#No Splines In R4?
31 messages in this thread
To all disgruntled R4 users,
I've said it before & I'll say it again. The very best Bezier Patch modeler
ever created is far less powerful than the current native 3DS tools & Skin.axp,
combined with some of the Plug-Ins such as Deform, etc.. Why do so many people
not consider any of this stuff as "Spline Modeling Tools" ? ALL 3DS modules use
splines in some way. Create a 4×4 grid with Grids.pxp, or loft a 8-sided N-Gon
on a 5 vertex path, manipulate the vertices, & apply Skin.axp….close approx.
of patch modeling (well, sorta'<g>).
If you find it difficult/impossible to create complex geometry with the above
tools & methods, why do you think a Bezier Patch modeler will magically change
that ? Yes, you can pull on a few vert's and produce curved geometry….you can
do the same with a simple lattice & Skin as above. But if the native & plug-in
tools don't allow you to successfully create complex curved objects, a patch
modeler isn't going to save you. This is no bad rap on the patch modeler, just
a fact of life. Manipulating a single planar or cylindrical patch is easy.
Concatenating a BUNCH of them into a detailed complex object is DIFFICULT. It
requires the same level of modeling skills as using the native/plug-in tools.
Also, why in the H**L do you think ADESK/YG pulled the plug, if it wasn't in
your best interest to do so ? I know that sounds terrible, but it's true. Why
do so many people not trust them all-of-a-sudden ? Is the message you're
sending << INCLUDE EVERYTHING IN THE S/W, NO MATTER WHAT…WE'LL DECIDE IF IT'S
ANY GOOD >>, *really* the message you want to convey to the developers ?? It's
unfortunate for EVERYBODY concerned that it happened the way it happened, but
that's life….roll with the punches. You didn't have to buy R4 if you didn't
think it was worth the money, or you could have cancelled the order when the
announcement was made. Right ? How many of you did ?
Sorry for the tone, but I just don't get it….still.
Diogenes has left the building <ggg>.
BILL
Right on, Diogenes.
– G
PS: I've saved this one for posterity.
🙂
< The very best Bezier Patch modeler ever created is far less powerful than the
current native 3DS tools & Skin.axp, combined with some of the Plug-Ins such as
Deform, etc..>
Useing skin.axp and Deform over a nurb/Bezier modeler? please…
not to mention that is's much work to jump around to Ipazs to Ipazs. with no
way to inport or export DXF models for skinning.
<If you find it difficult/impossible to create complex geometry with the above
tools & methods, why do you think a Bezier Patch modeler will magically change
that ? >
With the right software and the minds like the Yost group, yes.
<Also, why in the H**L do you think ADESK/YG pulled the plug, if it wasn't in
your best interest to do so ?>
Yes, if the software is poor and the upgrade path is the same as most of my
Ipas I own.
< Why do so many people not trust them all-of-a-sudden>
Sorry, I think the Marketing Dept. [ not Yost] has been hurt badly. 3DS people
are not dumb and
it will take some time to rebuild the trust. But I stillI don't think I will
go to a another road show.
I think the problem was that R4 was marketed as a major upgrade with a Spline
modeler included
[ I still get mags with the spline included for rev. 4 ] This was a marketing
mistake as it is not. The statement of a upgrade cycle less that normal was a
clue that R4 was a way to get us the software today. I feel that naming it ver
3.5 could have made the difference here.
The good news is that the people that we look up to "Yost Group" are working
to blow us away
with ver.5 and was not responable for the marketing of ver.4.
<You didn't have to buy R4 if you didn't think it was worth the money, or you
could have cancelled the order when the announcement was made. Right ? How many
of you did ?>
Most of us make our living with 3DS.
<Sorry for the tone, but I just don't get it….still.>
We all see it a little differently and this is my viewpoint on it.
-Brandon
>>Useing skin.axp and Deform over a nurb/Bezier modeler? please…
^^^^
Sorry, don't believe nurbs were involved in what Bill was talking about;
rather, as he said, a >>Bezier Patch modeler<<.
John Stetzer
JWS
<< Sorry, don't believe nurbs were involved in what Bill was talking about;
rather, as he said, a >>Bezier Patch modeler<<. >>
THANK YOU JOHN ! I'm glad somebody out there realizes the difference….which
is sort of the point I'm making.
BILL
>>THANK YOU JOHN
No, thank you; your explanations have helped me understand splines a bit more,
led me to experiment a bit more, and you've had at least some part in making my
next dragon look a little better (even if I am using the Catmul-Rom option ;^).
I too am curious to see what G and company have in store for r5.
John Stetzer
JWS
<< and you've had at least some part in making my next dragon look a little
better>>
Me ? And I didn't even have to lift a mouse ? <g> That's great. I like your
dragon a lot. In fact, I've been studying them & hope to construct one
someday….it's on my list. But I'm really lazy, so you know how that
goes…..someday, maybe <g>.
Have you seen the series of Little Fantasy Dragons (Dagmar & Dewey Draglings)
lithoprints done by Randal Spangler ? Nice stuff.
Regards,
BILL
>>someday, maybe <g>
That's the way I feel about this beasty (the 'someday' part); an hour here and
there after hours-between projects at work; this is no way to get him done.
Hoping this week to find out if a deal came through to let me get a faster home
system (nothing like going from a p90 at work to a 386-40 at home to make one
feel slow ;^).
>>Have you seen…
Nope, 'fraid not. Where should I look?
John Stetzer
JWS
>>Have you seen…
<<< Nope, 'fraid not. Where should I look? >>>
Well, I've seen them advertised in Science Fiction Age magazine. One source is
FANTASTIC ART — P.O. Box 10161 — Kansas City, MO 64171-0160 —
1-800-825-1281. There's a 1/2 page print of a new image in the ad most every
month that I've noticed.
BILL
Yes.. a bezier patch modeller is a completely different kettle of fish than a
NURBS modeller like AutoSurf.
I think many people think that a Bezier Patch modeller is something much more
powerfull than it really is.
It basically allows you to start with a sphere, plane or cylinder (or other
primitive) and do a sort of lattice deformation on it.
Very similar to what you get with skin and deform combined…
Useful, but NOT a nurbs modeller, that is something MUCH more powerful.
Ahhhh. Another member you understands where I'm coming from. How satisfying!
That's 2 I think <g>.
BILL
<< Useing skin.axp and Deform over a nurb/Bezier modeler? please… >>
That's not AT ALL what I said…..read it again. Yes, while not *IDEAL* today,
3DS's native tools, Skin, etc.. are much more powerful than ** merely a Bezier
Patch Modeler **, which is far from a complete spline modeling
environment…..NURBS or no NURBS. In fact, a NURBS patch modeler (ONLY) is
less powerful than the above. Just because it uses NURBS doesn't mean a thing.
Check out the PD upload here.
<< With the right software and the minds like the Yost group, yes. >>
Well, in their minds I guess, it wasn't the right solution….which was my
point.
<< I think the problem was that R4 was marketed as a major upgrade with a
Spline modeler included >>
A spline ** BEZIER PATCH ** modeler was advertised, ALIAS it wasn't. There's a
BIG difference, which again is my point. Let's see what they manage to cook up
next for R5.
Regards,
BILL
Yo Brandon,
"The good news is that the people that we look up to "Yost Group"
"are working to blow us away with ver.5…"
Well… That's not the only Good News.
Ditto.
🙂
Bill,
I'm very much in awe of the skill level and expertise some people have been
able to achieve. You and a few others have created some really nice looking
images using the traditional techniques you've mentioned. But you can tell by
the number of requests for that email that an awful lot of people aren't happy
with the results they're getting. I really don't think they wanted a *bad*
spline modeler. I think they're just desperate for more flexibility. Now I'll
have to admit I don't own it, and I only played with it for 15 minutes, but the
kind of push and pull flexibility that Animation Master showed, I could make
great use of. Now if that kind of tool cannot be implemented into 3D Studio
for some reason, that's very sad. I believe that's what the original developer
was implying in his message. Or he was unhappy with the IPAS implementation, I
don't know which. But I have a real hard time thinking in slices. And for the
amount of time I've put into trying to create humanoid figures with the lofter,
deform, skin, and slice, I really do wish I could grab part of the mesh and
just pull with some control over tension and affected size. This really
doesn't have to turn into a war between the states, and it must have had some
merit, otherwise Autodesk wouldn't have tried to implement it in the first
place.
Roger D.
<< Now I'll have to admit I don't own it, and I only played with it for 15
minutes, but the kind of push and pull flexibility that Animation Master
showed, I could make great use of. >>
I think "only played with it for 15 minutes" is key here. I've used it, 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.
<< But I have a real hard time thinking in slices. And for the amount of time
I've put into trying to create humanoid figures with the lofter, deform, skin,
and slice, I really do wish I could grab part of the mesh and just pull with
some control over tension and affected size. >>
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).
What some people don't realize is, the method is very similar with 3DS's tools,
and with Skin.axp, the amount of CV's required is greatly reduced & manageable.
The big difference of course, is that ultimately you are working with polygons,
and you can't see the Skin-implied surface contour wireframe. There are of
course, other differences, but I hope you see my point. Of great signifigance
in any modeling environment is the ability to quickly & easily isolate vertices
and manipulate them. And 3DS is very, very good at this. Trying to work fine
detail with THOUSANDS of vertices & polygon-related tools IS overwhelming. But
using the native tools to construct low-vertex count lattices for Skin, is not
too bad at all. I can only refer you to my Cowboy Head upload, or the Female
Torso upload here. They only used about 700 & 2000 vertices respectively, yet
have a good bit of detail.
And then there's the question: Why was it not included if it was really a very
useful addition at the time of release ? I can't answer that personally, I do
beleieve it's been addressed, and why on earth would you think that AD or YG
would want to "cheat you" out of something beneficial to the modeling
environment ? As far as the announcement of the modeler, and then pulling it,
well….that's unfortunate. Perhaps they would have even more disgruntled
user's had it shipped ?
So, that's my 2 cents worth, FWIW.<g>
BILL
Bill,
>> I can only refer you to my Cowboy Head upload, or the Female Torso upload
here. <<
did you ever finish the female – adding a head, for instance? I suppose you
could have put the cowboy head on her for a lark <G>.
Hi Martin,
<< did you ever finish the female – adding a head, for instance? I suppose you
could have put the cowboy head on her for a lark <G>. >>
Funny you should mention that. I did experiment briefly with how much work it
would take to tweak the Cowboy head to feminine features…..Then I started
from scratch!<g> Looked pretty strange. Yeah, I had to finish this one, as it
was a rare job I accepted for a previous client. I really shouldn't have
uploaded that torso here, but the final looked very different with clothes,
etc…..and a head!
Have you got any new characters brewing ?
BILL
Bill,
>> I really shouldn't have uploaded that torso here, but the final looked very
different with clothes, etc…..and a head! <<
is there any chance you could upload an image of the final female? I really
enjoyed seeing your previous skin work.
>> Have you got any new characters brewing ? <<
not so much new characters, but more like giving motion to the existing ones.
I've always wanted to give them life (call me Dr Frankenstein) and I plan on
trying to use Puppeteer on them. I think I'd like to rework my female and do
some more work on her head. I was fairly happy with her body, but the head
didn't do the body justice, especially in close-up. I might try an "anime"
style head, instead of realistic. It's a Japanese art style, popular in comics
and cartoons, typified by very large eyes and tiny noses and mouths.
<< is there any chance you could upload an image of the final female? I really
enjoyed seeing your previous skin work. >>
I meant that I have no rights to that finished mesh. That would be pushing my
luck, and I have no luck historically with such matters.<g> However, since most
of the time I'm not working on commercial projects these days, I plan on
constructing other similar/better meshes/images which I'll upload. I've just
been real busy with this Rayman thing for several months. Thanks for the kind
words.
Actually, seeing the wonderful bump-mapping on your characters inspired me.
But, I have little traditional artistic ability, so I had to try to model the
anatomy. That was very fine work you did with those characters.
<<…and I plan on trying to use Puppeteer on them.>>
You have, have/access to a MC system ? That would be fun, I'm sure. Never
fooled around with that, myself. Hope to see more of your work here, as well.
Regards,
BILL
Bill,
>> That was very fine work you did with those characters.<<
thanks for the compliments – they mean a lot, especially coming from you 🙂
Maybe, that will encourage me to do some more work on them. I received a lot of
attention because of them and probably got my current job at Virgin because of
them.
>> You have, have/access to a MC system ? <<
no, I'm afraid not. At least not yet. I was thinking of using canned motions
from the optically motion captured Biovision files that Viewpoint sells.
<< I was thinking of using canned motions from the optically motion captured
Biovision files that Viewpoint sells. >>
Ahhh. I'd be interested to know how that works out. Keep up the great work.
BILL
Bill,
>> I'd be interested to know how that works out <<
thanks and I'll probably have a chance to try it in the new year.
>>> I might try an "anime" style head, instead of realistic. It's a Japanese
art style, popular in comics and cartoons, typified by very large eyes and tiny
noses and mouths. <<<
I u/l'ed a file called Babes3D which is a shareware set of objects of anime
women.
Tim,
>> I u/l'ed a file called Babes3D which is a shareware set of objects of anime
women. <<
excellent. I'm looking forward to seeing it.
Hey, Tim, thanks for the Babes!<g>
-Alan
A patch modeller does have merit, and is indeed a useful tool…but you still
need strong modelling skills.
Its like being an artist with just one size paintbrush. If you are good you can
still create amazing work. If you had a range of paintbrushes, you could do
even MORE amazing work. If you can't paint well however, it won't make much
difference with one cheap brush, or a full set of expensive ones…
A patch modeller could well be implemented into R4 via an IPAS routine, but
like any program, sometimes you get to a certain point in its development and
then realise you started off the wrong way, and nothing will fix it but a total
re-write, starting from a different conceptual point.
Maybe this is what happened… I don't know, but I do know as a developer that
it can be done with the IPAS 4 toolkit….Someone just has to write one…
<<If you find it difficult/impossible to create complex geometry with the above
tools & methods, why do you think a Bezier Patch modeler will magically change
that ? Yes, you can pull on a few vert's and produce curved geometry….you can
do the same >>
You make some very valid points here, but, I feel you miss one thing about the
native 3DS and IPAS routines to do the same thing as Spline Modeler.
CONTINUITY! If I have to use five different IPAS routines plus 3DS kernel
there is a produtivity problem in this approach. Not to mention that IPAS
skinning does not show up in the EDITOR, only when you render do you see it.
So, there is GUESSWORK here. Then, add that you can't view a wire frame
preview of any of this stuff, except the skeleton, and I think you have great
incentive for a comprehensive, integrated modeler program.
Just my two cents . . .
David Swoboda
P.S. Take a look at page 67 in Computer Graphics World NOV 94 and then please
get me a towel so I can wipe up all the drool on my chin! :>) Santa, I've
been a good boy and would like an SGI w/ Alias and then a DEC Alpha with NT
3DStudio and Lightwave NT and …………
<< and I think you have great incentive for a comprehensive, integrated modeler
program. >>
Please don't misunderstand my points. I am NOT saying the current modeling
system is any substitute for an integrated spline modeling system. But within
the limitations of what it is intended to accomplish, it is very good. And many
of the skills utilized with it & the IPAS routines are applicable to working
with higher-end integrated spline modelers….a prerequisite, really. But if
you need results TODAY, which have some of the characteristics of spline
modeling/animating, you're not completely lost….it is possible with a little
work.
<< Take a look at page 67 in Computer Graphics World NOV 94 and then please get
me a towel so I can wipe up all the drool on my chin! :>) Santa, I've been a
good boy and would like an SGI w/ Alias and then a DEC Alpha with NT 3DStudio
and Lightwave NT and ………… >>
Geez! You've got me drooling all over myself, too. <g>
BILL