|
I'm referencing the part where i've drawn the green lines.
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:15 |
|
|
Ah okay that depends on the topology and the direction of the normals. You have to draw your polygons with the shadow shapes in mind. Basically, normally in modeling for CG you're concerned with accuracy of form and deformation. So you draw your edges where they will deform nicely and correspond to what the form actually is. With toon shaded topology, you need to specifically draw edges around what you want the final shadow shape to look like. Then make all the normals inside that shadow shape face away from the faces around it. That way it will look like a nice shadow shape when the rest of the face is lit, and a nice light shape when the rest of the face is in shadow. And if you want to get really advanced you can try following this tutorial. Unfortunately I don't know how to use a lot of this info inside of Maya in terms of what nodes to put where and what to connect to have this much control. https://www.dropbox.com/s/65cwf6kjuezhwdl/GuilltyGearXrd_shader.pdf?dl=0 https://yadoob.tumblr.com/post/119357357873/im-done-with-the-guiltygear-shader-tutorial Edit: Found even more. Here's the topology of the Guilty Gear characters and the direction to put the normals on the face to get that nice triangular light on the cheek: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BdzaK2z43s Ccs fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Nov 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
Taffer posted:Which is why it's great. Not a joke - it's very unique (what 3d software isn't, though?), and can take some time getting used to, but after a little bit you realize how quickly it allows you to get things done and how flexible it is. I've been using it for years and I'm still regularly fighting against it and getting annoyed by bad UI design choices but I'm too deep into Stockholm syndrome to use anything else. I've also got a friend who swears it's great but actually also spends time fighting it all the time but somehow just doesn't notice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
Well it IS great insofar as it's free. I'm rooting for it (and other standard apps) if only to give the Autodesk monopoly some competition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
I’ve gotten used to it. The dumb things are still there though. Zeroing out to delete resources and whatever the hell the 3d cursor is for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
Elukka posted:I've been using it for years and I'm still regularly fighting against it and getting annoyed by bad UI design choices but I'm too deep into Stockholm syndrome to use anything else. I've also got a friend who swears it's great but actually also spends time fighting it all the time but somehow just doesn't notice. Love to hear more about stuff you're fighting, PM if you don't think it's appropriate for thread. Synthbuttrange posted:I’ve gotten used to it. The dumb things are still there though. Zeroing out to delete resources and whatever the hell the 3d cursor is for. Turn on Cursor Depth in user prefs to drop it anywhere on a model with a left click. Shift S opens worlds of usage with it. Ctrl Alt Shift C and Shift C to manage origin stuff with it as a useful helper. Not sure exactly what you mean with the zeroing out unless you're talking about data-block usage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
The thing where you've got a whole bunch of extra stuff linked, textures, materials etc and the only way to get rid of them is to 'mark them as zero' so they arent saved. Seems like reinventing the trash bin or delete key
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
Synthbuttrange posted:The thing where you've got a whole bunch of extra stuff linked, textures, materials etc and the only way to get rid of them is to 'mark them as zero' so they arent saved. Seems like reinventing the trash bin or delete key It's built into the very fabric of Blender going way back to like 1995 or at least as far back as 1998. I just checked and they're referred to in my OG Blender 1.5 manual I got for helping to get it open sourced. I wonder if there's scans or a PDF of this thing because it's a serious child of the 90s.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
Synthbuttrange posted:I’ve gotten used to it. The dumb things are still there though. Zeroing out to delete resources and whatever the hell the 3d cursor is for. The fact that default left click is for the 3D cursor is insane. I never use that thing, but maybe I just don't get why it's an essential tool I should be using constantly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 08:51
|
|
|
The 3d cursor is great for pivoting and rotating stuff around it. Also left click not selecting is great because it means you won't mis-click select random stuff. rmb is select, lmb is whatever you're doing be it sculpting or grabbing gizmos to move stuff along axis and so on. Count me as a dude who thinks blender ui is (mostly) neato. Count me also as a dude who is baffled you have to mouse click buttons on screen in Maya and people are fine with this??
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 11:08
|
|
|
I see allot of people complain about the ui but never really explain why, other than the mouse clicks and the 3d cursor, which I really like. Though for anyone know how to change the gizmo to be like the 3ds one? I find it a ton easier for translating stuff since I've had to start using it for work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 11:13
|
|
|
Keket posted:Though for anyone know how to change the gizmo to be like the 3ds one? I find it a ton easier for translating stuff since I've had to start using it for work. Not familar with the 3ds Max gizmo but if you mean have it show rotation and scale as well in Blender then shift click these:  I think that's the only thing you can do to the gizmo(other than turning it off with Ctrl Space). I'm also down with the right click selection for the same reason: Avoiding misclicks of the UI causing a deselect. At least Blender is sane and lets you undo selection changes, something a lot of software doesn't do. Right click and drag an object in Blender is totally evil though and I turn that poo poo off. Obsurveyor fucked around with this message at 14:00 on Nov 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 13:57
|
|
|
Synthbuttrange posted:The thing where you've got a whole bunch of extra stuff linked, textures, materials etc and the only way to get rid of them is to 'mark them as zero' so they arent saved. Seems like reinventing the trash bin or delete key We have a “Purge Orphan Data” addon here that gets rid of all that stuff in one (or two or three...) clicks. I’ll ask if I can post it here, but since we released our internal Blender build to the public, it may be in there and free to share already. Now I just need to find where the build is, so y’all can try it! Here’s the talk Lukas Stockner did about developing our Blender build/pipeline - gives a little insight into how complicated it’s been to nail all the VFX and animation requirements: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_Gjx-rrIG0
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
The 3d cursor is an awesome tool, but I will agree that it's a bit silly to put it on literally the most commonly used button (LMB), because you don't use it that frequently. But I'm also not totally sure what would be better on LMB, because select on RMB is actually great. Whenever I use another package that has LMB select I can't believe how clunky and annoying it is, it leads to so many misclicks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Obsurveyor posted:Not familar with the 3ds Max gizmo but if you mean have it show rotation and scale as well in Blender then shift click these: Nah, so basically you can select two axis's really quickly when moving stuff around, it's also useful for snapping stuff.  I know we have the ctrl+x/y/z and stuff, but I've been finding this a bit quicker for quickly snapping stuff around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
 I made a grumpy rock.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 10:16
|
|
|
I'm making a bowl in Blender. Specifically the bowl in this picture: Not the greatest reference photo, so I'm applying some artistic license. Here's what I have so far:     I'm having trouble with those little bumps at the front. I would like for them to just rise from the surface of the bowl without warping the overall structure, but the subdivision surface modifier is causing this to happen:  The mesh bulges out below the bumps, creating these unsightly ridges, and there's a fair amount of pinching around them. I've tried adding edge loops, but if there's a way to do it that way without unnecessarily sharpening other parts of the mesh I haven't figured it out. Does anyone have tips for how to cleanly make rising structures like this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
Personally I'd make those as new objects that intersect your bowl. Getting a curved object like that to have enough loops for the bumps to read and not crease is going to make it pointlessly heavy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
cubicle gangster posted:Personally I'd make those as new objects that intersect your bowl. Can I do that and still make it look like one object? They're supposed to be shaped into the surface of the bowl, not separate pieces attached to it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
Terrorforge posted:
This is a very common issue with people that are just starting to do subdivision modeling. Ultimately, it comes down a lack of understanding as to what a meshsmooth / subdivision actually does. The short answer is that it divides and averages across points, so if you have a curved surface, like a cylinder, to you need equidistant points to have a smooth and consistent surface. If you have points closer to each other along that curve, you get a harder edge. To solve your problem you need two things: 1) More geometry 2) Geometry that is evenly distributed In your case it would be much quicker to re-model the bowl with double the amount of edges to make the cylindrical shape, and double the edges to make the profile curves that are evenly spaced. Alternatively you can just keep what you have and make the bumps separate objects, but doing it all over again would be a better learning experience and help you to understand how to subd model properly. Edit: phone posting but I can post an example in a couple hours that illustrates how to solve your problem correctly. Should give you time to attempt it, which I strongly recommend.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
Gearman posted:This is a very common issue with people that are just starting to do subdivision modeling. Ultimately, it comes down a lack of understanding as to what a meshsmooth / subdivision actually does. The short answer is that it divides and averages across points, so if you have a curved surface, like a cylinder, to you need equidistant points to have a smooth and consistent surface. If you have points closer to each other along that curve, you get a harder edge. Something like this? Certainly has less of that issue.  I do have a basic understanding of what subdiv is and does, but I wasn't sure if adding geometry like this would be considered good form. Like cubicle gangster, I was concerned about making the model unnecessarily heavy. I also wasn't sure how to make that many edge loops curve appropriately, but then I remembered proportional editing mode and it was a breeze.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
I don't know if you have to remodel the bowl. Usually putting more edges at the base of the button (both on the inside and outside of the base edge) will help enough. If you're thinking of the edges as guides for the smoothing curve, then "less edges" = loose interpretation = smooth surface. But that means areas that that go from "needing detail" (aka the buttons) to "not needing detail" (aka the smooth overall surface of the bowl), will need more detail in that transition space (aka where the button meets the bowl) to insure a proper border between the detail levels. Here is a terrible quick image I made to show what I mean.  That's a cross section of where the button meets the bowl. The black is your edges, red your vertices and green your interpreted smooth edge. At the base of the button I've added an edge on the inside of the base and the outside of the base. But nowhere else. This preserves the smooth detail on the main body of the button and main body of the bowl... but then gets stricter where the button *meets* the bowl so that it has detail there. oh god does that make sense?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
Terrorforge posted:Something like this? Certainly has less of that issue. Except yeah you don't need to make the model *overall* that dense. If you look at the post right above this one you'll see where I talk about only putting detail in where necessary. For this bowl it's just where the button meets the bowl. So the smooth service interpretation there is "strict" and you get a nice tight curve where the button meets the bowl.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
Terrorforge posted:Something like this? Certainly has less of that issue. I think Cubicle gangster means you should see those bolts and the bowl as just that, two separate objects that shouldn't be connected by the same mesh but can be connected to give the correct impression, Just like in real life.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
Odddzy posted:I think Cubicle gangster means you should see those bolts and the bowl as just that, two separate objects that shouldn't be connected by the same mesh but can be connected to give the correct impression, Just like in real life. This is, of course, the easiest method, but doing it as a single mesh is a good exercise in learning how to be efficient and smart with your detail placement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:This is, of course, the easiest method, but doing it as a single mesh is a good exercise in learning how to be efficient and smart with your detail placement. I understand how and can get those knobs with higher detail but I'd love to see more about how to transition from the higher detail area to low, if you get time to write that post you mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:I don't know if you have to remodel the bowl. Usually putting more edges at the base of the button (both on the inside and outside of the base edge) will help enough. The theory does, but I'm not sure what's happening in that second diagram or how to apply it to my model. I tried adding geometry just around the button using some stuff I learned from that Grant Warwick tutorial, but I always end up either with sharp edges where I don't want them or a bunch of ngons. Odddzy posted:I think Cubicle gangster means you should see those bolts and the bowl as just that, two separate objects that shouldn't be connected by the same mesh but can be connected to give the correct impression, Just like in real life. So how would I do that and still keep a smooth transition? Like I said, I want them to look like part of the bowl's surface with no obvious seams, and I'm not sure how to do that if I have them as separate objects.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Terrorforge posted:The theory does, but I'm not sure what's happening in that second diagram or how to apply it to my model. I tried adding geometry just around the button using some stuff I learned from that Grant Warwick tutorial, but I always end up either with sharp edges where I don't want them or a bunch of ngons. You'll most likely need to do what I'm talking about then (to keep them seamless). But I've never used Blender so I'm not sure how to do it in there! In Maya there's an "insert edge loop" command that makes it simple. It'd automatically create a new edge loop where you click. It's not the same shape, but check out the gif at the top of this knowledgebase article: https://knowledge.autodesk.com/supp...06F732-htm.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Terrorforge posted:Something like this? Certainly has less of that issue. Something like that is perfectly fine, and looks a lot better than your first version. It's also a lot better if you want to bring it in to Zbrush.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
Obsurveyor posted:I understand how and can get those knobs with higher detail but I'd love to see more about how to transition from the higher detail area to low, if you get time to write that post you mentioned. Not sure about specifically in blender, but transitioning from X number of loops to Y number of loops is pretty universal. Easiest way when you're creating a radially symmetrical detail like that bump is with an inset and some control edges. Exactly what Bono was describing, but maybe easier to see it in 3d, so here's a quick thing:   There was a great visual matrix of loop reduction (3->2, 4->3, 4->2, etc.) out there that I can't find at the moment. Anyone have that saved somewhere? I think it was on polycount. Also, the old polycount How You Model Dem Shapes? thread is a great resource for stuff like this. It's changed names a few times, but it's still on there somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
For a "lazy" solution, the experimental build of blender has a new bevel node that could visually blend the bowl and bumps while they are seperate meshes. https://twitter.com/Linko_3D/status/929737722901778432
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
westborn posted:For a "lazy" solution, the experimental build of blender has a new bevel node that could visually blend the bowl and bumps while they are seperate meshes.  Well this is amazing
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
Looks like Mental Ray with the bevel edges material.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
or redshift/vray with round corners shader
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 07:17
|
|
|
Huh, it can bake out to normals too. nice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 07:52
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:You'll most likely need to do what I'm talking about then (to keep them seamless). Blender has that command, I've just been struggling to see how to use it. Handiklap posted:Not sure about specifically in blender, but transitioning from X number of loops to Y number of loops is pretty universal. Easiest way when you're creating a radially symmetrical detail like that bump is with an inset and some control edges. Exactly what Bono was describing, but maybe easier to see it in 3d, so here's a quick thing: But now I'm struggling less. This is exactly what I needed, thanks! Well I guess "exactly" would have been a careful step-by-step tutorial in the exact software I use, but now that I've seen what it looks like it shouldn't be too hard to replicate. I also tracked down that Poly count thread, including a compilation post, and I can tell it's going to be very helpful so thanks for that, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
Terrorforge posted:Blender has that command, I've just been struggling to see how to use it. Ctrl-R only works on quad loops, so if you have a triangle or n-gon that interrupts the loop, it won't find one or will stop early. Also, put the mouse cursor next to an edge perpendicular to the loop you want to cut, to choose which direction to go.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
Terrorforge posted:Blender has that command, I've just been struggling to see how to use it. Yup - what Handiklap posted is exactly what I was talking about. Sorry my cross-section diagram didn't help! And I ended up getting torn away from my computer most of yesterday or else I would have posted some screen grabs. Womp womp.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
Terrorforge posted:Well I guess "exactly" would have been a careful step-by-step tutorial in the exact software I use Select the 4 base faces, make an inset (i) to the size of your choise, select only the outside edges of the 4 new smaller center quads and do a "to sphere" transform (shift+alt+s and mouse movement for amount). The rest should just be some extruding (e) and resizing (s).
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:15 |
|
|
Obsurveyor posted:Ctrl-R only works on quad loops, so if you have a triangle or n-gon that interrupts the loop, it won't find one or will stop early. Also, put the mouse cursor next to an edge perpendicular to the loop you want to cut, to choose which direction to go. Oh I understand how to use it in the mechanical sense of how to put in edge loops and where they're physically allowed to go, I'm just trying to wrap my head around the proper techniques. ... although I actually didn't know that mousing over a perpendicular edge was how you got the loop where you wanted it, so I guess I'm even greener than I thought. That's gonna make my workflow about 10% less annoying, so thanks for that. westborn posted:Select the 4 base faces, make an inset (i) to the size of your choise, select only the outside edges of the 4 new smaller center quads and do a "to sphere" transform (shift+alt+s and mouse movement for amount). The rest should just be some extruding (e) and resizing (s). Sweet, thanks. I was mucking about with the Knife Tool, but I knew there had to be a better way. Totally forgot you can inset over multiple faces.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2017 16:43
|
|