|
Not plugins, scripts. He was trying to do it with free, simple modeling scripts like floorgen, I think the most he spent on one was $25. he'd send the email round with an image he'd made with it, saying if you want this doing send me your file and i'll take care of it - when it's a simple free 15min script anyone can use. Then you'd try to give him real jobs to do and he'd be like 'oh man, too much on my plate, look at this list sorry!'
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 17:05 |
|
|
*shows you a stained restaurant menu*
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
FINALLY got to order Phoenix FD + VRay. Oh god I feel like a real boy now! edit: for the record I'm a one man band in a 25 person shop so I rarely get new things to play with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
How much of a dumb babby thread is this? Because I'm still in the process of learning Maya and am bumping up against a problem I don't understand: I made a custom attribute that's set to keyable, but it doesn't want to key, neither when I press S or mess around in autokey. In channel box, the attribute appears pale yellow instead of red (which I guess means it's connected to something that might be preventing it from keying by itself?)
snucks fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Nov 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
cubicle gangster posted:yeah i'd loose the will to live. I need new challenges constantly. It's the intersection of lazy and realizing the best way to keep a job is make oneself hired on is to be the only person that knows how to get something essential done. You find these people in all types of workplaces. My favorite variant is the person that will pretend to have more power than they do, pretend to speak for management, and start telling you things like "x manager wants all of these jobs to come through me first" in the hopes that you won't actually question it and go to management yourself. Then they get to take partial credit for your work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
Yeah, I guess I should stop complaining about the possibility I'll lose a job because of a new technology. I just have to keep taking classes and doing research if I want to continue to be employable. Though that can be a bit exhausting, but I guess it's the nature of the tech industry and related fields. snucks: Yeah, yellow means it's already connected to something. If you right click you can choose "break connection" or graph it in the node editor to figure out exactly what it's connected to. A lot of the time you'll want to put a group on top the thing that's actually being keyed, so you can freely animate the thing without any of its attributed being locked.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
snucks posted:How much of a dumb babby thread is this? Because I'm still in the process of learning Maya and am bumping up against a problem I don't understand: I made a custom attribute that's set to keyable, but it doesn't want to key, neither when I press S or mess around in autokey. In channel box, the attribute appears pale yellow instead of red (which I guess means it's connected to something that might be preventing it from keying by itself?) Pale yellow means it's driven by expressions. Right click on it and break connections and then right click again and set key. Autokey should work after that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:Quick question about AgiSoft's PhotoScan that you might help me with. Gearman is right. Adjust the bounding box and that will fix your cropping issue. I recommend processing those feathers at a low alignment. Sometimes things will resolve at lower alignments and resolutions verses the higher ones. You can always combine low res and high res scans later. Also - try playing with the gradual selection. This will get rid of points that have the highest probability of error (reprojection error). Also - it can get rid of a lot of noise in the scan (reconstruction error).
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 10:15
|
|
|
sigma 6 posted:Gearman is right. Adjust the bounding box and that will fix your cropping issue. Thanks for the tips. I readjusted the bounding box and did another 8 hour calculation (ugh) and it was fine after that. The feather issue was still there. Also they aren't real feathers. It's just a single silk piece with a feather coloring printed on. But no feather like characteristics like tiny spindly hairs or anything. It's detachable so I'm probably just going to scan it by itself. But as to the bounding box issue. Any reason WHY it's doing that? I don't want to have to recalculate a dense mesh every time. I don't see any logical reason why, if the bounding box is correct on the sparse mesh, it's automatically resizing it to be too small on the dense mesh. Odd.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
After you do the photo alignment, double check the bounding box for the sparse cloud, and adjust it as needed. It shouldn't move at all when you build the dense cloud, and you shouldn't have to build the dense cloud twice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
Gearman posted:After you do the photo alignment, double check the bounding box for the sparse cloud, and adjust it as needed. It shouldn't move at all when you build the dense cloud, and you shouldn't have to build the dense cloud twice. Yeah it did it again when I redid the entire process again (just to test it). Weird. Doesn't do it the same amount each time... the second time I tested it, it cut off the entire head (but the sparse cloud and it's bounding box still showed it enclosing the entire head). Fuckin' strange. I'm gonna test it on a different simpler object.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Had to take a short brake from that monowheel. Here is some progress on a head from a scan. I still have a lot of secondary and tertiary detail to sculpt in, but it is coming along. Weird sculpting in detail when so much of the texture is already done.   C n C welcome!
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
Pretty nice, I don't know much about the scanning side of things now but others can wight in on that. Some parts of the texture are pretty blurry and I would redo the eye shader and add some short hair in some places.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Thanks. I am splitting my time with polypainting / fixing the texture vs. adding secondary and tertiary detail. Probably should stick to strictly sculpting first but having the texture already there helps a lot in showing me where wrinkles and folds are etc. I suppose I could use VERY short fiber mesh for the stubble. The eye material is far from what I want but ultimately I will be using Maya to render, not Zbrush. sigma 6 fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Nov 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
Currently I'm working with some pre-existing character meshes I got off the internet, both seemingly doing their best to make it difficult for me to do anything with them. Mesh #1: Completely lacks a T-pose, legs are spread out as if the character is sitting on the ground so posing it with a dress was stupidly difficult until I figured out how to apply the pose as the new rest pose. Mesh #2: Completely lacks a "body" it has head, legs, and arms, but nothing else except for the clothes. #1 has a dress and #2 has long flowing dress that has oh my god *layers* to it, glancing so far at cloth simulation tutorials (I'm working with blender because I'm poor) I end up very confused and not sure if what they did "works" for my specific situation. My current solution is to try to rig the dress to bones and manipulate it manually but this has presented a problem; where the dress closes at the waist, those vertices also deform and removing the weights there just shifts the problem further south (so the mesh is still visually appearing to deform *through* the body of the best). So either: a) Can anyone suggest a comprehensive and preferably easy to understand step by step tutorial on how to use cloth simulation with an eye towards clothes/robes/dresses. b) Or can anyone enable me continued habit of Not-Learning-Cloth/Soft-Body-Simulations-Yet-Until-*Later* by knowing is there any way to get it so that when the vertices in a object deform, they deform towards a constant point but no further?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
Just pirate Maya and Marvelous Designer. If you're poor who gives a poo poo, I started doing art when I was 14 and there was no way in hell I was going to drop a couple grand on some loving software to learn on it.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
ceebee posted:Just pirate Maya and Marvelous Designer. If you're poor who gives a poo poo, I started doing art when I was 14 and there was no way in hell I was going to drop a couple grand on some loving software to learn on it. Yeah but at this point I've sunk around 100 hours into it and seems to have a lot of youtube tutorials so I'd be loathed to give up on it without a strong reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
The principles are the same, you're not starting over. No need to make it way harder than it needs to be. A strong reason is using tools that are capable of doing the job you're trying to do as easily as possible. Plus you've got the added benifit of being employable because there are so few places hiring blender only portfolios. cubicle gangster fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Nov 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Yeah but at this point I've sunk around 100 hours into it and seems to have a lot of youtube tutorials so I'd be loathed to give up on it without a strong reason. If you got any aspirations to do this for a living, you should drop blender and use a usable (for production) software instead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
The only thing Blender used to be better at compared to Maya and Max were it's UVing algorithms. But not so much anymore. Definitely learn one of the bigger programs. I have friends that use Blender for certain things outside of work but for the most part they use the programs that most studios utilize (Maya, Max, Modo) because it's what keeps them employable.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
Does anyone know how to export tracking data from Mocha to Fusion? All the links I find on the net are dead and pointing to the Black Magic website which has nothing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
You know, I keep trying new baking programs, trying things out here and there to suss out the nuances of each. But like clockwork, I find a problem, or some sort of shortcoming, and back Xnormal I go. It's such a patient mistress. Oh, I'll go away for days at a time, thinking I've found a newer, better solution, one that has an interface that doesn't make me puke. But I always come back. I always do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
ceebee posted:Just pirate Maya and Marvelous Designer. If you're poor who gives a poo poo, I started doing art when I was 14 and there was no way in hell I was going to drop a couple grand on some loving software to learn on it. Just a reminder that if anyone has any kind of student email address (*.edu) you can get the latest versions of most Autodesk products (Max, Maya, Mudbox) for free. Seconding the nomination for marvelous designer as well. It's truly fantastic, and I expect it to be an industry standard in a few years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
keyframe posted:Does anyone know how to export tracking data from Mocha to Fusion? All the links I find on the net are dead and pointing to the Black Magic website which has nothing. The only text on it I could find was "Export tracks from Mocha using its "Export Tracking Data" button and choose Fusion" That's how it's done in syntheyes too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
Hazed_blue posted:You know, I keep trying new baking programs, trying things out here and there to suss out the nuances of each. But like clockwork, I find a problem, or some sort of shortcoming, and back Xnormal I go. It's such a patient mistress. Oh, I'll go away for days at a time, thinking I've found a newer, better solution, one that has an interface that doesn't make me puke. But I always come back. I always do. Substance designer man.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
I've found Xnormal to be more accurate than Substance. Also, as of a couple months ago, Substance still didn't have multiple tangent basis, but they may have added support for it by now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Odddzy posted:Substance designer man. I really love their baking tools, but there are some aspects involved in their processes that I can't get around at this point in time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Hazed_blue posted:Substance Designer was what spawned this post actually. If you've got questions I can try and help, the bass I've posted a few pages back was done entirely in it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Wow I havent looked at cgtalk work forums in a long time, but it's super depressing and dead. Just post after post after post with only 2-3 views, 0 responses. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Odddzy posted:If you've got questions I can try and help, the bass I've posted a few pages back was done entirely in it. -Normal map gets really stair-stepped when multiple surfaces are rendered. Like if I have a bunch of wires all being cast onto a single plane, the edges of those objects render out with pretty bad aliasing, and it only happens when objects happen to lay on top of one another. I have no idea why it would behave like that, but it does. Filter settings have no effect on this. -There are no edge padding settings for their vcol or normal map bakes. This creates a big problem for bakes that need to be done in separate passes, as their "padding" algorithm is obnoxiously aggressive with its fade. This means that the results don't allow you to quickly lasso the objects you've baked out of the other useless space since they gradate out to the edges of the texture. This one's a deal breaker for me. -XNormal still seems to have a more accurate cage with less fussing. -When making a direct comparison between identical normal map bakes, XNormal still seems to get more favorable results with less gacks. Designer's baking tools have gotten loads better, but there are still things that need to be improved before I can switch over full time, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 09:59
|
|
|
Gearman posted:I've found Xnormal to be more accurate than Substance. Also, as of a couple months ago, Substance still didn't have multiple tangent basis, but they may have added support for it by now. I also love xnormal. Helps that it is free too!
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 11:27
|
|
|
SynthOrange posted:Wow I havent looked at cgtalk work forums in a long time, but it's super depressing and dead. Just post after post after post with only 2-3 views, 0 responses. check out how fast it moves too. every 24 hours there's 4-5 pages of work posted. pretty much every piece of it poo poo. In threads about how bad work gets editors selections and good work gets left behind, it was offered as an explanation that the editors selections are done by 1 person on a 13" screen as quickly as possible and they don't get chance to look closely at it. They're not even publishing books any more, I think they're slowly becoming as hands off as possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Here's the first exterior archviz scene i've tried doing for a portfolio piece in a long while. Shaders aren't final everywhere (road only has a placeholder right now for example) and the main building is going to get more attention (glass too bumpy, etc), nor are the render settings final. I'm going to plug an HDRI for lighting and add some more stuff in the building. I'm really happy with how the trees are coming out but I haven't ever used such big meshes in the past and kinda need some opinions on if the piece is going in a good place or not. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
Composition looks pretty good - i'd just move that tree which overlaps a section of the building. You've got your work cut out for doing that glass - look into pasting photographic skies into it in photoshop
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
cubicle gangster posted:Composition looks pretty good - i'd just move that tree which overlaps a section of the building. Cool man, Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Question about arch viz: How many renderings and flythroughs/promo videos get created for every building that gets built? Is it like animation, where there's a ton of concept art that gets slowly whittled down to a few main pitch ideas? How many rounds of pitching/approvals are usually involved?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
shitloads. The earlier in the process, the less time/money available. Most of it is done in house by architects or planners though, the early stage 3d work is super bad and just used to explain the concept to their client - only 2/3 stages go out to external companies. The initial pitch to investors (outside of whoever hired the architect) and final marketing/sales are the big ones that are usually external. initial pitches usually end up with tight deadlines for a presentation with design changes mid way though, they're not fun. We only really work in the final stage now - the design is finished, there's more money being spent, more time available etc. e: if you're talking about just the final stage we go from a ton of concepts down to a couple strong ones to pitch, do those, then they ask for new images of different spaces which each have some loose concepts. each image we do a minimum of 3 solid, good options for a client (not including all the poo poo we did in house they don't see) cubicle gangster fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
Interesting. Did you train as an architect or as more of a VFX/CG artist?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
I was sitting here thinking I really, really liked your render and then realized a large part of it is that I've been living in the desert so long that cloudy days are to me what blue skies are to everyone else. I get totally excited for them and think they're great.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 17:05 |
|
|
I honestly thought it was real until I realized the tree didn't look right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 01:06
|
|