|
I heard a rumor that Quixel was working on a Mari-based workflow for their material stuff.
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 09:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:47 |
|
|
mutata posted:I heard a rumor that Quixel was working on a Mari-based workflow for their material stuff. It's news to me if they are. It would be cool to see though. Drop me an email at greasley@thefoundry.co.uk and I'll sort you out. Same for you CeeBee. Adding a custom shader for unreal / unity support is super easy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 11:39
|
|
|
Rapt0rCharles9231 posted:He's gonna want to have the M selected instead, because he has two materials applied. Thanks for this! Worked a charm. Fairly happy with the body and face now, starting to work on clothes. This part reminded me that i've barely got a concept beyond 'muscled dude with a fauxhawk with some sort of something'. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 13:15
|
|
|
forelle posted:As does Mari How about a Mari indie version, Jack?  
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
 I combined a Mateba MTR-8 and a Colt Woodsman and I got this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
Cyne posted:Hmm, yeah, a stuck render region like sigma suggested is the only thing I can really think of either. Are you rendering straight to disk or saving from the render view tab? Also, have you played around with the camera at all? It would be interesting to see if you get this in different camera angles as well. I was saving from the render view tab. This was the first time I tried to render from Houdini and I was working from that tutorial, so I was just following what he was doing; rendering from the Render button in the mantra node doesn't give me those problems (and gives an even better render) so my problem is fixed. I still don't know why I was getting the issue in the render view; none of my render regions corresponded to the locations of the tiling. I might play around with moving the camera and seeing if it persists if I have time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
I have a background in traditional drawing, but I've felt the need to branch off into other areas recently. I've watched a couple Blender Guru tutorials, but I went a few pages back and read that they should be avoided. If that's the case, what would be a better alternative? Digital Tutors? I don't want to get off on the wrong foot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 12:43
|
|
|
 Been working on a horse idly in class. Because I have never animated a model before, I find it difficult to anticipate what an animator needs, or if my topology is workable. Let's just say this is going to be animated. What should I change to make it cause the fewest headaches for someone else working on it? Later I will probably pull this into Zbrush and retopologise it there, then add some high poly muscles and stuff, but ideally I don't want to be depending on pressing a button in Zbrush for good topology sense. For now, it was really just a pseudo-low poly practise. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 13:59
|
|
|
Okay, when you're thinking about creating a model for animation, look at the model in terms of the movements it will have to make and how that will affect the polygon structure when it moves into all the positions it needs to be in. You've got some weird densities going on around the front of the model, but it's probably not worth talking about since you're going to be retopologizing it though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 14:06
|
|
|
Okay! I had thought that it might need those loops for when the horse pulls up its forelegs, or does movements like that. That's not necessary, then? Thanks for taking the time to comment, I really appreciate it as I am trying to learn.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 14:09
|
|
|
What you need to do is look at a photo of a horse and look to see where the large muscles are (your model is pretty decent so you're obviously using reference). The front legs look pretty decent but the back legs, especially at the hip won't deform very well. Check out reference of horses in motion:  Notice that the horse's back legs "creases" go all the way up to the back and they're quite rigid. This is because that's actually he femur and knee. Right now your knee looks like it'll deform pretty well but the femur almost doesn't exist. You want your cuts way higher up and a set of vertical cuts along the femur to make sure the only thing that creases is the loose skin. I'd possibly have some more loops around the mouth. If you want to animate the mouth that is. If not you can cut a lot.. But yeah, you mentioned you're going to model muscles. You'll see exactly where your cuts need to go the moment you start blocking those in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 14:09
|
|
|
Regarding character modelling and workflow: I've basically worked myself down to a semi-decent humanoid base mesh in Max. Should I model the nose, eyes and mouth in Max itself or, as I plan on doing later anyway, just move the model into Mudbox and add those things in a more precise way? I'm trying to figure out a good workflow for making multiple characters for something so it doesn't become a shambles further down the line, so any advice in this area would be super welcome. Should I do all the tecturing in Mudbox too - or is that even something that program does? I'm really still getting into each program's different capabilities when it comes to stuff like that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
You could make a simple humanoid mesh to be brought into mudbox or Zbrush and then detail it further. Once that's done, bring it into the package of your choice to clean up the topology and then finish sculpting the final details.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
Took a break from the monowheel detail to work on a little posing. Here is my drawing, for an idea of what the concept art looks like. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Should I do all the tecturing in Mudbox too - or is that even something that program does? I'm really still getting into each program's different capabilities when it comes to stuff like that. Mudbox does texturing, and is pretty well organized for that function- you get separate paint layers for diffuse, specular, etc. If you're already sculpting in Mudbox, you might as well stick with it for texturing- I found it more intuitive to get basic textures done in Mudbox than Zbrush. I'm not sure Zbrush offers any improvements over Mudbox in the texturing department, but it's been a while since I compared the two.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
Yeah don't texture in zbrush. Mudbox is better than zb for texturing
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
I agree. Mudbox is per pixel texturing vs. per vertex coloring. This means that zbrush forces you to use a pretty dense mesh, if you want your polypainting to look decent. Mudbox is pretty intuitive if you have used photoshop before. Also nice to have the interoperability with photoshop. Definitely a time saver.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Sweet. I was really worried I'd make a huge mistake deciding to get (and learn) Mudbox over ZBrush. Today has been earth-shaking. Like, what the gently caress was I doing trying to box model with polys all this time? Fuckin'...Mudbox is awesome. I've always been a little caught between the artistic and technical sides of making stuff, and this program works for both. I'm gonna stay up all night and make poo poo. E: vvvv oh, absolutely. I'll look more into it when I can afford to. I would love to do this sort of thing for a living but have no idea how to properly get into it 'as an industry'. Hbomberguy fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Oct 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
Honestly if you want to make characters you're doing a disservice to yourself to not learn ZBrush anyways. I have a couple friends that use Mudbox but they always go back and forth between it and ZBrush because of a bunch of amazing ZBrush features that MB doesn't have.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
blender sculpting, anyone???
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
How does Zbrush / Mudbox painting compare to Substance Painter? (if anyone has tried it)
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Yeah, never learn one thing over another if you can help it. Learn at least a little bit about every tool.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
I'll stick 100% to blender for modelling sculpting and painting thanks Giving money to the Zbrush/mudbox multinationals just promotes laziness from those developers/ hungry developers work harder instead give no money and own blender for free and use the fastest best 3D tool tree is: open source is always worthless EXCEPT when it comes I blender
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:I'll stick 100% to blender for modelling sculpting and painting thanks Ok, man, whatever you say.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
But seriously Blender owns. I don't get the hate
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:But seriously Blender owns. I don't get the hate nobody hates blender. it's pretty fine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
I used to hear some folks snark about Blender but it seems pretty accepted these days. The big strike against it is that you're not going to see it used by any of the bigger studios, but of course that's not important to everyone and in any case if you can model / rig / animate in one package you can pick it up in another pretty easily.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
I don't have anything against blender. I don't see the use in hyperbolic, sophomoric app-wars either. Use whatever helps you make cool stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
I'm having trouble finding a tutorial on a particular issue, wondering if anyone can help: I have my model in zbrush, and i want to reduce the polygon count around the body but maintain it in the face, so i can do retopo etc and export it at a reasonable poly count. Any ideas?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 05:26
|
|
Eastdrom posted:I'm having trouble finding a tutorial on a particular issue, wondering if anyone can help: Decimation Master?
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 06:28
|
|
|
ceebee posted:Decimation Master? Sorry i think i worded that wrong. I thought that decimation was what was used to get a low poly mesh of quads, instead of being a triangulated optimized mesh you used for retopology. My bad
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 07:58
|
|
|
mutata posted:I don't have anything against blender. I don't see the use in hyperbolic, sophomoric app-wars either. Use whatever helps you make cool stuff. drat I was hoping for one. Anyway I guess I just hope people don't see using Blender as some kind of cop-out, or think that they need to drop a bunch or pirate to get a great 3D program
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 09:23
|
|
|
Look at http://docs.pixologic.com/reference-guide/tool/polymesh/geometry/zremesher/ and check out polypaint density.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 10:22
|
|
|
Whelp, can't beat them, join them. Looks like i'm back in Canada for a bit. Might leave VFX and take an out of the way games job with an ex boss friend of mine. RE: zbrush/mudbox chat.... It wouldn't hurt to know a little of both and focus on one. I know a lot of concept guys just use zbrush and the production guys lean towards mudbox. In the end use whatever floats your boat. Big K of Justice fucked around with this message at 12:44 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 12:40
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:Anyway I guess I just hope people don't see using Blender as some kind of cop-out, You're a bit late, pretty much everyone agrees it's fine these days. problem is nearly everyone working in the industry has no reason to learn/use it. If it dropped some really unique features i'd happily jump into it and work with it, right now it just does what everything else does. (which is great, it has now caught up to the major apps) cubicle gangster fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:But seriously Blender owns. I don't get the hate If you want to work in any of the big studios, you wont get far with Blender as your main area of expertise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Just about done with that mono wheel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
 PF havent paid their taxes??
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
I guess that's one major issue with working across 3 continents. They gotta keep track of what each country's tax structure is. Maybe they didn't bankroll enough accountants. Or thought they could get clever with the tax code. Risky.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:47 |
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:
PF whose leadership tried to pass off debts as assets is having financial problems? Go figure.As for the tax code.. what taxes... everyone is getting subsidy kickbacks to finance film production in whatever isn't California. That is the only reason the work is there in the first place. I can probably think of 3 VFX firms that is actually financially stable and turns a profit. The rest, the vast majority is 2-6 months from bankruptcy at any given time. Big K of Justice fucked around with this message at 14:34 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 14:28
|
|