#Metaballs
19 messages in this thread
I am about two hours into my Metaball training and have run into a problem that
I can't find covered in the manual. With a line of spheres all the same size,
the rendered image shows the plane white material on the end spheres. The mesh
created with "mshape" looks fine, but doesn't cover the ends when rendered.
When I make a line with the spheres decreasing in size, I get the same thing,
only worse. The mesh, once again, looks fine. This time not only the ends are
left uncovered, all the spheres at their widest points show white. Only the
mesh material between the spheres is being rendered.
I have checked and double checked the material "Metaball" to be sure I have
created it properly. I have tried different fusion coefficients and face sizes,
same result. I even tried using Gsphere smooth instead of Lsphere faceted,
nope. Ran the face count up to 56000 and some change on just 8 spheres,
nothing.
The only thing that I can think of that I am doing different, is using
architecture in the unit setup. I hope that is not the problem, since Humanoid
requires it.
Any help will be appreciated, Terry
Which Metaballs program are you using????
Lee,
>> Which Metaballs… <<
MetaReyes version 1.0, for 3DSR4.
Terry
Hi Terry,
No NOT Metareyes! Danny Mercurio has just released a new metaball modeler
through Digimation called OrganiX. Aleksey and his group of scientists have
found a way of mapping metaballs which will lock the mapping in place (sticky
mapping). I am sure you will be hearing much, much more about this very soon.
Lee
Lee,
>> I am sure you will be hearing much, much more about this very soon. <<
I probably will, I am planning to ride down to Digimation Tuesday. I was just
looking at a letter that says I'm supposed to be receiving a free V. 2.0 of
Metereys soon. Maybe buying all this stuff at once was a mistake. I'm going to
have things that are obsolete before I even get to the manuals. <g> I've been
following the threads about Aleskey and his groups work. Pretty exciting stuff.
Being new to all this, I just sit there with the 1000 yard stare. Saying, "Too
much…..Too fast…<g>
Are you saying that OrganiX is selling now? I have got to go down and look over
some IPAS routines anyway. I am getting the feeling that some of the things I
am trying to do without em, is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. If I buy
OrganiX now, for R4, will it work with MAX when that arrives? Or is that even
possible?
Also, after working with Metaballs and Bones, I can see I'm in a hurt for a
good 3D paint program. Any thoughts on that? I hear good things about Meshpaint
and QFX. What does QFX have that makes it so much more expensive than
Meshpaint?
Whew! I quit work in May to pursue this, thinking I was set for a year with the
funds on hand. Needless to say I will be a little over budget. <g> Oh well, I'm
going to have a GREAT tax year though. I'll just keep spending until I get into
the beer money.
Thanks Lee, Terry
I would go with Meshpaint for now and use Photoshop in conjunction with that if
I were you. I'm now sure that QFX would be a substitute for Meshpaint but it
would probably take the place of Photoshop. I work very closely with Aleksey's
group and the things you will be seeing from them in the very near future will
blow you away. I am sure that Danny and I know that Aleksey are planning to
port to MAX.
Lee
Lee,
Meshpaint it is. I just went back through my archives of messages, and can find
no one who has anything bad to say about Meshpaint. In fact, I think I'll give
ol Murph a call right now.
>> I work very closely with Aleskey's group…<<
So, let's see, besides reading all the books on Martin's list, do I need to run
out and get a quick Physics degree? <g>
Thanks a lot Lee, Terry
Hi, Terry!
1.
>> If I buy OrganiX now, for R4, will it work with MAX when that arrives? Or is
that even possible?
Yes, it will. And Sticky Mapping will. And, perhaps, Metareyes will.
Nothing in the MAX architecture prevents metaballs from working,
quite opposite, MAX makes metaballs as easy to set up and use as any
other modeling and animation techique. Also MAX makes everything
compatible with everything, which means no more trickery to make
OrganiX work with AXPs like Refraction Mapping or Aurora etc…
2.
Take into account that Lee is a little biased (he is only a human),
because he loves what we are doing,
so he is not 100% objective comparing OrganiX and Metareyes (thanks him, he
obviously likes OrganiX much more). If I were you, I would ask more people
before commiting to any of these programs.
The facts, though, are on OrganiX side, because we support only OrganiX:
it means Refraction, Aurora and Sticky Mapping will work with OrganiX only
and not with MetaReyes (at least for some time).
Good Luck,
Alex, Video International
Just wanted to let you know Alex, that I was using Metareyes several months
(maybe a year) before I got involved with your projects or even knew of
Details' OrganiX. My (personal) opinion after comparing both metaball packages
is that I like Details' approach better. I'm not sure that that means that I am
biased one way or the other as a result of our working relationship. I have
given both packages the full attention deserved and I choose one over the
other based on my personal likes and dislikes as far as the interface,
functionality (I am a BIG envelopes fan), and ease of use. I would continue to
recomend OrganiX over Metareyes even if I didn't know any of you guys because I
like it more. When Schreiber finally releases Metareyes R2, who knows?, but
untill then I have to stick to making educated recomendations based on my own
experience with the products.
Perhaps we should hire Don King as an on-line mediator for an evening <bg>.
Comrade Lee
Hi, Lee!
1.>>I was using Metareyes several months (maybe a year)
2.>>My (personal) opinion after comparing both metaball packages is that I like
Details' approach >>better.
3.>> I would continue to recomend OrganiX over Metareyes
4.>>I have to stick to making educated recomendations based on my own
experience with the >>products.
I was provoking you to make this clear and simple statement.
Everybody is biased, but for different reasons:
your bias is the MOST objective I've ever seen.
Thanks.
Sorry, if I was misuderstood.
Alex, Video International
Hi Alex,
Didn't mean to come on so strong but I wanted anyone listening in who doesn't
know me to realize that I wouldn't just make a recomendation (one over the
other) without feeling like I knew what I was talking about and that I wouldn't
ONLY base such opinion on personal bias.
Lee
Aleksey,
>> If I were you, I would ask more people before commiting to any of these
programs <<
WOW!! That got a 9 on the humble meter. But, I think I've heard enough. You're
right, the facts are there. It looks too good to pass up, I will have it soon.
Thanks, Terry
Aleksey,
One quick question about OrganiX. I have about a zillion reference spheres on
file created in Metareyes Metaballs. Will there be any way I can call these up
and use them in OrganiX without reassigning fusion coefficients?
Thanks, Terry
Danny has included a feature to assign your own colors for fusion and YES, you
can use the Metareyes assignments and files created for Metareyes work just
wonderfully with Organix.
Lee
Lee,
>>…you can use Metareyes assigments and files…with OrganiX. <<
AH!! Great news. I really, really, really, didn't want to have to do this all
over again when I get the new program. I was thinking last night of just
putting everything on hold until then. I am having a hard time with the neck
and head. Trying to sculp the lower jaw and neck, I finally just deleted
everything and decided there must be an easier way. After a certain point, I
cannot find a view angle where I can select the sphere I need to move. I'm
trying to show a lot of extruded tendons in the neck. Putting the connecting
tissue, that's recessed in, I have to get in so close, I can't find my way out
with a compass.<g> I think today, I will try to just do one half of it, and
'mirror' it over. Anyway, I'm glad that all this work won't be unusable later.
Each reference sphere has a face count of 224. I didn't think that was
important as the mesh is created from the bounding box of the sphere. Have I
done a big OOPS?
Thanks for that info, it was something I had quite a concern about.
Terry
Lee,
Thanks for your response, but I think I have figured it out. It appears that
the reference spheres must be hidden before rendering? I didn't get that
impression from the manual, but it works.
Thanks, Terry
Terry,
I had a similar problem when I first used the program. What I think you
need to do is Hide your reference spheres after the metashape is created.
Because of the way the shape is created it is often smaller in places than your
reference spheres. The effect you might be seeing is the mesh of the reference
spheres protruding outside the resulting smooth metashape. After creating
metashape I hide all then unhide only the metashape.
Hope this helps,
Matt (Active Media Graphics)
Y 50 /g fM/
Matthew,
Yes, I found that out. I do hide the spheres and the mesh looks fine. I just
have to find a good face size to work with now.
Thanks a lot, Terry