#Patch Modeler Answers
35 messages in this thread
>In many cases this could be a powerful modeling tool, but it is excrutiatingly
>similar to moving vertices in the 3D Editor – it gets just as cluttered and
>confusing.
>Hope this gives you a better idea of what might be useful…
Thanks, John, but I'm still real confused. Here's my dilemma (and remember, I
don't know nothing about birthin' babies): I once used Playmation's modeler and
found it very easy (about 10 times as easy as 3DS). Whether it was a patch, a
spline, a hook and pearl or a basketweave I have no idea, but it's been in my
mind as the holy grail of modeling ever since (the rest of the program was crap
— I sold it for $100 which was about $100 more than it was worth).
Since I can do just about anything else I want in any of 3DS's other modules
(not that I'm good, mind you, just good enough for my wishes) but absolutely
can't model to save my life, I was hoping to find something better somewhere
(either that or forever have cubes and spheres floating around in space).
Mathew Bergman's remarks about how easy Danny's modeler was to use (and I admit
that one person does not a consensus make) reminded me so much of how I felt
about Playmation's modeler that I have been thinking this might be what I'm
looking for (here's what Matt said:
>However, I did get a chance to use the Patch Modeler, and must report that it
>would have been an incredible addition. Very intuitive, and in seconds I
could >create extremely complex, smooth objects which would have taken hours
(or >have been impossible) in the Shaper & Lofter. In any case, I'm looking
forward to >its inclusion in future upgrades (r4.5?) No, it didn't crash on
me, but then again, >I wasn't pushing it. I was impressed enough I would have
loved to slip a floppy >in the machine while no one was looking and pirate the
thing.
Now, that is in 180 degrees to what you said about a patch modeler being
confusing and cluttered — at least to my mind (and, yes, it's still just one
person's opinion, and you still might BOTH be right). So, I really don't know
whether I should just dream of the day Danny gets things straightened out with
ADesk and feels he can release this wonderous thingee, or decide that modeling
just ain't my thing and get real.
Anyway, thanks for listening and responding before. I can only hope…
OK, OK, I admit it. . .I LIKED the Patch Modeler! One thing I'd like to
clarify, though: Although I very quickly created some very complex, organic
and smooth objects, I have no real way to rate how effective a tool it would be
to create specific, real-world objects on its own. What impressed me about the
Patch Modeler was its ability to create objects which would be extremely
difficult or impossible in the Shaper/Lofter, and of which smoothing would be a
time-consuming task. I very much appreciated the ability to create very
exacting landscapes by interactively "pulling" at a mesh — like sculpting with
Silly Putty, or the modeler TrueSpace. However, its usefulness in creating
more robust, scrutinized objects would probably be overshadowed by the
Shaper/Lofter.
Mathew B.
>I have no real way to rate how effective a tool it would be to create
specific, >real-world objects on its own.
I guess this is the core of the issue — for me (who is not into architechtial
issues (to the point where I can't even spell the damn word properly!)) the
shaper/lofter is very frustrating. If I want to make something like a whale or
dinosaur (that I can mold quite easily in clay, for example) somehow I have to
precisely draw a series of cross sections and figure out where all the parts
fit together. Either that, or I have to get something close and then pull and
tug on vertices (I admit I haven't tried a lot of this — maybe that's the way
to go).
I used another modeler (and I can't tell you what method it used, as I'm not
that knowledgable) and it seemed about 1000% easier. I felt like I really was
working in clay, rather than cardboard templates (which is what I feel like
when I work in 3DS). Now, whether Danny's modeler is closer to this feel or
not is still an issue that I probably can't resolve unless I have hands on
experience (not likely in my neck of the woods), so I have to try and get
impressions from others, such as yourself.
I guess it's all moot until Danny gets an actual program available, but
modeling is the one aspect of 3DS that I wish would be improved (and it WAS on
my wish list, almost two years ago when I made it known, but I guess that was
just wishful thinking, so to speak)
<< The shaper/lofter is very frustrating. If I want to make something like a
whale or dinosaur (that I can mold quite easily in clay, for example) somehow I
have to precisely draw a series of cross sections and figure out where all the
parts fit together.>>
I think once you've learned to animate at Disney or on index cards or whatever,
the most difficult part of making the 3D transition is learning to think in 3-D
space; namely, recognizing the TOP for the top only, and any modifications to
it will effect the model in limited ways. Before I used 3DS I was a
stop-motion animator and did quite a bit in sculpting clay myself. It took a
LONG time for me to learn to visualize objects in cross-sections and
deformation shapes, and I still have a nasty habit of plotting everything on
graph paper before entering the 2D Shaper.
Have you tried (or heard of) Caligari's modeler for Windows, TrueSpace? It has
the advantage of letting you model in "real space," that is, not limited to
separate two-dimensional views. This is not a product I own, but I've played
with it a bit and became accustomed to it much more quickly. I don't recommend
you put too much faith in tugging on vertices in the 3D Editor. The result,
unless it's a very subtle correction, is usually far too "deformed" looking to
be convincing for any object.
In any case, just hang tight until r5, I guess, or get ready to shell out
another $300 for a release on a future IPAS disk.
Actually, I think I've solved my own particular modeling problems, with the
help of 3DStudio Special Effects, Skin and IK.
I took the long (for us Nevadans) 3 day weekend and dedicated myself
to learning how to use Skin, along with some modeling techniques
recommended in the book. The results, along with using IK, were truly
amazing! I feel so sorry I didn't realize the power of Skin before,
but with IK it seems like there's nothing we can't do, now.
I made a Stegosaurous (or whatever the new word for this beast is nowadays) and
while it did take me the better part of the weekend, I'm confident I can
recreate it or any other dinosaur in about an hour. It really looks good, but
(even better) it moves good. IK is just about the greatest thing to come along
since… well, since Skin I guess.
So I'm happy again, and won't be looking for other modeling tools. It takes a
good article like that in the Special Effects book to get some of us to really
start thinking. Now if I can just figure out the mapping in Skin…
Mike,
>> It takes a good article like that in the Special Effects book to get some of
us to really start thinking. <<
which "article" (actually chapter or effect) in the book helped you with the
dinosaur. I'm curious …
>> Now if I can just figure out the mapping in Skin… <<
trial and error. Also, lots of tweaking of the map in a paint package.
I think it was your article, Martin, but since I don't have the book here at
work with me (unfortunately, unlike many of you guys, I don't get paid to do
this stuff, so all my 3DS is done at home — well, my CIS reading is done at
my break) I couldn't (and still can't) be sure, so I didn't want to offend any
of the other excellent authors. The entire book is a gem, with each article
worth the cover price.
But it was the one on using Skin, with the three figures. And last night I
went back and (using Elephant.tga with some blue/green tint as both a texture
and bump map) got EXACTLY the mapping effect I was after. It's really eerie,
seeing the leg move on a dinosaur so realistically. Somewhat like witchcraft.
However, after rereading that article (and, as I said, it's probably yours) I
am more than a little concerned that I "lucked out" with my leg. It talks
about the trial and error of getting the skin to look just right. Now, if
that's just trying to get the muscles, etc, with a bump map (like the
excellent torso one) then I'm not too worried (one of the benefits of doing a
creature no one's ever really seen is that you can't get it wrong) but I am a
little concerned if it's referring to repositioning and resizing the various
slices — concerned I won't be able to repeat this in the future. I didn't
move any of the slices at all after I modeled the thing, and just linked them
to the nearest bone, as the article said. Is that the tricky part, and did I
just get real lucky that the slices were in the right position?
Mike,
>> But it was the one on using Skin, with the three figures. <<
that would be mine, yes 🙂 I'm really glad to hear you are getting your money's
worth with the book. From your description it sounds like you are doing all the
right things, WRT placement of x-sections on a skeleton.
Martin
To which Special Effects book are you refering? I'am keen to know,
as we don't get out much down here (g)
Peter Bailey 4Di Melb OZ
Peter (haven't we met?)
>> To which Special Effects book are you refering? I'am keen to know,
as we don't get out much down here (g) <<
the Book's called "3d Studio Special Effects" and is published by New Riders
Publishing. It's a compilation of effects by various authors. I did 3 chapters.
Probably worth it, there may be some gems in there 🙂
You don't need to get out! You just need to hang out on the Asoft forum more
<g>.
Ahh… the mutation is accelerating. That's a good sign.
– <G>
>Ahh… the mutation is accelerating
With any luck I'll bring back all the dinosaurs to Nevada. Let's see, God
creates Man, Man destroys God, Man creates dinosaurs, dinosaurs eat man…
Women inherit the earth?
In our dreams.
– G
<<With any luck I'll bring back all the dinosaurs to Nevada. Let's see, God
creates Man, Man destroys God, Man creates dinosaurs, dinosaurs eat man…
Women inherit the earth?>>
Now,Now,… Eventually you Do plan to have DINOSAURS…
On your, on your.. Dinosaur tour.. Right?… Hello……..
>>Women inherit the earth?
We already had, I thought. It's just a matter of time before you guys notice.
Michele
Notice? Michele, I've never doubted it. (And never felt in better hands)
<<The mutations are accellerating>>
There was a movie out a while back called "hideous mutant freekz"
(they shortened it to 'Freaks") that was really twisted and funny,
but the main character had been turned into a freak by a mad
scientist (who else?), and now everytime I hear someone speak of
mutation on this forum I think of that character. Impossible to
describe, unless you are familar with the artist who did the make up
(Screaming Mad George). Half his face is normal, the other half, a
hideous mutant. (comically hideous). Rent the movie and tell me it
doesn't make the perfect visual image.
There's another film called "Freaks" from the '60s. I think it was
done by Todd Browning. A classic.
I have heard of that one, but never seen it.
>>"Freaks" from the '60s I may be wrong on this, but I_think_that
that film was actually from the '30s. Saw it some time ago, and one
of the books I 'borrowed' from my mom's literature library had the
story it was based on. I'll check tonight and apologise Monday if I'm
wrong.
'Freaks' (the one Time mentioned) does qualify in my book as a good
stupid movie :^). Loved the subtitled (for thte culturally impared)
Shakespeare soliloquy.
Yup, there was Freaks (1932) by Tod Browning. It was also re-released
as "Forbidden Love", "Nature's Mistakes", "Barnum", and "The Monster
Show". The book was "Spurs" by Tod Robbins.
>>"Spurs" by Tod Robbins Dots de one; now I don't have to check;
thanks.
Nice to see someone on this forum who knows the classics. Now, the
real question: What famous film did Tod Browning direct, one year
prior to "Freaks," and how does it relate to the current Tim Burton
film?
I thought the bit with the kid, Stewie Glutz, on the airplane ("does
this disgusting little troll belong to you?".) was pretty funny.
>>I thought the bit with the kid :^). Yeah, it was a fun little
movie. How about "Sorry, son; I'm a mad scientist, not a miracle
worker."
Right… Thanks for the reminder. It's been about 20 years since I've
seen it.
Although I've heard a lot of talk about the Special Effects book, I
really haven't looked into it too much. Maybe now I will. Does it
go in to newer topics like Skin and IK in much detail?
It doesn't cover IK or any of the R4 new stuff (although it does
mention that R4 will do animations from the Light perspective), but
you WILL want this book. My first take on it was that, compared to
New Riders "Inside" it was a little brief — but then the Bible is
brief compared to "Inside". As I read through "Special Effects" I
find SO many useful techniques, even to just thinking about things
differently.
Like many others, I've been keeping logs of all the useful tips and
tricks here on the forum, and have always wished for a book that
would have all these included. "Special Effects" isn't that book, but
it's the closest thing I've seen yet. Actually, they need to publish
about three sequels to it and I think we'll have it covered.
Mike PMJI
>> now if I can just figure out the mapping in Skin <<
The first vertex in the shaper is where the map is centered. I just
went through the trails of mapping my first skin object that required
exact placement of a map I have found the UV offset to be hit or
miss.
>The first vertex in the shaper is where the map is centered
Great hint, Max. I know that will come in handy this weekend, when I
intend to start fooling with the maps to get exact placement (up
until now I've been more than satisfied with hit or miss results).
<< Actually, I think I've solved my own particular modeling problems, with the
help of 3DStudio Special Effects, Skin and IK. >>
<< I feel so sorry I didn't realize the power of Skin before, >>
There ya' go. Good to hear !
BILL
Hi,
I have used a lot of modelers, NURB, Solid, Bezier, COONS Patch, etc. I also
played with the patch modeler a lot and came to the conclusion that it had a
limited use. Tru you could create some interesting objects and landscape
planes, but it was difficult to get what you had in mind. Another thing that I
was hoping and had heard it was supposed to do, was join to existing objects.
You were only given precise control of the control frame, not the true mesh.
I'm all for all the modelers I can find, including the Patch Modeler, but I
didn't think it was very useful and would have caused more complaints and
frustration than praise.
Hi Mike,
I enjoyed reading the thread you and John T. had going. I guess it IS a matter
of opinion.
What you have to bear in mind is that modeling with bezier patches is very
different from modeling using the standard 3DS primitives. It's a different
mind set. Some people might find it confusing and others might find it very
intuitive. It all depends on the user.
Danny…
>Some people might find it confusing and others might find it very intuitive.
It all >depends on the user.
Since this IS so, any chance that there might be a demo (crippleware or
otherwise) available so that those of us who want to see if this is for us can
try it before we buy? I mean, I KNOW you're busy now, but perhaps in the
course of cleaning things up for release you could have a version which allowed
you to model but not to actually save the models, for example.
It's not that I'm cheap — I just don't have much money.
PMJI Mike, but I believe you may be wishing for something that doesn't exist.
As I stated last week, there are MANY methods to use splines in modeling. The
patch modeler is just one method, and can be very useful for certain
applications. It should be recognized that also, the ability to perform many
various deformations in the MODELING & ANIMATING stages is very important wrt
spline tools in general. Ultimately, the most powerful form of tools allow
construction & modification of 3D freeform control curves along with "power
tools & functions" for modeling & animation. Spline tools do not necessarily
make modeling *_easier_*. They can certainly be more difficult if one is not
experienced with them, or if poorly implemented. Actually, the most powerful
freeform spline modeling is not really that different than 3DS's native
polygonal tools in *concept* – only in the results. If the native 3DS polygonal
tools give you a hard time, the the most advanced NURBS modelers on earth will
likely also give you a hard time. Playmation perhaps seemed easier to you
because you can see the actual curves as you construct them, unlike using 3DS &
Skin.axp. But Playmation has no "power" functions at all, and if you spent some
time working on developing lattices for B-Spline fitting with Skin.axp, I'm
sure that you'd find that you can be MUCH MORE PRODUCTIVE than using
Playmation…even though you're using a native polygonal modeler, building
lattices not curves, lofting vs freeform 3D construction, and you can't
interactively see the actual curves, etc, etc.. Still, one can construct
virtually anything with 3DS & Skin.axp. The biggest shortcoming is in
EDITING/DEFORMING the mesh and in ANIMATION. A patch modeler can be useful for
perhaps more abstract design, but for precise highly detailed work, control
curves & power tools are usually much more productive. And as I said, the
concept is much more similar to 3DS polygonal mesh construction than to
modeling with patches.
Regards,
BILL