#Real 3D vs. AM
2 messages in this thread
Forgive me, Bill, but a few other questions came to mind when I was reviewing
some of your past threads about modelers. (The following quotes are from a
thread you created in December):
>I think "only played with it for 15 minutes" is key here. I've used it
[Animation >Master], as well as most EVERY modeling system on EVERY platform
for quite a >while. And I'm just trying to be helpful in pointing out (from
experience) that AM >nor a B-Patch Modeler is going to change your life. There
are 2 issues here: A >GOOD patch modeler is just another welcome tool **IN** a
complete modeling >environment, but it's limited in usefulness, just as AM is.
Fun to play with if you've >never used that type of modeling, difficult to use
for flexible & complex object >construction.
In looking for my "holy grail" of modeling, Animation Master interested me
because of the many favorable comments made by some people here. I was held
back because apparently the earlier releases didn't export DXF well, but I
guess they've solved that problem. Are you saying that you don't think that
modeler is as good as Real 3D for character construction?
>Unfortunately, until you are able to better visualize an object's contour
lines >(related to "slices"), it's going to be awfully tough to model humanoid
figures in >ANY modeling system. With a B-Patch modeler (only), just a detailed
human head >would likely require DOZENS of tiny patches, concatenated together
& with some >real problems arising with blending at the perimeters. Now
imagine…..does that >sound EASY (or EASIER ?) ? The most efficient approach
is to define the >contours of the entire object, and then tweak the CV's for
fine detail. This is the >method used in the best modelers on the planet,
working with isoparms (contour >lines).
Right at the moment I'm having great success using Deform/Fit by visualizing
the side and front views (and the cross sections). Is this what you mean by
object contour? The only thing I DON'T like about D/F is that it's hard to
make changes in an object without going back and redoing the views, relofting,
etc. Plus the cross section positioning (and limitation of same number of
vertices) is not nearly as easy as it could be.
And usually I'll get very close to the object I want, but not quite. So what
can I do? If I start pulling vertices and/or faces, I lose the smoothing
effect of the lofted object. I have all of the Yost routines (such as MShape,
etc.) and can do some deformation type manuevers, but then I get an abrupt
boundary condition that requires a lot of work to smooth. In short, what I'd
really like is a D/F sort of dealy that allows me to see the object as I create
the outlines.
Can you bottom line this for me? Will Real 3D "change my life?" Would you
suspect, on the basis of knowing I can D/F with relative ease, that I will be
happy with R3D?
<< Are you saying that you don't think that modeler is as good as Real 3D for
character construction? >>
There is no comparision really. One (AM) is like constructing a wall
brick-by-brick, and the other is like marking off the footprint, and erecting
pre-fab sections. Well, that's a lousy example <g>, but I think you get my
point. Also, the quality of the spline surface and exported geometry in AM does
not compare favorably. One (AM) has a very few tools, and the other is a
toolbox full.
<< Right at the moment I'm having great success using Deform/Fit by visualizing
the side and front views (and the cross sections). Is this what you mean by
object contour? The only thing I DON'T like about D/F is that it's hard to
make changes in an object without going back and redoing the views, relofting,
etc. Plus the cross section positioning (and limitation of same number of
vertices) is not nearly as easy as it could be. >>
Actually, Deform/Fit is a great tool. But there are some limitations. The 2
profile curves are indeed contour lines as seen from an orthogonal point of
view, but must be closed loops. There are also other limitations or obstacles
using Deform/Fit. But, the YG did a super job in designing these polygonal
tools, which DO allow you to work with splines at some level, although
triangles are the result. With a freeform modeler, there are fewer
restrictions. I really don't think it's right to take up this forum's bandwidth
more on this subject, because I explain these things AT LENGTH in the doc's I
uploaded. BTW, a detailed head is best accomplished in 3DS by constructing a
number of profiles as seen perpendicular to the eyepoint, then rotating the
subject (or eyepoint) a few degrees, and construct the implied contours from
that perspective. Then use a SOR path, and place the CS's where they belong
around the circular/elliptical path. Most people just think of using only one
profile with a SOR. With good "vision" in identifying the contour lines and
good construction, you can achieve an almost perfect head right out of the
lofter, with minimum vertex-level tweaking necessary in the Editor.
<< Can you bottom line this for me? Will Real 3D "change my life?" Would you
suspect, on the basis of knowing I can D/F with relative ease, that I will be
happy with R3D? >>
Yes, it will change your life…..it'll make it even more complicated because
it's new and a different animal <g>. That's why I'm writing the book for them.
But if you like the concept of Deform Fit, then you're a candidate to *begin
learning* freeform modeling with splines. In short, a lot of your problems
mentioned such as vertex level editing polygonal meshes do lead towards
justifying freeform spline modeling…..along with a host of other reasons. But
you need to be even more adept at visualizing, planning and executing a model's
construction using a freeform spline system, than with a more restricted
polygonal system. For example, using NURBS vs a uniform B-Spline system, with
all else equal, doesn't mean a thing unless you *know how* to use the
additional control over the surface nuances & quality….and that takes
learning & practice a step beyond uniform B-Spline surface construction.
Regards,
BILL