|
Working my way into learning animation in Blender, spent the day animating this little attack: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euX8PGhci20
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2021 06:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 19:36 |
|
|
Slothful Bong posted:Lmao I would kill for a 3090 right now. have you looked into evga step up?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2021 08:12
|
|
|
PublicOpinion posted:Working my way into learning animation in Blender, spent the day animating this little attack: Fun! I know everybody wants to start with the cool stuff like fight animations and whatnot but if you’re interested in learning animation you’ve got to start with basics though. Those boring basics of bouncing balls and walk cycles and overlap assignments. A long road...
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 04:26
|
|
|
Ccs posted:Fun! That said, with a little bit of squash and stretch from the Maintain Volume constraint, even bouncing balls can be fun to animate. https://i.imgur.com/17O7bPn.mp4
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 05:35
|
|
|
Using volume constraint defeats the point of the exercise. It's about you controlling the silhouette.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 05:39
|
|
|
Is there a way to make each polygon a unique flat diffuse/speculare color in Modo? (Or actually any software for that matter) I want to animate the vertices moving on a low poly triangulated object, with different colours on each poly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2021 13:33
|
|
|
KinkyJohn posted:Is there a way to make each polygon a unique flat diffuse/speculare color in Modo? (Or actually any software for that matter) Wings allows you to set vertex per-polygon colors, it's quite useful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2021 13:37
|
|
|
KinkyJohn posted:Is there a way to make each polygon a unique flat diffuse/speculare color in Modo? (Or actually any software for that matter) I think a quick way to do this in many 3D software packages would be this: first, UV your mesh by selecting all polygons and doing whatever the equivalent of "unitize UVs" is. This will map every polygon to the entire UV space, all separated and overlapping with each other. Now, use whatever the equivalent of "layout UVs" is in your package of choice, but crank the padding way up so they're all separated and very small. This will give every polygon a unique position on the UV map. Applying a noise texture (or any texture) should now color your polygons individually. 500 fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Jun 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2021 21:16
|
|
|
KinkyJohn posted:Is there a way to make each polygon a unique flat diffuse/speculare color in Modo? (Or actually any software for that matter) 3ds max has material IDs per poly
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2021 05:06
|
|
|
KinkyJohn posted:Is there a way to make each polygon a unique flat diffuse/speculare color in Modo? (Or actually any software for that matter) In Houdini you can probably do it a dozen different ways but the quickest that comes to mind is a Color node set to primitives and then an Attribute Randomize node.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2021 09:28
|
|
|
That reminds me I really need to make time to learn Houdini sometime.500 posted:I think a quick way to do this in many 3D software packages would be this: first, UV your mesh by selecting all polygons and doing whatever the equivalent of "unitize UVs" is. This will map every polygon to the entire UV space, all separated and overlapping with each other. Now, use whatever the equivalent of "layout UVs" is in your package of choice, but crank the padding way up so they're all separated and very small. This will give every polygon a unique position on the UV map. Applying a noise texture (or any texture) should now color your polygons individually. This seems like it'll do the trick, thanks
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2021 15:14
|
|
|
KinkyJohn posted:Is there a way to make each polygon a unique flat diffuse/speculare color in Modo? (Or actually any software for that matter) Is this what you're thinking? I fairly certain that you should also be able to set something up using the schematic to control it on the polygon level. https://learn.foundry.com/modo/902/content/help/pages/shading_lighting/shader_items/variations.html - Help page https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MP-smRI_4TU
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2021 05:24
|
|
|
more of a theoretical question than practical, are there best practices for distributing a 3d model via something like cgtrader or turbosquid? like should models be combined into as few separate meshes as possible, or divided on a per-material basis, should meshes always be triangulated, should curves always be converted to meshes, is it worth it to include materials.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 23:23
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34nxDSx_l6k Looks like weta is going to be packaging up a bunch of their Maya tools and releasing them as a subscription type thing. I am curious if any of the other big studios will make use of this. I remember a couple of us at Framestore being very jealous of the Apes breakdowns while I was there. https://weta-m.com/ While I hope they make this available cheap if not free for training, I wonder how much you can get out of this without large asset libraries or suitable infrastructure. This seems like it will include their AI facial anim tech but I wonder how many people will actually be in a position to implement it properly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 17:09
|
|
|
Skilbs posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34nxDSx_l6k Really cool (and forward thinking) business model for Weta. And those tools are awesome and very powerful but... yeah like you mention this is most likely for mid to larger studios. I can't imagine these things are very freelancer accessible (price nor learning curve).
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 17:29
|
|
|
Jenny Agutter posted:more of a theoretical question than practical, are there best practices for distributing a 3d model via something like cgtrader or turbosquid? like should models be combined into as few separate meshes as possible, or divided on a per-material basis, should meshes always be triangulated, should curves always be converted to meshes, is it worth it to include materials. I feel like a bit of this depends on what kind of asset you're making / what you expect it to be used for. Like stylized/game asset vs visualization etc. I don't think there's any standardized best practice due to those marketplaces catering to a ton of different programs. One thing you could look at if you intend to make say, furniture and etc for visualization is having a basic material in OSL / Open Shading Language, or GLTF so it has wide compatibility, otherwise I'd say just keep the assets as flexible as possible (and clearly state how they're set up in the description.) Meshes? Combined with material selection, I'd say. Makes it clean, and if people want to split them up, it's easy. (Or just include 2 variations with merged/unmerged.) Triangulated? No, Quads/native, anything that needs triangulation can do it on import, and it's better to have a clean quad topology that makes it easier for the end user to change it if necessary. Curves: Included but also converted to geo, depending on what you used them for, and to provide flexibility in case the program it's used it handles the curve differently on import/etc. This is just me going over my own preferences for how I prefer to get assets I suppose, but it's not much time added to just duplicate the mesh and make a variant, in examples of like 'split by material vs combined.' As an aside I guess I'd also suggest dipping into the Unreal (and I guess Unity) marketplaces in addition, and not just cgtrader/turbosquid, though if you do that they'll be expecting some baseline materials alongside it. (But if you've already made a model / have a workflow for making models and selling on turbosquid etc, it's not much more work to import them into unreal and slap on some simple PBR mats, and bamf, you've got a larger market to target.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 20:17
|
|
|
God drat there a lot of nice renderers supporting C4D. It's really difficult to choose, and I just had a look at Corona's gallery and now I want to use that instead of Octane.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 12:48
|
|
|
KinkyJohn posted:God drat there a lot of nice renderers supporting C4D. It's really difficult to choose, and I just had a look at Corona's gallery and now I want to use that instead of Octane. Well the good thing is they usually all have trials! I haven't used Octane yet, but my new company does so I'll have to switch regardless. But I realllllly loved Arnold's workflow. It just instantly clicked and I "got it" quicker than other renderers. It just seemed to be more intuitive. I really didn't like Redshift. Ultimately you can achieve most looks you want across all renderers - so don't be swayed by a gallery. Install the trial and see how it feels!
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 14:27
|
|
|
Weird question, but I'm having a hell of a time finding an alpha brush. I need one that looks like bone cancer. Just meshes of a bunch of small spikes. The closest I've found so far is a coral brush but it's got the internal circle part of the coral, and I just need spikes. Anyone have any ideas? Visual example here : https://www.reddit.com/r/natureismetal/comments/8puv5v/bone_cancer_skull/
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 15:54
|
|
|
Seems like it would be easiest to make your own by adding some displacement to a plane and rendering out a z-depth pass.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2021 16:57
|
|
|
Made a catbus
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 08:09
|
|
|
Amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 08:10
|
|
|
Looks great!
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 19:17
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/factsonfiIm/status/1407461135041720320 This stuff drives me mad. Why do they need to denigrate our work? We had to replace 90% of the Weta Workshop miniatures with CGI, because the quality was too low. Also, they're using pictures that are 90% CGI.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 19:58
|
|
|
Lol I've even seen breakdowns from that movie showing how MPC comped a ton of shots with insanely detailed CG models of the dust covered city.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 20:36
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:https://twitter.com/factsonfiIm/status/1407461135041720320 Andy Serkis: "It's me, I was the giant Joi. Nobody else"
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 20:45
|
|
|
Adobe has released their Substance 3D Package. Painter Designer Sampler (Alchemist) Stager (Dimension) Modeler (currently in private beta - looks to be a ZBrush type sculptor with standard and VR workflows). $40/month package for 12 months (introductory pricing) individuals. $50/month afterwards $20/month for just Painter, Sampler, Designer $80/month for Teams license https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/3d-augmented-reality.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 20:54
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:https://twitter.com/factsonfiIm/status/1407461135041720320 Did you know: In Gravity (2013), director Alfonso Cuaron wanted audiences to appreciate the humanity of the characters trapped in the void of space; thus both George Clooney and Sandra Bullock's faces were almost entirely shot on film and real, allowing the filmmaker to avoid the trap of overusing CGI for a science fiction film.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 21:00
|
|
|
It seemingly takes one bad experience to turn a director or an audience off CG for life (even though it's mostly just bad filmmaking and CG is still everywhere and they just don't realise it). The star wars prequels probably didn't help.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 22:58
|
|
|
When cgi is used as a tool, it enhances the movie and makes for a better viewing experience. When it's used as a crutch, holy poo poo the movie is gonna suck. Guess that guy didn't trust himself to not abuse the tool.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 23:19
|
|
|
EoinCannon posted:Made a catbus This is wonderful. I've not been doing much I can show recently, but I did finally start working on a tutorial that i've been talking about doing for years. It's aimed at people who currently mostly do post production in after effects - maybe they are familiar with how nodes work, but dont really realise what it is that makes them so powerful. It's a tight hour, starts off covering footage cleanup and painting things out like cranes without using any tracking, rotoscoping or hand animation, then it lightly covers using those same techniques on finished CG shots to do some matte painting type additions/fixes. I've got one more recording session left to go, but it's almost done! I have found the whole process extremely difficult, but it's been satisfying. Recording myself and attempting to speak clearly, without fidgeting, hitting a good pace, not saying 'UM' etc. It's a total pain in the rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2021 23:46
|
|
|
EoinCannon posted:It seemingly takes one bad experience to turn a director or an audience off CG for life (even though it's mostly just bad filmmaking and CG is still everywhere and they just don't realise it). Stupid_Sexy_Flander posted:When cgi is used as a tool, it enhances the movie and makes for a better viewing experience. I'm not sure if you folks are responding to my post or the original Bladerunner one, but I was being sarcastic writing that "film fact". These clickbait twitter accounts/articles are garbage and I was trying to poke fun at how they manage to drill down on one thing out of context or misrepresent the situation for their headline, like it's totally asinine to write a "film fact" that Cuaron avoided using CGI compared to something like Rogue One because none of his actors were CG. A staggering amount of Gravity is CGI, like 90% or so. I think the only things that weren't were the actors' faces, the final scene where Bullock lands in Lake Powell, maybe a couple other things like flashbacks. I read an article about the production back when it was in theaters that said if they had had only one core to use for rendering, they would have had to start the render back when the pyramids were being built. I bet if they could have produced sufficiently realistic animation of 3D Bullock/Clooney heads to carry an entire film, it would have been easier than the work they put into filming the actors in cages and matching the lighting and movement to the CG. Anyway I just don't want anyone actually believing my sarcastic made-up "film fact" because I'm bad at writing posts. cubicle gangster posted:I've not been doing much I can show recently, but I did finally start working on a tutorial that i've been talking about doing for years. Are you selling it or putting it up for free?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2021 00:41
|
|
|
Listerine posted:Are you selling it or putting it up for free? It'll be free. It's mainly because most studios in arch vis that do an aerial or a camera tracked shot (including people at dbox), you can see hand animated masks sliding about all over the place and paintouts shimmering, it drives me loving mad. nobody should be keyframing masks frame by frame for things that dont move! Figure it'll probably be valuable for a lot of other people too. Quite likley people who work in comp day in day out using nuke are going to think the way i went about it was kind of stupid, but hopefully some will find it useful. e: actually, thats a great point - anyone super familiar with nuke want to skim through it? It's in fusion but from my understanding this is all basic tools. i could still add an addendum of alternate approaches. cubicle gangster fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Jun 24, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2021 01:08
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:Adobe has released their Substance 3D Package. I loving hate the monthly subscription BS. Also they have been recently yanking my school around. Regardless, do you know how long the trial is? A month? A week?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 17:55
|
|
|
Just as a note, Painter and Designer perpetual licenses are still available on Steam (and they say they will continue to be available for the foreseeable future). Edit: https://store.steampowered.com/app/1454900/Substance_3D_Painter_2021/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/1454910/Substance_3D_Designer_2021/ mutata fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Jun 25, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 18:02
|
|
|
Question from the world of 3D printing: Assuming an object is manifold, why is there no easy option in any of the 3D programs to make it solid inside? I run into this issue at least once a month where an artist releases a file that contains a cavity inside the model, which means that when you print it you get a pocket of uncured resin inside your model. This eats through the cured areas eventually and makes a gooey mess while ruining the model. This seems like it should be something easy to do but I can't find any program that does it. I did see a video where someone made a hollowed model back into a solid shape in zbrush, but that seemed to rely on having access to the original zbrush file whereas all I have is an STL.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2021 18:42
|
|
|
If the interior volume is continuous, can't you just delete it? The interior hollow volume should be a surface with the normals flipped and inside another volume. Ive worked with rhino models that had cavities handled like that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2021 18:49
|
|
|
cubicle gangster posted:If the interior volume is continuous, can't you just delete it? The interior hollow volume should be a surface with the normals flipped and inside another volume. Ive worked with rhino models that had cavities handled like that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2021 19:03
|
|
|
I thought it was down to the actual printer software and literally a case of ticking a box.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 19:36 |
|
|
Bape Culture posted:I thought it was down to the actual printer software and literally a case of ticking a box. There's plenty of functionality offered for going from solid to hollow, but not the other way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2021 19:14
|
|