the adjustment for me behind the scenes, so if I choose 128 grey in the color picker, it's "actually" applying a linear value of 187, meaning it will then appear as 128 grey when viewed on the monitor since said monitor is doing a pow 2.2. Is this correct? When working in an sRGB profile, it would be incorrect to pick 187 grey by hand in order to display a true 128, yes? I hope this is coherent enough to make sense for an answer. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
You seem to be pretty much correct but I would really avoid trying to think linear color inside of photoshop. Do everything in sRGB and then either use a renderer that can define the color profile of input textures, or use a program/tool that can convert them to a 16-bit format and to linear at the same time. 8-bit linear textures don't really have enough color depth above 50% grey unless you're working at high bit depths, and sRGB isn't quite a simple gamma correction, so all your values would be approximate anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 09:42
|
|
|
I have been put forward by some people that I know for a chance to work at a place producing a very popular AAA PC game, which especially as a 25 year old university student I am very enthusiastic to try my best to get! I'm basically told that they need modellers to train up. My position, should I get it, will be paid but obviously at a much lower rate. I got my name in the credits for the Lego Movie game, lots of fun! I need to make a model for these people but was given total free reign, so I've decided to go with a chimp in futuristic spacesuit. The plan is to do a decent basemesh, then import it to Zbrush for some high-poly/normals. Since I've been trying to do this right, I've restarted it about eleven times in the past two weeks using various techniques. I tried just dynameshing several times but I wasn't feeling the results I was getting -- I think I need to be more familiar with Zbrush to pull that off successfully. I tried starting with a cube and slicing it up, but the topology got out of control and disgusting very fast to the point where it was suggested to me I just try again using plane extrusion. I've just finished the head and am moving onto the neck. So here I am on my zillionth attempt, I'm sweating bullets because I really want to make this nice and it should've been done already (there was no deadline given, but I know that translates to ASAP.) I really need pointers on this topology. I don't even know if it's going well but it does look much better than my previous attempts. I need to have more loops around the lips proper, I think... And right now the corners of the mouth are triangles which is bad, right? Pictured are the lowpoly and wires, and one with meshsmooth slapped on it because I thought it looked nice. uglynoodles fucked around with this message at 01:18 on Feb 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
Show us more pictures with a white wireframe over the shaded mesh, it will help to show you a bit where you need changes to the edgeflow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
uglynoodles posted:
I think your current model is very promising! I would be careful around the brows: avoid ending those inner eye loops to a point on the brow, they wont deform nicely when animating. Just run the edge through the top of the head. The link below is the best modelling link I've ever seen. Read this site, mirrow his edgeflow and you're set. http://www.sergicaballer.com/facial-modeling-timelapse/  Ive highlighted some problem areas, these are important junctions of several edge loops connecting. Get these right using Sergi's example and it'll be great.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
Also the ngon just down from his nostril.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
Thank you so much for that link and advice. That disgusting n-gon is gone. I've tried to resolve some of the geometry differently but I'm still having troubles with the mouth. Is there a kind of relax brush in Maya?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
Select the vertices you want to relax and go into the sculpt geometry tool's settings. Flooding the selected area with that set to Relax or Smooth will spread out the verts a bit, but it will flatten the shape a bit as well. There's and old script floating around the internet that does a somewhat better job, I'll edit in a link if I can find it. The main thing with the mouth is that you want face loops going around the lips in concentric circles instead of just running back into the neck so that it can deform well when animation. Like how the eyes are set up now. Also you have too much geometry in the throat, which is completely flat. Reduce the number of edges flowing down there and round out what you have to form the esophagus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
uglynoodles posted:Thank you so much for that link and advice. That disgusting n-gon is gone. I've tried to resolve some of the geometry differently but I'm still having troubles with the mouth. Probably, Im not a Maya guy though. The brows are so much better in the new image. I'd focus to eliminate the tris at the cheek area, its a really important area for deformation. Are your lips all resolving to one point in the corner? You don't want this, you'll get nasty deformations when you open the mouth. Loop them in rings round the mouth, like in the link I mentioned. You might need another edge loop too. Also, the goal is to have all quads but sometimes you may end up with a loose tri, you just need to hide it. People usually hide these in places like under the jaw or in an ear. Ears are always annoying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
Anyone going to Siggraph this year? Anyone gone before and have any pointers on how to get the most out of it, what to avoid? I'm pretty stoked. Here's a shot of a sold job at a cafe that occupies one of the retail spaces at the Vancouver Convention Centre, which I will most definitely be milking free food and/or drinks out of as much as my [lack of] shame will allow me: 
Handiklap fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Mar 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Hi guys, what's the best way these days to merge two subtools in zbrush? I have a head sculpt I did a while back and feel like doing the body now too. Sadly he'll be topless so I can't hide the seam. I tried Qremesher but my head isn't symmetrical so it seemed to lose a lot. Do I need to project the two subtools on to a zsphere or something? I only use Zbrush once every 6 months or so so I forget how to do everything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
concerned mom posted:Hi guys, what's the best way these days to merge two subtools in zbrush? I have a head sculpt I did a while back and feel like doing the body now too. Sadly he'll be topless so I can't hide the seam. I tried Qremesher but my head isn't symmetrical so it seemed to lose a lot. Do I need to project the two subtools on to a zsphere or something? I only use Zbrush once every 6 months or so so I forget how to do everything. Merge the subtools, then dynamesh so you can smooth over the seam to combine them properly. Then Zremesh to get better topo if you need it
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 11:08
|
|
|
SVU Fan posted:Merge the subtools, then dynamesh so you can smooth over the seam to combine them properly. Then Zremesh to get better topo if you need it Thanks, this makes sense. Only thing is currently the body is quite low poly as I'm roughing it out. The head is more final, with about half a million triangles. Should I wait until the body is all worked up? Also Dynamesh seems to work better with lower triangle counts, is it going to be able to replicate the fidelity of the head mesh? Thanks for your help!
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
Doesnt matter, just increase the dynamesh resolution to match! You can set it pretty high, then zremesh to get better poly usage if you desire. All work with subdivision freezing if you'd like your subdivision levels preserved.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 11:18
|
|
|
Thanks guys! Man, Zbrush has really made retopologising a non-issue compared to a few years ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 11:24
|
|
|
Audodesk is retiring Softimage. http://area.autodesk.com/softimagetransition http://softimage.tv/autodesk-retires-softimage/
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
My new alias job doesn't use alias automotive and instead uses product. There's no trim convert tool or explicit control/bezier surfacing. Can someone explain to me how the gently caress a product designer doesn't require pretty basic tooling like this?! My mind is blown and everything will be a sketch model til I can convince them to spring for automotive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Listerine posted:Audodesk is retiring Softimage. A really good piece of software. I assume a lot if not most users here are working in Maya? I'll probably fire a few Softimage to Maya questions around soon enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
I used XSI for a year or two when I started at my job and moved to Maya after that. There are still some things I miss about it
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
RIP XSI.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
does the proportional modeling feature in xsi exist in some form as a plugin for 3DS max?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
Softimage XSI was lost when they released it. I was a beta tester (and long time Softimage user) and everyone on the beta-mailing list went 'WTF?!?.' when they announced they were going gold. That little move caused so many people to move to Maya. I was 50/50 at that stage and as much as I loved what they were doing, it was just useless for production. You had to model in Softimage and then use a converter to bring them into XSI. Rendering was barebones too, with Mental Ray being too in-efficient to use in production. A friend of mine ran a small 3D studio and he had been heavily involved in the beta and was one of the first to try to complete a project in XSI and XSI ended up having 4 guys in his office for like a month to complete a relatively basic commercial. The final nail in the coffin was Autodesk buying it. With largely the same type of customer base as Maya, why should they keep supporting it? The problem is that there's no real alternatives. Maya is sucking rear end now and is now mainly functioning as a hub for 3rd party tools and really needs to be completely overhauled, but that does not appear to be coming any time soon. Houdini, whilst developing at a rapid pace, is still mostly a TD tool. I guess the only real hope is Modo, which I've yet to play with. Anyway..RIP Softimage. It was the software I started with 20+ years ago and the industry has come a long way since then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
How does Maya need to be overhauled? It's the only major 3D package I've used but I like it, but also want to hear what could be improved.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
I find Maya to be entirely adequate. I've been learning 3dsmax for the past month and a half now and I wish everyday that I could go back to Maya.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
I think with any software that has a learning curve and depth to it, there's a big effect of what you learned first. You develop a sense of the "right" way to do things which makes switching a painful process. Some folks have posted about plugins for Modo that make it a really excellent modeler, I was wondering if anyone knows what I'm talking about could post links to said plugins? I guess I might as well look at Modo now as a possible replacement. I'm just glad I didn't shell out for Softimage to Arnold.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 17:56 |
|
|
The base version of Modo is a really excellent modeler. The plugins and scripts you can get only help make it even more awesome.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 04:01
|
|