#Animated Booleans
9 messages in this thread
Time ago we had to make a clip with an object extracting the volume of another
We could'nt do beacuse 3DS has'nt animated booleans (softimage do) so we
worked too much to do something like that.
Then I though about create an IPAS routine that can do animated booleans (the
same operations the 3DEditor has) via an AXP interface. I did the dialog box,
with the 3DE editor but anymore because I had'nt time to program (the last time
I have do a program was two years ago, so I think it would be some difficult
for me).
Is there anyone (person or bussines) interested on develop that?
Thanks
If I'm correct, the intention is that the modeler in MAX will be able to
animate all interactive functions, including booleans. Just think – booleans
that work, AND can be animated!
I just pray that we'll be able to perform similar operations on objects sthat
are imported from other CAD programs. That's MY part of this wish (not
completely different than other things I've been wishing for <g>)
> Just think – booleans that work, AND can be animated! <
I think Santiago's wish for animated booleans has a fundamental difference from
mesh-booleans that you are referring to. Animated booleans are usually
calculated more like a z-buffer.
Think of the way you can push two obects through each other in 3DS and the
intersection is shown correctly when rendered. This is because the z-buffer
determines which object is in front at the image level. In this sense, 3DS
_does_ have animated _boolean unions_.
Santiago's wish is for other boolean functions which work the same way. In the
case of subtraction, the Z-buffer is used to determine which object is in back
rather than in front. Well, this example is a little oversimplified, but
hopefully you see what I'm getting at.
— James — Choreo Motion —
<< Santiago's wish is for other boolean functions which work the same way. In
the case of subtraction, the Z-buffer is used to determine which object is in
back rather than in front. Well, this example is a little oversimplified, but
hopefully you see what I'm getting at. >>
Hmm… I just scanned that original message, so it's possible I missed
something. I would have gone back and re–read it, but it looks like it
scrolled.
Anyways, Not exactly sure what you mean by "behind"… In the case of a
subtraction, one object isn't seen at all, you just see the original object
with a void where the other object intersected…
WIll write more later…
-jk
> Not exactly sure what you mean by "behind"… In the case of a subtraction,
<
In the case of subtraction, the "subtraction" object is only rendered in areas
where it's z-buffer value is "within" that of the base object. Let me
reiterate that "z-buffer" is not entirerly accurate in the description. The
process is quite similar to a z-buffer in the sense that the decision as to
which object renders is computed at the image level. In such a way, the
subtracted area can have the material properties of the subtraction object.
My reason for responding, though, was point out that the math for mesh
booleans, like in the 3D editor, is nothing at all like the math that is
happening in programs that have animated boolens. Hence, "booleans that work
and are animatable" is not applicable in the sense that you meant it, since
attempting animated mesh booleans would be a hopeless persuit. Mesh tangencies
would crop up causing problems that even the best solids modelers couldn't deal
with.
— James — Choreo Motion —
<< My reason for responding, though, was point out that the math for mesh
booleans, like in the 3D editor, is nothing at all like the math that is
happening in programs that have animated boolens. Hence, "booleans that work
and are animatable" is not applicable in the sense that you meant it, since
attempting animated mesh booleans would be a hopeless persut>>
True, in r4. I'm hoping against hop that MAX will have a completely different
mathematical approach to booleans than the old, tired, lacking boolean approach
in the 3D editor in r4…
I get the impression that the only reliable model for booleans is a parametric
system, like Pro Engineer. I've had opportunities to work on some of the most
expensive solids modelers, and I've never seen one that handled tangencies with
grace.
I _do_ like the idea of animated booleans, though, regardlesss of the approach
used to accomplish them. They are great for creating some awesome effects.
— James — Choreo Motion —
<< I get the impression that the only reliable model for booleans is a
parametric system, like Pro Engineer. I've had opportunities to work on some
of the most expensive solids modelers, and I've never seen one that handled
tangencies with grace. >>
True… but even the simplest, cheesiest solid modeler is worlds better than
trying to boolean in 3DS. It's all a matter of perspective.
With the new parametrics in MAX, I would like to see some of these new features
really work in regards to modeling, else 98% of all the models we make will
STILL have to come from other packages than 3DS, and hence not be able to take
advantage of MAX's parametric power.
<<I _do_ like the idea of animated booleans, though, regardlesss of the
approach used to accomplish them. They are great for creating some awesome
effects>>
Very true… as I said, if we can use these parametrics with our models, we'll
have ENORMOUS power in 3DS when MAX hits.
Jerome & James, James & Jerome. Mmmm, nice discussion.
It seems you have some solutions… What I though its aplicatte a good boolean
math engine through the AXP interface to do the three elemental boolean
operations when rendering: i.e. if I substract object A from B, and A is moving
away from B, at rendering time, not only A is invisible, but regardless the
keys of A, B will be going appearing or disappearing.
With "Object/Atributes" I would assing the AXP program to object A and say that
this object is a "substractive" object that "crunch" the portion that any
object that intersects with the boundaries of object A, being invisible.
In the case of the other boolean operations the idea is the same: assign the
AXP program to the main object and say it will be a "union object" or a
"intersection object" that will aplicate its function to any other object that
intersects with its boundaries.
We could put an "Exclude or Include objects" button and a "Get Material" button
in the dialog box.
But if 3DSMAX will have something like this, oh well, then we'll wait for it,
…or for the NT ver. of SoftImage, or Lightwave, or…
Bye, & thanx