#MetaBalls Capability
27 messages in this thread
I'm going to repost this, because someone moved the thread I was jumping in on
to a totally different area (that *I* certainly don't frequent).
I've tried the freeware metaballs modeler posted here, and while the metaballs
concept is interesting, I have a real problem trying to actually control the
development of a model. Can anyone comment on just how easily you can model
(IYHO, of course) with the MetaReyes product? Here's the comment on the posted
nude:
>The image is direct render output without further retouch.The whole model is
>included with MetaReyes 2.0 as an example. It took 6 hours to model.
Now, I'm sure an artist like Jose' can probably model in 6 hours what I might
NEVER be able to model — I don't pretend that any product will give me that
kind of talent. But I AM curious on just what kind of hoops he had to jump
through to get to there. Putting and controlling 120 spheres to get anything
other than a mess might seem a herculean task. It looks like the sample image
has the metaballs in different colors — or is this simple what it looks like
in the 3D editor before you run your routine on it. If so, I can't see how you
could possible visualize what you're doing while you're modeling.
And assuming I can handle the modeler, what I am primarily interested in is
creating meshes I can then deform with Bones Pro. Do I understand it right
that the MetaReyes product is some kind of AXP routine that can only model
during Keyframing (and thus preclude creating a mesh I can work with in the 3D
editor)? Is there some kind of equivilent Snapshot command, or is it more like
the Skin routine?
And, finally, is this yet another dongle protected program? I'm having to ask
this each and every time (no matter how many routines I end up buying, people
someone think I'm not honest. Amazing), but my general policy is going to be
not to buy dongle stuff irregardless of how wonderful it is.
Thanks for any info you anyone can provide. What with 3D Paint, TSE and
Danny's modeler, I have to make some hard money decisions soon.
I can offer some insight, since I am using Metaballs and Bones Pro at the
moment.
A) It is not protected
B) The different colored spheres represent the degree of attraction (or
anti-attraction) the spheres have to each other.
C) The metareyes modeller comes with an AXP and a PXP. You can render the
metaball surface at render time, or create a new mesh based on the balls to do
whatever you want with it.
D) It may have taken him six hours to create the female torso, but I figure it
would take me 36 hours to create it. The program is like all the others:
practice, practice, practice!
Currently I am using it to whip out a quick hand-shaped mesh to bend and deform
with bones pro. I created an anotomically correct hand skeleton, linked, and
set the IK parameters. The hand is cartoony looking, but that was what I was
shooting for, since my purpose is to demonstrate bones pro, and not metaballs,
for my user group.
It has it's uses, but it can't do everything, of course. I have not seen
version 2, yet, and I don't know what is different about it.
>D) It may have taken him six hours to create the female torso, but I figure it
>would take me 36 hours to create it. The program is like all the others:
practice,
>practice, practice!
Thanks for your reply — it really does help. And I hate to keep hammering
away at this, but for me it's the crux of the issue, namely, how difficult is
it to create something useful.
Practice is no problem — I finally can get 3DS to do almost what I set out to
do when I sit down in front of the program. That only took a couple of years,
but then I didn't have more than an hour or so a night. I don't mind if it
takes me a dedicated effort to master modeling with metaballs, but I have to
know that I *can* do it.
Have you seen the freeware Blob Sculptor? If so, I'd be particularly
interested in knowing whether you think MetaReyes is easier to use (to make
something worthwhile).
How much is MetaBalls? How does it compare to skin.axp? Or should I just get
both?
Thanks
Jason Lange
>How much is MetaBalls? How does it compare to skin.axp? Or should I just get
>both?
I'm not sure I'm the one you should be asking, Jason, as I'm trying to get a
handle on the MetaReyes product myself. I think version 1.0 of the MetaReyes
product is $500, but 2.0 will be coming out within weeks (and there's another
message posted on the forum here asking for THAT price). As someone who does
own SKIN, I think I can give you some general ideas.
Skin uses the concept of sliced objects that influence the shape of the skin
surrounding them. Some people can do amazing things with it — M.G. Batchelor
(sp?) probably wrote the book on using SKIN. I was able to create a fairly
decent dinosaur with it that's posted here somewhere, if you want to look at a
model created by someone with no artistic talent (but you'll have to have SKIN
to see it — hmmm, perhaps I should post a still of it in the Showcase?).
I was perfectly satisfied with my ability to create the model with SKIN, but
frustrated with the amount of "slices" I ended up with in the final model,
because the overhead of linking and maintaining the hierarchy of dozens (or
hundreds) of objects and trying to IK them just drove me crazy. It would take
me an entire evening just to link the thing alone! Now, with Bones Pro, my own
philosophy is I want a smooth looking mesh that I can easily "bone" and
animate.
I'm hoping that the MetaReyes product will make modeling that smooth mesh
easier, because organics are difficult to do (for me) with the Shaper/Lofter.
OTOH, someone here has just raised the interesting possibility of using the
Smooth routine (which comes with Bones Pro) for a similar approach to
MetaBalls, so I need to play with that for a while.
It never ends…
Mike,
<<1.0 of the MetaReyes product is $500, but 2.0 will be coming out within
weeks>>
I assume that v2.0 is the same price because the upgrade from 1.0 for
registered users is free.
<<Skin uses the concept of sliced objects>>
true, but you can also use one mesh to define the skin object – I created
various morph positions of the 'skin head' i did, and it worked great. the mesh
is in lib #1.
<< using the Smooth routine (which comes with Bones Pro) for a similar approach
to MetaBalls>>
Smooth works beautifully with a metaball-generated mesh, I used the two
routines in conjunction to create my Face Hugger.
-Kyle
<<Skin uses the concept of sliced objects>>
>true, but you can also use one mesh to define the skin object
Yeah, I knew this but had never tried just one object, primarily because I got
Skin before Bones Pro, and the whole concept of using it back then was to be
able to animate using IK (and still have a smooth mesh).
But you raise an interesting point, and as one whose model (Hugger) has been
held to me as an example of MetaReyes, you're probably the best one to answer.
Since you've used a variety of modeling techniques, do you have any feel for
what a (novice, or basically someone with no talent, like myself) should be
using in this smooth skin/animation arena? I've now played with a Metaballs
PXP, and was sort of thinking that maybe the best thing for me would be to use
it in combination with shaper/lofter/smoothing to end up with a mesh I could
Bone (so to speak). Does this sound like a feasible general purpose modeling
technique for organics?
Also, while I haven't played too much with it, I find that my first passes at
"attaching" a metaball object to a mesh with Smooth look rather tacky, and I'm
assuming I need to tessalate faces at the mesh end (the metaball already has a
LOT of faces) to get the smoothness I need. If this IS the case, do you have
any general guidelines for that? Are you using Optimize to do this, and if so,
what settings? Do you tessalate the whole object, or just selected faces
(actually, I haven't looked at Optimize so long I'm not even sure this last is
a possibility)?
Thanks in advance for sharing any wisdom.
Mike,
<< use it in combination with shaper/lofter/smoothing to end up with a mesh I
could Bone>>
that's excatally how I did my Face Hugger
The key to getting smooth mesh animation from bones is even distribution of
faces – Smooth does this.
<< Does this sound like a feasible general purpose modeling technique for
organics?>>
Feasible? YES! I think it's the best organic modelling solution for 3DS right
now. The big holdback I have with skin is that you can't add detail – yeah you
can up the smoothness of the polymesh it creates. Or you can always go back
and reloft all your meshes with more segments. But with metaballs and smooth
you can add another blob, then smoooth it out, add another blob, etc. – I think
these – coupled with the upcoming Meshpaint 3D will be the most powerful
organic creation tools available for 3DS.
one of the coolest things about smooth is it's ability to add detail – let me
explain – you might be familar with the 'skin head' stuff I did a while back.
the mesh was really low detail – I took it, tessalated it twice, and smoothed
it – now I've got a mesh that looks just the rendered skin version, but I can
optimize it to much less faces than skin creates because skin places faces
evenly around the mesh. When I smooth and optimize, I get all the detail I
want around the facial area, but only what I need around the rest of the head.
Another thing you can do if you really want to use skin, is this. Create your
skin mesh as one object – no slices. then use bones to create morph positions
for those objects, and just morph your character. The only real reason I'd
suggest doing this is if you need to use the mapping capabilities on UV
coordinates.
<<smoothing seams>>
add as much detail as you can to the object, the Smooth –
Optimize-Smooth-Optimize-etc until you get what you want.
<<what settings? Do you tessalate the whole object, or just selected faces?>>
I never go above 2 degrees in Optimize. I usually tessalate the whole object,
unless it runs me over the 64K limit, in which case I select and tessalate.
-Kyle
Thanks, your comments are exactly what I was looking for. And I
whole-heartedly agree with you about MeshPaint — I can hardly wait for it!
Right now it appears that MeshPaint and MetaReyes have won the
IPAS-I-Gotta-Have award for this quarter. I'd sure like to thank all the
patient people who gave me so much valuable feedback.
Who knows? I may actually model something worthwhile yet.
I've fiddled with the blob scuptor. Metaballs is a lot easier to use, and you
can build decent stuff with it, you just have to know the dynamics of the
routine. I am pretty clumsy with it, but I've only spent about 12 hours total
working with it.
Mike,
The two main concepts of MetaReyes are FUSION COLORS & GROUPPING.
The way to control the fusion in a model is as you point out vitally
important. With other Metaballs like MetaClay for SGI or Meta Editor
for SGI, you control the fusion of the spheres with two wireframe circles. One
is the Metaball size and the second is its influence.
That sounds great with 2 or three Metaballs , but its literally a MESH
when you have 120. and you cant control ANYTHING. Now think about
the image made up by spheres in our female torso. You can perfectly see
small yellow parts of sphere protuding in the collarbone area. The meaning of
that is just THAT!. Collarbones are protuding with yellow fusion type. Color
codes are INTUITIVE and after few hours using the
program , a simple sight to a model can give you an acurate idea of
its behaviour.
GROUPPING lets you control how different parts of a model behave among
them. The hand can be a good example. You want the Metaballs of a finger
to melt among them but not with those of other fingers. Moreover you want
the fingers to melt with the palm. Lets supose that this letters define
a hand with three fingers (you will need good imagination <g>)
A B C D E F G
H I J
K L M N O P Q
R S T
U V W X Y Z 1
the groups created for that could be something like:
FINGER1: B C D E F G
FINGER2: L M N O P Q
FINGER3: V W X Y Z 1
PALM : A B C H I J K L M R S T U V W
And finally. Jose made it in six ours. Well, for me he has always been
a genius , but I am sure he would have had a hard time doing that with
Softimage's MetaClay without goupping , and with an interface that is
impractlical when you have more than 10 Metaballs (We work with snaphots
of 600 Metaballs exactly the same). Moreover , Take a look to the Face
Hugger Image of Kyle Mckisic. It is a wonderfull model also. I cant
imagine what he will be able to do with release 2!
Thank you so much for your reply — it does, indeed, clarify a lot about your
product and I do understand the grouping idea and seem to think this is a very
important concept. Just a couple more questions (questions — always more
questions! Well, I can promise you that this will help others make some
intelligent decisions as well).
>and with an interface that is
>impractlical when you have more than 10 Metaballs (We work with snaphots
>of 600 Metaballs exactly the same)
It seems to me this is the real meat of the issue: how easy it is to work
within the interface. Someone on the forum said they used a metaball product
(I don't know if it was yours or not) and had much difficulty making anything
useful with it. I would directly assume this had to do with the interface.
1) In your interface, can I see the different colors of the groups I'm working
with?
2) In the excellent female torso (sure to sell many copies of your product
alone) it appears there are many layers of groups. Is there a way of selecting
a group and working with it (and thus making the others "freeze" a la 3DS) or
can you at least "hide" the ones you don't want to directly affect?
3) One of the ways I can create models in the shaper/lofter is by tracing
shapes loaded in the background. It occurs to me that in a model such as the
female torso, the ability to see a background image for metaball positioning
would be very helpful. Is this a possibility?
4) (Perhaps this should be posed to Jose and the artist who modeled the face
hugger, but your impression would be helpful) What I'm really after is just
knowing how people actually model with this product. Having used the shareware
blob sculptor, I find it very difficult to construct things by simply
"blobbing" stuff together, on a trial and error basis. Now, if this is how
it's done then I guess I'll just have to keep trying the freeware stuff to see
if I can actually make anything useful with it, before I'd commit to spending
money on more of the same. But if there's some technique or general approach
people use I'd sure like to know.
5) Finally, if I do buy the product now (before the next release) just how much
am I missing? Or, to put it another way, how much of the modeling of the
female torso (not the mapping, just the modeling) was made possible by the new
release?
Thanks in advance for your help. Unless major reviews of IPAS routines are
done somewhere, this is the only way to get accurate information.
Hello Mike, I'll do my best.
>> 1) In your interface, can I see the different colors of the groups >>
I'm working with?
Yes , you have a scroll list of groups that you can edit,create or delete. In
the grouppin selection you dont need to know sphere names.
Once you select a group for editing , you see the spheres belonging
to that group in black and those not belonging to the group in white.
You pick with your mouse to include/exclude spheres.
>> 2) In the female torso …
I think the previous answer aplies here to. To give you more information
the number of groups in the model is 7 with names of diferrent parts
of the body (I wont tell the names in absence of my lawyer).
>> 3) Background image …
All sphere positioning is done in 3D Editor. What Jose Maria does is
creating a poliline in shaper with STEP 0 and a background image reference, so
that in 3D Editor you can zoom in and out of it.
>> 4) How people actually model with the product …
The main tools for modelling are: The clipping box, the intuitive color
codes , and now in release 2.0 the groupping. Clipping box restricts
calculation to the volume defined by a box , thus allowing a very fast
interaction. The intuitive color codes allow a precise visual feedback,
and groupping lets you accurately control the interation of parts in the
model.
>> 5) How much am I missing with release 1.0…
Mainly the groupping feature, but also a much higher integration of
the program, that now is controlled through a single menu where before
you had several modules. Could the female torso have been modelled with
release 1.0 ?. The answer is NO. Groupping is mandatory in that model.
but there are many other types of models like pouring liquids or softer
characters that can be easily done with release 1.0.
Thank you for your interest.
-Javi
I can't wait for grouping! I agree using colors is far easier to visualize the
effect of each ball.
Also, it should be pointed out to anyone overwhelmed by a 600 ball model, that
"hide objects" is a very useful command in any 3D program.
I'm working on a character's head that started as a few lumps and gradually
became more complex until I found myself modelling the eyelids.
Hi Andrew,
You are in the right about modelling strategy. And dont forget an
important feature of MetaReyes to restrict the calculation to a small
area. It is the clipping box. You create a 3DStudio box with the name
"CBOX" and all calculations will be restricted to the clipping volume
enclosed within the box. That is a FAST way to adjust details.
-Javi
Okay, I'm getting real close now to at least knowing what I want. How about
one more question?
I'm using the Blob Sculptor PXP right now, and one thing that I suddenly have
realized is that these metaballs generate a LOT of faces! Now, I have
Optimize, so I can always reduce them down to a manageable number, but it has
occured to me that (since I'm not interested in your AXP but only in generating
one mesh for "Boning") that I might not even be able to generate a suitably
smoothed mesh from a model such as the famous "girl" model, since it will
probably exceed 3DS 64K face limit. Is this so? Have you actually been able
to create a mesh with it, or can you only render it as an AXP process? And if
you can create a mesh, is it a lot less detailed (smooth, good looking,
whatever you want to say) due to this limitation?
Obviously, the ideal thing would be to have an Optimize built in to your
program, but if that's not possible I'm not sure how to get around these things
otherwise.
Hi Mike,
The girl is a mesh of 49K poligons, but you can get a 20K simplified
mesh with the SIMPLIFY built in option.
-Javi
<< I cant imagine what he will be able to do with release 2!>>
neither can I 🙂
-Kyle
Javier,
Your IPAS looks like a real winner. The Human Torso was stunning. I might
have missed this question, but will a Meta model work with v4 IK, and or Bones
Pro. Thanks in advance.
Love your stuff.
David.
>> And finally. Jose made it in six ours. Well, for me he has always been
a genius , but I am sure he would have had a hard time doing that with
Softimage's MetaClay without goupping , and with an interface that is
impractlical when you have more than 10 Metaballs (We work with snaphots
of 600 Metaballs exactly the same). Moreover , Take a look to the Face
Hugger Image of Kyle Mckisic. It is a wonderfull model also. I cant
imagine what he will be able to do with release 2! <<
-David Swoboda
Hello David,
Sure you can use Bones animation. The MetaReyes PXP can create a
mesh of poligons suitable for "Boning". And about IK you can link
spheres to various segments and generate with the AXP a mesh per
frame related to the position of the spheres in that moment.
-Javi
Great! Thanks for the information. Looks like another winner for "under the
Christmas tree…."
David. (When is Christmas this year? April I think….)
-David Swoboda
Javier –
I just recieved your wonderful METAREYES program. I could never sketch worth a
darn, but I can model clay. Brain warp! Anyway, this product is genuine help
to me. What I have now, I suppose, because I'm not at my studio, is v1.0 or
perhaps 1.c??? When I receive v2.0, will the screen continue to scroll up at
render time? This does NOT crash rendering, but it's messier than I'd like.
I'm rendering on ALR-P90's with 136MB of ram. For these computers to "see" all
this memory, I use an undocumented command with QEMM. Could this be the origin
of the scrolling screen? Otherwise, no complaints!
BB
>I could never sketch worth a darn, but I can model clay
PMJI (on my own thread, no less) but as one who has used the product, are you
saying you're finding it easy to get good results? I say this because I can't
sketch worth a damn either, but can model clay decently enough, and I'm trying
to find a product that will give me that ability.
Mike –
I havn't been keeping up-to-date here on ASOFT, so maybe someone's answered
your question. I'm hopeful about finding some 3D input devise (gloves?) this
year at Siggraph. Hope is all… because I think we may be a few years away
from a clay modeler slaved to VR gloves; that we can afford, anyway.
Hey, I just had an idea. What if the 3d digitizer resembled one of those
"nail" things where you push in the nails to show the outline of your hand or
face? It would come in the shape and size of a basketball with tefflon (sp?)
covered plastic nails to make it strong and light. The user would squash it to
whatever initial shape he or she desired and press GO! <g>
BB
Hello Bob,
Thanx for your message. All I can tell you about that scroll is that
it doesnt depend on the model , but on the machine. I have other user
with the same extrange messages during render. Once I know something
I'll let you know.
-Javi
Javier –
Yes, the scroll may be the result of the ALR's I am using. They need the Quemm
USEMEM=xxxx,xxxx switch in order to "see" memory over 64MB. I have 136MB on
each machine. I should install it on the other system and see if it, too,
scrolls. Also, I have Diamond Stealth 64/4mb ram video boards. Hope this
helps you to find the problem.
BB
Thank you for the information. Jose Maria Uses the same memory manager
and has also those nasty messages sometimes.
-Javi