|
tango alpha delta posted:Oh, forgot obligatory Mudbox sculpt: Eyelids look like old man mouths... Cannot unsee...
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2012 05:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 05:04 |
|
|
He could basically be a Corinthian, I kinda like it for that reason although I assume you aren't going for a horror character. It's pretty awesome so far, although it still seems a little too symmetrical in the overall facial shape, and the chin has very little detail compared to the forehead - I assume it's just a work in progress, though. Don't forget to separate the ears from the rest of the head, too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2012 05:10
|
|
|
That reminds me, y'alls haven't really modeled until you've box-modeled a human ear.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2012 05:56
|
|
|
tango alpha delta posted:I bought my copy from http://www.studica.com/ Yeah the site looks like rear end. Oh, hey look, the Autodesk 2013 Suite is out. Cool. What the hell? Only $250.00? Oh well. This is also the Canadian site, but there is an American one. I'm not sure about other countries though. Bloody hell, £250 for software that would cost £6K?! Time to take a trip to the inheritance vault methinks. What's the upgrade path for these things anyway? ConanThe3rd fucked around with this message at 07:14 on Jun 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2012 06:30
|
|
|
You can pick up Adobe Creative Suite for $440 as well. I checked the licensing on adobe and it can be used commercially. quote:Can I use Student and Teacher Edition products commercially? http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/policy-pricing/education-faq.html#main_do_you_retain I have the free download of Maya 2013, but I may pick up the perpetual license and upgrade if I end up doing commercial work or need to buy it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2012 07:23
|
|
|
Almost done. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2012 08:52
|
|
|
chimheil posted:You can pick up Adobe Creative Suite for $440 as well. I checked the licensing on adobe and it can be used commercially. When you register your Adobe Creative Suite license, Adobe gives you a free month of lynda.com access, which is pretty cool. When I purchased the CS5 Master Collection last year for $750.00, I used lynda.com to cut my teeth on Premiere Pro and Aftereffects. Which, of course, dovetails quite nicely into portfolio creation. tango alpha delta fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Jun 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2012 17:20
|
|
|
I made another thing 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2012 22:28
|
|
|
Quick Maya question. I have a semi complex scene involving 30 simple rigged characters (all the same rig) that I did to block out a scene for something we're filming tomorrow. I'm trying to do an animatic, but even though I can navigate the viewport fine (the scene isn't THAT complex), the timeline scrub and playback are loving impossibly slow. Like...can't use it at all and I can't sit there and try to playblast every time I want to see something. Is there a way to fix that problem, or to "super simplify" the scene? I have everything posed as I need it so if it's the actual rig that is throwing my machine for a loop...I just want to distill down to a simple geometry scene so I can animate the animatic quicker.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 03:23
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:Quick Maya question. Have you gone into the animation preferences (the window-shaped button with the little red running man next to the Auto Keyframe button on the timeline on the right) and changed the Playback Speed? You can set it to play every frame which is what chugs when there's a heavy scene, or set it to play at a certain fps. It will try to skip frames and other tricks to play things more smoothly. Your scene might just be too complex even for that, but it's worth a look.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 03:45
|
|
|
mutata posted:Have you gone into the animation preferences (the window-shaped button with the little red running man next to the Auto Keyframe button on the timeline on the right) and changed the Playback Speed? You can set it to play every frame which is what chugs when there's a heavy scene, or set it to play at a certain fps. It will try to skip frames and other tricks to play things more smoothly. Yeah did that...didn't do anything. Even at play realtime, it essentially doesn't play anything since it can't seem to calculate fast enough. I swear it didn't do this a week ago with the same amount of geometry...I feel like something got accidentally added that is killing the system. Just panning around geometry in the viewport is smooth as butter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 03:53
|
|
|
Does anyone know when Dominance War starts this year? Their site ( https://www.dominancewar.com ) still says 2010 on it!
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 09:58
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:Yeah did that...didn't do anything. Even at play realtime, it essentially doesn't play anything since it can't seem to calculate fast enough. Does maya have nitrous viewports? switch it off, max has this problem too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 10:24
|
|
|
concerned mom posted:Does anyone know when Dominance War starts this year? Their site ( https://www.dominancewar.com ) still says 2010 on it! If it's anything like past Dom Wars, it'll start tomorrow, no next week, no in 10 days, no in a month, no the rules have changed, no wait there's drama and Polycount is pulling out, no they're back in, no wait...
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 14:05
|
|
|
Ah yeah I forgot about all that! Do you know when the Polycount equivalent starts? I know they do regular challenges but do they do like a big one? Edit: VVV That's what I'm doing now  VVV
concerned mom fucked around with this message at 14:39 on Jun 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 14:26
|
|
|
They did last year in response to pulling out of DomWar, I don't know if they intended it to be a regular thing. DomWar is too bombastic and EPIC for my tastes(plus the delays last year were beyond annoying) so I hope polycount continues to run an alternate competition. Maybe I'll even finish my entry this year...!
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 14:29
|
|
|
Is there any kind of AfterFX plugin or something in Maya that can procedurally generate a bunch of inter-connected lines and dots? Not just a bunch of vertices and edges connected, but something like the Soda Constructor thingies: I've seen a few commercials use stuff in this style and wish I could use something like it, ideally in actual 3D rather than just a 2D overlay.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 15:32
|
|
|
SpecialAgentCooper posted:Is there any kind of AfterFX plugin or something in Maya that can procedurally generate a bunch of inter-connected lines and dots? Not just a bunch of vertices and edges connected, but something like the Soda Constructor thingies: AE Plugin Plexus. Or Form. Neither the simplest thing to learn, but they can do what you want.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 15:38
|
|
|
Wow that was a much more perfect answer than I expected. Thanks so much! edit: I assume this is pretty much an After Effects solution? Nothing quite like this in Maya or maybe Cinema4D? SpecialAgentCooper fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Jun 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 15:55
|
|
|
SpecialAgentCooper posted:Wow that was a much more perfect answer than I expected. Thanks so much! I can't say for Maya (though I assume the technique is similar), but in C4D this is easily attainable with either the built-in Tracer object or the UberTracer plugin. If you're using particles, you can start with your base geometry, attach particles the vertices, and use Tracer/UberTracer to connect the dots, so to speak. I believe UberTracer is superior in that it can deal with just the geometry (meaning no particles), but I'm not 100% on it. Been a while since I've played with anything like this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 16:14
|
|
|
I'll do the glasses later but apart from them the high is pretty much done now. It's been a big learning curve but a lot of fun. On to the low now! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 17:19
|
|
|
I started learning Blender this week and set myself a goal - to make something in the style of this dribbble shot: http://dribbble.com/shots/65026-Sweet-pixels-icon Here's my first iteration after about 8 hours of work:  I'd appreciate any feedback that you guys can offer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 17:40
|
|
|
neurotech posted:I started learning Blender this week and set myself a goal - to make something in the style of this dribbble shot: Looks a lot better than what I was able to do in blender. After about 8 weeks of using Maya, my school decided they should show us Blender for one class period and I was infuriated beyond belief trying to figure out the asinine blender keyboard shortcuts. I found out later that you can re-map the keys to be like Maya, but the dude who they brought in to teach doesn't know Maya. Actually, he didn't know much about video because he kept saying composting the videos instead of compositing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 17:59
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:Is there a way to fix that problem, or to "super simplify" the scene? I have everything posed as I need it so if it's the actual rig that is throwing my machine for a loop...I just want to distill down to a simple geometry scene so I can animate the animatic quicker. Do you need the characters to be moving? Why not just cache out the character geometry into something like Alembic of .pc2 or .mdd or whatever point cache format you have available and blow away the character/rigs and bring their meshes in through that. If you don't need the characters moving, then delete all history on the meshes and remove the rigs from the scene entirely, leaving just a pre-deformed mesh of each character. Rotating the viewport is obviously not doing the same thing that playing back the scene is as it has to recalculate every rig and deformer for each frame, rotating the viewport just has to draw a few simple polygons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2012 19:05
|
|
|
Found an old Revit file on my flash drive and decided to use it as a chance to actually learn VRay.  
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2012 04:20
|
|
|
I'm doing some motion work for some big Hollywood production and the set designers use SketchUp to build the sets. I've never used it before, and so I'm having a bitch of a time with the interface/camera control. Is there a way to get more "traditional" (ie Max/C4d/Maya) viewport controls in SketchUp, or am I locked to the default ones? Tried to look this up on Google to no avail, and I'll be dealing with their files for quite some time and anything to make it less of a headache would be nice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2012 06:04
|
|
|
Has anyone gone through the process of modelling, texturing a model in Blender and testing it in TF2 via the "Itemtest" tool in the Source SDK? I've managed to "successfully" do this but am encountering an issue with how the model is rendered in-game:  Once I move a certain distance away from the Pyro, white seams begin to be visible. Does anyone know what would be causing those white seams to appear?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2012 09:15
|
|
|
Check your texture mipmaps and expand the boundaries on the lower resolution ones?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2012 09:17
|
|
|
Yeah it could be the mipmaps or even just the high with the uv boundaries being really close to the edge of the texture on the diffuse. Is your diffuse surrounded by white space or alpha? Try pulling your uv's in a bit as a test to see if it goes, or check your mips.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2012 13:10
|
|
|
I do a livestream where I sculpt: http://www.livestream.com/curtbinder/
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2012 00:30
|
|
|
I haven't seen much of this type of CG in the thread, but I do a lot of explosions with FumeFX. Nothing in a production, just lots and lots of tests for the short films I'll probably never make. I did these recently and am pretty happy with the results. Brick wall debris and dust: http://youtu.be/heTd7xzc5Go Mortar Explosions: V1: http://youtu.be/OwVFX9Q179s V2: http://youtu.be/L_TBC9VD6xQ V1 and V2 combined: http://youtu.be/kcDpKzKwJsc If anybody has any tips for integrating wind with FumeFX I'm all ears. the wind spacewarp just pushes everything at a constant rate so I've keyframed the strength. Betterwind doesn't seem to work with Fume. I was playing around with Zbrush stamps this morning and made this Sebulba-looking alien head:   And I'm having a problem with my Zbrush materials. Usually I can click "V" and get a silhouette view of my model. For some reason there is a material permanently attached to the foot subtools though so it overrides the "V" trick. Any suggestions for removing this material from the subtool?  EDIT: While I'm at it, anatomy goons how are the proportions of the silhouette shape above? I feel the body/arm proportions look fine but the legs may be too short or too long and my eye wouldn't see it. bring back old gbs fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Jul 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 22:04
|
|
|
ACanofPepsi posted:I haven't seen much of this type of CG in the thread, but I do a lot of explosions with FumeFX. Nothing in a production, just lots and lots of tests for the short films I'll probably never make. I did these recently and am pretty happy with the results. I don't know the specific look you are going for, but your explosions are definitely more hollywood looking. Real explosions are much closer to the ground, very little visible fire if any at all (except for the initial explosion), and are generally gray or brown depending on the surface they explode on. In a sandy environment the majority of the stuff in the air is dust. On a darker soil and green environment (like here in the states) there is a puff of black dirt and debris, darkish brown dust, and white smoke. I was looking at my old vids from Afghanistan and none of it is even worth showing. It was done on a cheap point and shoot with a 20-second record limit and the explosions are too far away to make out. I did find this clip though. http://www.dvidshub.net/video/67533/mortar-class#.T_IV0LWe7ng At about 1:05 you can see what a mortar explosion looks like. This is a little closer. It is from a hand grenade, but unless you have over 1000lbs of explosive, they will all look like generally like this. Depending on what you are doing with your explosions and where they are taking place, you may actually stand out by making real looking explosions rather than hokey ones.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 22:50
|
|
|
chimheil posted:I don't know the specific look you are going for, but your explosions are definitely more hollywood looking. I'm always setting my goal at Blur Studio quality, even if I don't like to admit it. I just love everything they do. Definently going for the Hollyood look, I'd love to work in an FX studio some day augmenting/adding to propane blasts or whatever gets blown up on big sets. I need to work on my Thinking Particles skills though. Thanks for all the real world suggestions, ultimately I would like these looking as true to life as possible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 23:15
|
|
|
ACanofPepsi posted:And I'm having a problem with my Zbrush materials. Usually I can click "V" and get a silhouette view of my model. For some reason there is a material permanently attached to the foot subtools though so it overrides the "V" trick. Any suggestions for removing this material from the subtool? V actually switches the brush colours. I'm guessing one is white and the other is black, so by switching to black, any tools without polypainting and/or materials assigned will take on the current brush colour. So that's how you get your 'silhouette view'. Looks like you've painted your feet, so you cant do that anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2012 23:37
|
|
|
I just realized after a year of using Maya professionally that having the "Help Line" hidden boosts my viewport fps from 15-20 to 35-40  Edit: This is with a pretty complex scene opened but I still don't see how that little fucker can suck up so many system resources.... Whole Milk fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Jul 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 02:11
|
|
|
Wind in volumetrics can be tricky. Never used Fume, I usually use Houdini with proprietary solvers, with wind type forces it typically masks the force velocity to your simulation in a linear matter, that is if you are seeing your simulation moving as one whole unit. You will need to break that up, so one option is if the solver allows it on forces, is to introduce noise and visualize the velocity fields for the grid. You'll need a small frequency with large voids to allow the wind areas to have slow and faster moving forces to break up your simulation. If you use too high of a frequency, then it'll just disperse the simulation in all directions. Another option is to have a falloff to your wind force, this is pretty easy with Houdini's vops, you can make a radial falloff and add some curl noise and visualize everything before plugging it into the sim. Is fume allows volumes as input, you could take the velocity fields [x,y,z] you shouldn't need density or anything else. And pipe that through your wind force. So you can generate a fluid sim, cache it to disk, then use that fluid sim to drive another one as a force.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 14:52
|
|
|
Since I haven't ranted in a while, I could see this coming a mile a way... Vancouver becoming the toilet of the VFX industry, especially with the big US studios setting up shop there until the tax credits run out... http://www.vfxsuccess.com/2012/07/vfx-artists-feeling-squeeze-from.html Artists need to stand up for their rights instead of bitching, jesus christ, how about saying no to contract changes. I've seen this happen time and time again in the business. Like on Happy Feet, you had Animal Logic hire a bunch of Americans to go to Australia, then as soon as they start work, many artists were told there was a mistake in their contract, that artist were to be paid in AUD not USD. Today that wouldn't be a big deal, but back then that's like giving a 15-20% pay cut right at the start. Guess what happened to the artists who said hell no to the breech of contract? They got USD salaries while the chumps buckled over and went "Oh ok" with the paycut. Dumb. Squaresoft did crap like this during the Final Fantasy movie as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 15:00
|
|
|
ACanofPepsi posted:Brick wall debris and dust: There are a few more FX slanted people that float around in the thread, so no worries about that. For some critique, I would say that you might want to re-sim that brick-wall's rigid body aspect. The right side of the wall jumps off of itself without any additional collision, which is normally a pretty tell tale sign of interpenetrating geometry somewhere (or collision volumes not being precise enough). Sadly I haven't even touched anything that isn't Houdini, so I'm sort of in the same position as geared hub when it comes to trying to provide help (I can only do it in Houdini terms). Besides that I think your dust works really well, you have a nice amount of debris from some of the shatter bricks, and the left side of the walls deformation but ability to still remain mostly structurally sound is great! Also this is a public service announcement to 3DCG. BACK UP YOUR WORK, BACK IT ALL UP NOW. My main backup drive died last weekend, a mere week after I had reformatted my computer, which means due to terrible timing I have lost all of my work up until this point. Looks like the demo-reel isn't getting small tweaks anymore haha! Thankfully I have a .mov rip from vimeo of my reel as it sits, and what better excuse to stop touching old projects and start new ones! Trintintin fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Jul 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 15:34
|
|
|
Trintintin posted:Also this is a public service announcement to 3DCG. BACK UP YOUR WORK, BACK IT ALL UP NOW. My main backup drive died last weekend, a mere week after I had reformatted my computer, which means due to terrible timing I have lost all of my work up until this point. Looks like the demo-reel isn't getting small tweaks anymore haha! Thankfully I have a .mov rip from vimeo of my reel as it sits, and what better excuse to stop touching old projects and start new ones! I accidentally deleted all my personal work from the past 5 years the other day! I forgot to move it out of the 'backup' folder after upgrading my PC, and while doing some spring-cleaning I deleted that folder... I guess I could get it back with one of those file restore programs, but I'm taking this as more encouragement to make new stuff; all that old poo poo was terrible anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 16:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 05:04 |
|
|
I'm not the most 3d-savvy, so I apologize for how stupid this question is. I was given some hero assets (really, really, really high-res), and the MB files are around 500mb each. I don't have access to low-res/low-poly versions, but these are way too heavy for what I need, and Maya's really chugging with them. Is there a way to make these models... simpler? I know the best plan of attack would be to remodel/retopologize without all the detail, but that's not an option. I tried playing with Maya's "Reduce" function, but with the few tests I did the most I saw was a reduction of a dozen or so polys (out of ~half a million)
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 01:36
|
|