shadow hair-pull
15 messages in this thread
I have finally reached my break point! Help!
Why is it that if you want a clean animation, with shadows, you have but
basically one shadow choice – raytrace? Regardless of the endless permutations
of settings for mapped shadows, they always flash somewhere in the animation.
If you blast the intensity of the mapped shadow by using an additional omni
light, you can reduce the flash effect, somewhat, but you still get a flash.
Go to fields and the flashing is even worse!
Yes I have read the books, yes I have tried changing the "ABSOLUTE" setting,
yes I have played with this for nearly three years…HELP! Is it me? Is it
3DS?
Any help here would be tremendously appreciated.
Thanks
T.
>> I have tried changing the "ABSOLUTE" setting, yes I have played with this
for nearly three years…HELP! Is it me? Is it 3DS? <<
it's a common problem, but I think there are solutions. I have tried a much
larger shadow map with some success. (1500 – 3000) Hope you have lots of RAM 🙂
Thanks for the reply.
I will certainly try your suggestion. It still leaves us lost for a shadow
methodology which provides some shadow without the time required to raytrace.
In the mean time I will continue to use my Canadian cost conversion for
projects with shadows:
"double it and add 32" <g>
Thanks
Chris
Pardon me for restating what may be common practice for you, but don't forget
to turn off the "Cast Shadows" attribute for large objects like ground planes
and terrains that don't need to cast shadows.
JKJ
JKJ,
'Twas a delight to see you at SIGGRAPH.
Are you really the Boolean King? I just got done teaching a class in Green Bay,
Wisconsin with James Murphy. We did a section on booleans. I wonder if you have
anything to add to these basic concepts that we covered:
1. If you boolean a hole into an object such as a flat plate, sometimes it
seems to work fine (the mesh looks fine) but when you render, some of the faces
around the hole seem tilted or pinched. Reassigning smoothing groups sometimes
solves the problem but sometimes doesn't.
2. If you get "Cannot complete boolean operation, please adjust geometry" you
can sometimes have some success by moving or scaling one of the objects
slightly. You can also try remaking the objects so they have a more similar
vertex density. I have found that trying to boolean a very dense object and a
non-dense object will sometimes not work while the same boolean with objects of
similar density works fine.
Any comments? The first one is particularly frustrating. Sometimes the only way
to make an object, say a mechanical part, is by booleaning a hole into it. I
tell students to use lofting where possible but you can't always do this, then
they're stuck with a pinched-looking part.
Michele
Hi Michele,
Boolean King? I hardly think so! However, since I do a lot of the mechanical
things you refer to, I've done a big pile of booleans and have had to figure
things out.
1> zits around holes… Almost always when I see the pinched look or smoothing
prolems it has been due to tiny faces or slivers the boolean has added. These
are often invisible until zoomed way in. The problem is the attempt to smooth
over an edge at a face or two where there should be no smoothing. AutoSmooth
doesn't help – my guess (I have not done the math) is that when working on a
very small scale, the trig calculations to determine the angle between faces
suffers from a lack of precision. This also is a problem with very thin
slivers of faces. To fix, I do one or more of three things:
a) Zoom way in, look for tiny faces, and manually weld vertices to
collapse the bad faces.
b) Use the ol' select & weld strategy to collapse the tiny faces.
I set the weld threshold to something smaller than the smallest
edge I want to maintain, select all the vertices in the object,
execute Modify/Vertex/Weld "Selected", then re-AutoSmooth.
This can backfire, so hold first.
c) Manually smooth, or rather unsmooth: select all the faces on
the flat plane and remove the smoothing.
2>incomplete boolean, adjust… My humble obversations note that this is very
often caused by topology – asking the algorithm to figure out which surface is
out. Several causes and fixes:
a) Bad geometry, with missing faces or internal faces – fix the
geometry such that it has a single, unbroken surface, then unify
normals.
b) good geometry but inconsistent normals – unify normals.
c) overlapping elements. This is probably the most common cause
of "cannot complete boolean operation". If an object is made
up of several elements, a boolean will often fail if it overlaps
more than one element, *especially* if the elements themselves
within one object are overlapping. In this case, a boolean, for
example a subtraction, can usually be completed with 1) detach the
elements into separate objects, 2) union these back into a single
object, then 3) perform the boolean subtraction. Note that
depending on the object, a "select & weld" step may be necessary
after each union in step 2. Experiment with this technique using
at least three overlapping spheres.
A variation of this is the case of a subtraction thru the folds of
convoluted object, even if the convoluted object has consistent
topology. I've had cases where this confused the boolean
algorithms and fixed it by making some intermediate objects and
doing the boolean in stages.
Well, after I typed this I found a copy of a previous message from the past
which contained additional ramblings. I'm resending it to you (without reading
it to correct any embarrassing goofs <g>) in case you are interested. Some of
it looks like duplication, but I don't have time to sort it out just now.
Well, have fun on your trip!
JKJ (full of bool, once again)
[old message to follow]
>> JKJ (full of bool, once again)
<g>
Ya, there is no bool like your bool! <g> …as we all save you insight for
reference.
Ralph
Perhaps more useful than a sex stone.? <g>
>> sex stone <<
<laughing out loud>
Gotta watch out for you and that McGlasson character…
Michelle, it's me again. Here is the old boolean message.
JKJ
[reply to an old message:]
Hey Jim!
Booleans & face problems, eh? My favorite subject… (the booleans, not the
faces) I forgot whether your original message was simply about face problems
or about completing booleans. As for tesselation, it will often just make
things worse.
——————————————————–
Incomplete booleans…
If the problem is completing the boolean – since the boolean code was improved
in R3, I almost NEVER tesselate before doing a boolean (and I do a lot – I must
have done 30 or 40 just today on a tank model I'm building).
If a boolean doesn't complete, sometimes it helps to tesselate, but sometimes
it makes it worse. In my experience, the biggest enemies of successful
booleans are
a) long slivery faces
b) billions of tiny faces
c) an incomplete surface (missing faces, not completely closed)
d) inconsistent topology (intersecting surfaces, either within a
single element or because of overlapping elements)
e) inconsistent structure (internal faces, perhaps caused by a
previous boolean misadventure)
f) inconsistent face normals (not all pointing the same way)
g) reversed face normals (not all pointing out)
h) unwelded vertices, causing (c)
If you have some long narrow faces (a) in the area of the boolean, tesselating
will often just make the faces longer and narrower. Ack! If you have billions
of tiny faces, (b), tesselating will multiply them. If all the normals are
right and the surface topology and structure are correct (cdef&g) and the
boolean still does not complete, then some manual editing with Edge/Divide will
usually work.
If you have several booleans to apply to a single object and the boolean will
not complete, try applying them in a different order. (This worked for me today
for some intersecting grooves I was cutting in the side of a gas can) If that
won't work, try moving one of the objects a tiny bit.
If you have elements that overlap in the area of a boolean subtraction (d),
either combine them first with the boolean Union operation, then subtract, OR
separate the elements into separate objects and subtract a copy of the
subtraction object from each.
If you have face normal problems, unify/flip normals should fix them, perhaps
with the aid of Optimize, if you have it. If unify will not help, then the
surface topology or the internal structure is almost certainly fouled up and
must be repaired before continuing. Object imported from AME and other
modelers sometimes have these problems, especialy a group of vertices which do
not quite meet at the same point and are not welded.
(BTW, the easiest booleans are between one very simple object, like a cube, and
another object, simple or not.)
A few unsolicited JKJ construction tips:
– When performing multiple booleans, always check each result
carefully for stray faces – fix them manually before attempting the
next boolean or the final smoothing operation. Note: fixing
generally requires deleting some faces and manually rebuilding some
faces. Turn on AllLines to see better.
– When building objects which will be booleaned, avoid long skinny
faces like the plague. The worst offender is the long cylinder –
create these with multiple segments to keep the faces shorter.
– When creating a large box that you intend to subtract something
small from, consider making the box with GRIDS.PXP. (weld the
vertices before the boolean operation) This will prevent long
skinny faces radiating from the corners of the box. Another method
is to loft the box with several path/shape steps.
– When drawing a shape to be lofted, examine it after lofting for
long skinny faces. If present, go back to the shaper and use
Modify/Segment/Refine to add some extra vertices for the lofter to
costruct from. Add vertices in the path to avoid long straigbt
sections. The ultimate but unatainable goal is an equilateral
triangle for every face. (I usually leave shape and path steps at 0
and manually refine all curves and paths to give me more control
over the lofter)
– Occasionally you can use Modify/Edge/Turn to make an uncooperative
face or two behave.
——————————————————–
As for the face rendering problems…
Misbehaving faces are often caused by
a) unwelded vertices
b) very tiny or long slivery faces
c) a missing face or two
d) other inconsistent topology or internal structure, including
overlapping coplaner faces, intersecting faces, etc.
e) improper smoothing
Everything seems to boil down to (e), improper smoothing. The trick is in
sleuthing out what is causing the problem.
For example, a boolean between two objects that have some vertices very close
together will almost always cause (b) which will most assuredly cause (e). If
you zoom way in on a problem area, you will probably see some vertices close
together. These can be welded manually (usually best done in a User view, and
often after hiding obscuring or underlying faces) Another easier trick is to
bump the weld threshold up some and weld all the vertices in the problem area.
For example, in a model I was working on today, I measured the smallest edge I
wanted to preserve at around 5.0 units, so I set my weld threshold to 1.0,
selected all the vertices, then did a Vertex/Weld "selected".
Some excerpts from some recent messages to someone else about face problems…
– AME sometimes drops a face. Build a new one.
– From AME, sometimes some vertices are not welded. Render flat,
and look at where the streaks start (zoom in real close). If a
group of vertices are separated where they should not be, you can
manually weld them. Another way is to bump up your weld threshold
some, select all the vertices, and weld "selected"
– Look for an extra face that found its way into the mesh & delete
it. I've seen this on meshes dxf'd from other modelers.
– Zoom in real close on the edge of the problem area and look for
any long, very skinny faces, and eliminate them by manually welding
adjacent vertices. This happens a lot with booleans. (BTW, several
things in 3DS are not friendly with long, skinny faces, including
cameras and booleans. Sometimes I do a little Edge/Divide'n to fix
this. Also, if you create something like a long cylinder, especially
with intentions to use in with a boolean, make it with several segments
to avoid long, skinny face problems.)
After the faces are repaired, autosmooth, perhaps trying different angles as
appropriate. Better yet, unsmooth and select sets of faces and manually apply
smoothing groups (required more often than one might think)
Although the autosmoother is doing what it is told, it sometimes doesn't agree
with us as to what should constitute a flat surface or a proper angle between
surfaces. Especially where vertices are very close together as on the edge of
a boolean, it will sometimes smooth a sliver or two over what we think should
be a sharp edge, resulting in streaks.
After any face/vertex problems are fixed as mentioned earlier, if the streaks
still appear, I usually select all the faces on a plane and clear all smoothing
groups from just those faces or apply a single group to those faces. (If you
apply a group, make sure you don't use one that is already in use on any faces
adjoining the plane.) You can even detach the planar faces into a separate
object and clear or apply a single group to the surface, but this is not
necessary unless you want to autosmooth the rest of the original object
separately.
Also for face rendering problems, note that some of the ideas above about
preventing long skinny faces while building objects all apply.
——————————————————–
All this said (and as soon as I post it I'll probably think of something else
to say), if you have a demon-possessed object with face or smoothing problems,
or a boolean that won't, I'd be glad to look at it. (That's what I do for fun
in my spare time. 🙂 Just email the zipped 3DS file, take two aspirin, and I
call you in the morning.
JKJ
PS: sorry this is so long – I get carried away sometimes. You probably didn't
want all this but maybe someone else will. <g>
(Disclaimer: the above is based primarily on my experiences, which have no
claim on completeness. Or as Shanti Goldstein put it, "No man is an isthmus")
[end of old message]
wow, JKJ… that's a wonderful post! bravo!
-dave
Aw, gee whiz, .., thanks! <g>
Maybe if everyone commented with their boolean tips, they could be compiled
into a reference source, perhaps to help with the next 3DS manual (if
appropriate!)
Thanks for the tip. Was this in reference to flashing shadows when shadow
mapping? or in reference to the rendering time required when raytracing or
using a large shadow map?
I just want something that yields a reliable shadowy mass for instances when
you cannot afford to raytrace!
Thanks,
Chris
>>flashing or rendering shadows…
This was in reference to your flashing shadow problem. I don't know if it will
fix your specific problem, but it is a 3DS shadow tip that has been repeted
several times on this forum.
JKJ
Thanks.
I admit that generally it is my practice to turn off shadows casting attributes
to the ground plane and such, but it is not alway foremost in my mind. I shall
try to move it up in the stack and hope that nothing of importance pops off the
top. <g>
Chris