Inside Lightwave's Head Model

[Carm3D]

I can't comment on SmoothShift, I haven't used it enough.. But scale will center itself on 0,0,0 or wherever you lick in the view. There's a nice pair of lscript plugins on flay.com called CenterScale and CenterStretch that auto-centers it's scaling operations.

If you just want to move something in the Z direction, go in the top view, hold down your Ctrl button, and drag it up or down with the move tool (or drag left and right in a side view).

[Kaiser_Sose]

I figured out the sizeing by a factr of %80 problem but the move by a - 3.0 mm on the z axis just doesnt seem right and there is no correction on the site

[Carm3D]

This is how you do that...

Select your points or polys.

Hit "t" for move
Hit "n" for the numeric input panel.
Type "-3mm" in the Z field.

And.. The apply button if there is one.

Pretty simple. You just got Lightwave?

[Kaiser_Sose]

Carm,

Thanks but I am not that dumb

I can read simple directions and I did exactly what you said, which the book says, but look at how much it moves ... that can not be right

[Mattoo]

I wouldn't worry about things like that. Character modelling isn't an exact science, just make it so it looks right, don't worry about the numbers so much.

Also, it's quite likely there might be errors in the text.

You'll quickly find out that it doesn't matter how well you follow that tutorial, everyones heads based on that tutorial come out looking different, I know, I've seen enough of 'em. Stuart Aitken and Dan Ablan have a lot to answer for ;)

[Kaiser_Sose]

Originally posted by Mattoo
Stuart Aitken and Dan Ablan have a lot to answer for ;)

Ok, but for a newbie, when someone tells me to move something -3mm on the z axis I expect it to be right, if not its going to confuse me more and more ... I expect to see the same as the book shows

Are you saying this tutorial and book are full of mistakes

[Carm3D]

> Thanks but I am not that dumb

Sorry I insulted your intelligence.. I wasn't fully briefed on your lightwave experience. Just trying to help you out. :shrug:

[Kaiser_Sose]

No problem, its cool

[Kaiser_Sose]

This just doesnt seem correct

http://home.socal.rr.com/mb18/aftermove.jpg

Actually, the image above is after I move it not smoothshifted it

[Rabid pitbull]

ok i did that tutorial.. actually it was in the first edition for 6.. basically the same. I remember a few problems with that eye for myself too. I cant say for sure what went wrong, but i agree with mattoo. make it look correct to you dont worry what the actual values in the book say after all it could be wrong. i sort of think that maybe the eye is the wrong size ??? also the second image looks like symetry might be on??symetry can cause alot of problems, also make sure to have the selection mode set correctly, probably want action center to be mouse. just guessing of course, but i have seen stranger things happen!

also go to Dan Ablans site and check to see if there are any corrections to the book there, this i know he did for my book.

goo luck

[Eugeny]

I don't know about this tutorial but your grid is 2mm, so moving polygons to 3mm u get this result... Try to move on 0.3 mm. As for num scale - just keep an eye on center of the action - its in 0 0 0 on your settings and center of your eye is not 0 0 0.

[Kaiser_Sose]

Originally posted by Eugeny
I don't know about this tutorial but your grid is 2mm, so moving polygons to 3mm u get this result... Try to move on 0.3 mm. As for num scale - just keep an eye on center of the action - its in 0 0 0 on your settings and center of your eye is not 0 0 0.

I was think about that ... when I load Modeler my grid size is set to 500mm when I load the lwo it jumps to 2m

I am following these direction exactly

[Eugeny]

500 mm is something difault... Then u load something smoll Modeler atomaticly jump to smoller grid size. U can make smoller grid by simple zoom in in one of the modeler window... Just allways keep an eye on grid size ( lower down corner of interface).
Good luck.

[Kaiser_Sose]

I just winged it ... the book must be wronf, thats what others are telling me. I just moved it -1.5mm and I will leave it there

Thanks for all the help

I do have another question

P 447 , step 3 ... when I click tab I get a message that only faces with four or 3 faces can be subpatched or something like that. It still smooths it but I dont think that error should be there

So I went into statistices and I dleted one face which now produces the tab key without an error but it deleted one point from the fifteen I placed for the eye ... is this going to be a problem

This is were it deleted a point. The book makes mention that its important to have these points in the corners of the eye. Should I just add a point in there

http://home.socal.rr.com/mb18/subdeye.jpg

Here is a picture of all three layers. Does this look ok so far. I just have to line up the objects to get rid of the deformations, correct


http://home.socal.rr.com/mb18/threelayerseye.jpg

http://home.socal.rr.com/mb18/threelayerseye.lwo

[ClingFree]

I just tried it and the tutorial is correct. Are you sure that your eyeball is 11 mm? Are you positive that you set up the background image by using the box tool? I know these may sound like stupid questions, but you made a small mistake somewhere along the way. You also need to make sure that you cursor is in the center of the polys (about 21.6 mm on the y, if everything else has been setup correctly) when you use the size tool. I hope that helps.

[ClingFree]

Just so you can see how it should look here is the eye after the smooth shift.

[Kaiser_Sose]

Originally posted by ClingFree
I just tried it and the tutorial is correct. Are you sure that your eyeball is 11 mm? Are you positive that you set up the background image by using the box tool? I know these may sound like stupid questions, but you made a small mistake somewhere along the way. You also need to make sure that you cursor is in the center of the polys (about 21.6 mm on the y, if everything else has been setup correctly) when you use the size tool. I hope that helps.

Which part are you referring to, the moving of the two bands of polygons negative 3mm on the z or scaling them by a factor of %80.

If you are referrring the he later , ya, the book is correct. I corrected that a while ago

If you are referring to the moveing on a negative 3mm on the z axis than thats a different story. When I move it -3mm I feel it is to much seeing what happens in modelor so I just cut it half

[Kaiser_Sose]

Originally posted by ClingFree
Just so you can see how it should look here is the eye after the smooth shift.

Hi

Thanks for the help

Take a look at the object file I posted and tell me if that will do

[ClingFree]

The picture above is with the smoothshift with no offset and control t to move -3 mm on the z just like the book. Did you set your original sphere to be 11 mm on all three axes?

[Kaiser_Sose]

Originally posted by ClingFree
Did you set your original sphere to be 11 mm on all three axes?

Yes

I just tried it again with the same results

And I did make a box in the first layer to position the bmp as the book says

[ClingFree]

I just did it with your file and no problems. Are you using 7.5? That's what I use. I have your file with a few extra layers with each step. I could email it to you. I would send it privately but it doesn't allow private attachments. I will also send you my background config to make sure there isn't something that happened with that.

[Kaiser_Sose]

If you take a look at my file, the center Y is also 21.6 or some where close to that

Could it be something in my LW configuration files in 7.5

You can e - mail to me at mb18@socal.rr.com

[ClingFree]

You should have an email waiting for you. It may be the config. The size for the backdrop on the BR viewport should be 240 mm by 200 mm. The size of the BL viewport should be 240 mm by 160 mm. Oops...I meant the config for the backdrop options not your lw config.

[Kaiser_Sose]

For the backdrop I used the box dimensions from the book

Here is the file

{ ViewportBackdrop
2
{ Clip
{ Still
"background_template/FaceFront.bmp"
}
}
SizeCenter 0 0 0.23999999 0.16
PixelAspect 0 0.6825397
Picture 153 146 0
OpenGL 3 0
}
{ ViewportBackdrop
3
{ Clip
{ Still
"background_template/FaceSide.bmp"
}
}
SizeCenter 0 0 0.23999999 0.2
PixelAspect 0 0.83333337
Picture 153 152 0
OpenGL 3 0
}

[Kaiser_Sose]

Our config files are exactly the same

I dont see any difference between the eyes, execpt you say yours moved -3mm correctly

When I move your eye, I get the same thing

[ClingFree]

Wow, that is strange. I agree the configs are the same aside from brightness and contrast. Hmmmmm...very strange...well like the others said it is probably better to eyeball and get a feel for the modeling rather than follow the tutorial by the math only. Good luck, sorry I couldn't be more help.

[Kaiser_Sose]

It is strange and someone will LW experience has to know the answer ... I just hope it does not ruin the rest of the tutorial for me

I do have another question

P 447 , step 3 ... when I click tab I get a message that only faces with four or 3 faces can be subpatched or something like that. It still smooths it but I dont think that error should be there

So I went into statistices and I dleted one face which now produces the tab key without an error but it deleted one point from the fifteen I placed for the eye ... is this going to be a problem

This is were it deleted a point. The book makes mention that its important to have these points in the corners of the eye. Should I just add a point in there

http://home.socal.rr.com/mb18/subdeye.jpg

Here is a picture of all three layers. Does this look ok so far. I just have to line up the objects to get rid of the deformations, correct


http://home.socal.rr.com/mb18/threelayerseye.jpg

http://home.socal.rr.com/mb18/threelayerseye.lwo

[Mike RB]

change your mode to "selection center" instead of "origin". Should work fine.

[ClingFree]

You should only have layer one selected when you hit the tab key, otherwise the poly that you built for the Lens will give you the error because it has more than 4 sides.

[Kaiser_Sose]

Originally posted by Mike RB
change your mode to "selection center" instead of "origin". Should work fine.

Mike,

I tried that and no matter what I do I get that huge move of -3mm

ANy idea what it could be

I am going to look through the manual for the key to reset mofeler at default

[rock]

Kaiser_Sose is right. In order to make it look like the book picture Fig. 10.7, you have to move by offset -1.5mm in Exercise 10.2 Step 9, instead of -3mm as in Dan Ablan's Lightwave 7 book. But when you scale you have to size it by 85% instead of the 80% indicated in the book.

I think the discrepancy first occurred in Exercise 10.2 Step 2 when the book states that "It should have an approximate radius of 11mm on all three axes, which you can see in the numeric requester." However in Fig. 10.6, the numeric Ball tool panel on the top right shows the radius on all 3 axes to be 12.5mm - an approximate difference of 1.5mm.

Therefore, it is an approximation - it could be 11.2mm, 11.9876349 mm or 12.45mm. Thus when you scale, size, or smoothshift, you will not get an exact look as in the book or someone else.

But this does not mean to say that the book has no error in this section or chapter or that it is easy to follow. Most beginners will find it hard to follow at various stages because the book is not clear in its text descriptions or should have place an in-between diagram to fully describe the resulting actions, so that the tutorial will continue to go smoothly. It should have detailed, for example, how to make the eye brow bridge to have the curve or shadows near the eye socket or how to bend and shear the eyelid so that no matter how close you zoom into the eye, it will not have holes, with more detailed diagram so that it is clear, unambiguous or not vague.

Although the model is organic and therefore, approximate by nature, the book should not have been vague at various stages. It does require a greater effort and a different kind of intelligence to have the steps clear.


Rock.

[m_luscombe]

Just to chime in here, I bought the book and tried the tutorial and ended up with the same screwyness. Gave up.

I did have a lot of luck with the Joan of Arc tutorial for Max using Lightwave.

Not a solution, I know, just my experience.

[Cman]

Originally posted by m_luscombe
Just to chime in here, I bought the book and tried the tutorial and ended up with the same screwyness. Gave up.

I did have a lot of luck with the Joan of Arc tutorial for Max using Lightwave.

Not a solution, I know, just my experience.

I also found a good result with this one:
Subdivision Head (http://www.secondreality.ch/tutorials/modelling/head.html)
Also Max, but I had no problem adapting.

[Petrik]

I also have the book. I got up to this tutorial and now the book is taking a break on the bookshelf, mainly to rest my brain. Did you get through the Skyscraper ok? I found I had a few problems there in places and yes I did fix the known errors as listed on the books web site. In the end I did what I needed to to get the look and used the book to guide me and not rule me.

I got to the head tutorial and made a start on it. Problem is I have no patience. I got frustrated with it and I also found things did not seem to go as planned. I will get back to the book but for now I am attacking the masses of tutorials out there on the net.

As someone said at our user group meeting having the book telling you step by step what to do is all well and good. But it doesn't tell you why you are doing it. From that perspective it would not hurt to "wing" it in places so you get a feel as to why you are doing something. At some point you need to throw away the join the dots drawing book and start out on your own.

I am sure there are more errors in the book than what the web site lists. Have you made Dan aware of your problems. They can't list/fix them if they don't know about them.

[Remi]

As more than one person has said....these are just tutorials and not the only methods used to achieve the desired effect. Think out of the box here bud and you'll learn way more than just taking numbers from a book and typing them in. Good luck and do your own thing.

No disrespect.:) at least you're trying. Keep it up man.

[anieves]

which one is it ILW6 or ILW7?

there are errata pages for the books.

errata (http://www.insidelightwave.com/inlw6.htm)

[m_luscombe]

Ugh. I hate that whole "tutorials stink" attitude. Once one figure out all the tools, definitely, make your own shapes. But, people have to start somewhere.

On the first day of flight training they don't put you in an F16 and send you off to Kandahar. There is usually a few training exercises, they show you what all the lights mean and stuff.

Jeez. How else are we going to learn? Telepathy?

[Petrik]

I totally agree tutorials are invaluable. And if you read my post properly you will see I am still making my way through them (just not the books' right now) and hunting out more. Hell I am far from ready to walk on my own two feet completely at this stage. I am at the take two steps and crawl for two stage.

One thing is for sure. These forums are a great help... Oh and as someone rightfully pointed out if you do get stuck it doesn't hurt to go back and have a look in the manual as well. :-)

[SplineGod]

Im not a real big fan of point by point modeling.
Here is work done by students taking my Professional Character Series. I teach a much easier method. Most of the students were or are total newbies when it comes to organic modeling...for some of them this is their first steps into 3D at all. :)

http://www.3dtrainingonline.com/studentwork

info on the course can be found at:
www.fxacademy.com
or
www.splinegod.com/professionalcharacterseries.html

[Petrik]

Cool our LWUG guru at the very top of the page.

I will be getting into that next year. Got a big trip coming up so when that's passed and I get some more cash comming in I'll be knocking at your door.

[takkun]

I'm currently on page 478, about two-thirds done with the tutorial. I remember having trouble with the eyes too, I don't remember what I did- I think I just looked at the images in the book and created them without worrying about the numbers. I also studied the eyes on the finished model that comes on the cd.

I can't believe that you guys are bad-mouthing this tutorial! I think that it's been great so far. It's the first tutorial in the book that takes some artistic talent to complete and not just punching in numbers. The tutorial is a lot easier if you use Poz Extender, 3DD-PointRail Selector, and Mirror tools. Here's my current progress, I should finish the modeling stage by tomorrow:

[wgreenlee1]

I thought myself that it was a great learning experience.
Alban leaves a little for you to figure out which makes it even a more enriching experience.:cool:

[Remi]

I'm not slamming the tutorial by any means. I did it too. I liked it even. But tutorials are not meant to be a "this is the only way you can do this" method. They're just supposed to open your eyes a little and get you going. Dan Ablan is an awesome instructor and he will continue to be i'm sure. I'm just saying think outside of the box here. No slamming intended.

Good luck though. I hope you learn some new things. I try and learn something new every day. :)

[Kaiser_Sose]

Who brought this thread up from the dead :)

Dan did not write this tutorial, it was done by Stuart Aitken, I think his name is and whatever you say about it, just look at the books cover

I think a more important isuue is the fact that all buyers of this book have been promised bonus tutorials months and months ago and nothing has come out so far

http://www.newriders.com/about/contact/index.asp

[Remi]

Originally posted by Kaiser_Sose
Who brought this thread up from the dead :)

Dan did not write this tutorial, it was done by Stuart Aitken, I think his name is and whatever you say about it, just look at the books cover

I think a more important isuue is the fact that all buyers of this book have been promised bonus tutorials months and months ago and nothing has come out so far

http://www.newriders.com/about/contact/index.asp

I don't know what book you're going from but if it's Inside Lightwave 6 or 7 Dan Ablan wrote the tuts. Ok thanks.:wip:

[m_luscombe]

Inside Lightwave is written by several different people. Just check the credits at the beginning.

[SplineGod]

The problem with the tutorial is that it works better for those who have an art background. A good artist already knows what its supposed to look like before he starts. Stuarts a very good artist.
The problem is that 90% of 3D users dont have that kind of art background. This is why ALL art books that teach sketching or sculpting start off with a base shape, a general shape and then you start to rough it out. Then you add in the details as you go, slowly honing it. This method breaks all those rules (which is fine IF you already know what youre doing) and most people have a hell of a time doing it and making it look good without a great deal of trouble. How many artists start of when painting or sculpting start off with an eye, make another eye, then the nose and so on? A good artist knows the proportions and can skip many steps. Again, a better method for newbies or those with no art background is to start with a primitive and begin to rough things out and finally detail things when your form and flow are correct. This is the method I teach and its why I have yet to have anyone fail to create good characters. Ive run into a LOT of people who have tried to model point by point and MOST fail miserabley because its not very intuitive. Im not knocking Dans Books or Stuart at all. I dont like the METHOD. There are so many other tools in lightwave that are much better for modeling organic things then manipulating lots of points and polys at the get go.

[Kaiser_Sose]

Originally posted by Remi
I don't know what book you're going from but if it's Inside Lightwave 6 or 7 Dan Ablan wrote the tuts. Ok thanks.:wip:

You are wrong, bye:airguitar

[SplineGod]

Originally posted by Remi
I don't know what book you're going from but if it's Inside Lightwave 6 or 7 Dan Ablan wrote the tuts. Ok thanks.:wip:

Dan didnt write everything in that book, many others contributed including Stuart Aitken who wrote the head tutorial.

[Kaiser_Sose]

Larry,

Wouldnt it be fair to say that the method you teach is best suited for those that can draw and for those who can not draw they will need good reference background images

[SplineGod]

Originally posted by Kaiser_Sose
Larry,

Wouldnt it be fair to say that the method you teach is best suited for those that can draw and for those who can not draw they will need good reference background images
One method I teach is to use splines.
If you have good background reference splines are a good choice because they dont end up covering up the images, take much less data and you get much better flow and polygon distribution.
The other method I teach is to start of with a primitive shape, in this case a single polygon. From there you turn on SubDs and work it very similar to the methods taught in most drawing books.
If you were going to sketch a human head you would start off with an oval, add the eyeline, centerline, noseline and so forth. In other words laying out the proportions first. Its an easy, repeatable method that works pretty well if you do or dont have background reference. Its follows a simple, easy methodology.
:)

[wgreenlee1]

I think a more important isuue is the fact that all buyers of this book have been promised bonus tutorials months and months ago and nothing has come out so far

If you have done all the tutorials in this one book and have made your own variations of them you probrably won't need to many more tuts on very much that is if you have completed all the tutorials to begin with....:rolleyes:

[Kaiser_Sose]

Originally posted by wgreenlee1
If you have done all the tutorials in this one book and have made your own variations of them you probrably won't need to many more tuts on very much that is if you have completed all the tutorials to begin with....:rolleyes:

Thanks for your second great insight in as many days:thumbsup:

[wgreenlee1]

Glad to be of help.....:surprised

[Willax]

I have that book and have 'tried' to work through some of the tutorials. As a newbie, a lot of it is way over my head at the moment. However I have noticed that the more i do the online tutorials and even play with the program on my own, more of the book makes sense. It's still over my head in the sense that there is too much plugging in of numbers and not enough smaller steps and why things are done. However, to Dan's credit I did have a question regarding a problem I was having with one of the tutorials so I emailed him and he answered me pretty quickly. I thought that was a real nice touch. As for me I'm gonna keep plugging away at this stuff and am even thinking of taking "SplineGods" tutorial classes when I get some income generated here:drool: Willax

[takkun]

quote from splinegod This is why ALL art books that teach sketching or sculpting start off with a base shape, a general shape and then you start to rough it out. Then you add in the details as you go, slowly honing it. This method breaks all those rules (which is fine IF you already know what youre doing) and most people have a hell of a time doing it and making it look good without a great deal of trouble. This method doesn't break those rules at all. You layout all of the proportions on paper by sketching out a front and side view of your character, scan them in and use them as a guide to keep all of your proportions in order and your vision in sight. I think that the real strength of this method is that you see the final details as you create them instead of starting with a blob and hopefully ending up with something that you wanted.

From what I saw of the student work on your site, they all seem to be too simplified and lacking too much definition in the geometry to make realistic detailed facial animation. Again, a better method for newbies or those with no art background is to start with a primitive and begin to rough things out and finally detail things when your form and flow are correct. If you don't have any art background then 3d modeling is a bad place to start out! Larry, you're a good teacher but you're no miracle worker!

[SplineGod]

Originally posted by Felytendect
This method doesn't break those rules at all. You layout all of the proportions on paper by sketching out a front and side view of your character, scan them in and use them as a guide to keep all of your proportions in order and your vision in sight. I think that the real strength of this method is that you see the final details as you create them instead of starting with a blob and hopefully ending up with something that you wanted.

From what I saw of the student work on your site, they all seem to be too simplified and lacking too much definition in the geometry to make realistic detailed facial animation. If you don't have any art background then 3d modeling is a bad place to start out! Larry, you're a good teacher but you're no miracle worker!

If you take a close look at the head tut in Dans book there is not much in the way of detail on that. Its a soft, femine head. Stuart is a good artist and did a great job texturing it. The piece he presented in the book is a finished piece. Some of the heads my students have done have much more detail in terms of actual geometry. Also, the students work is labeled Works in progess because theyre not done. Some of the heads are ready for prime time and others are not. I disagree that overall they lack detail to be animated properly. I have taught lots and lots of people in classes, seminars and these online courses. Ive never claimed to be a miracle worker. I do know from experience that the method I teach is simple and easy to learn and is repeatable. I have taught it enough times and have gotten direct feedback enough times to know. The students Ive taught feel like they are able to work a few miracles. :)

The point by point method is the slowest most tedious way to model. There are far more efficient ways to do this. If I need to use a background image to trace Ill trace it with splines. Splines use far less screen real estate and use far less points and you end up with a much smoother mesh in the end with much better flow. Its far more difficult to get nice smooth meshes when modeling point by point. Its also difficult to control poly density properly and get the details ONLY where they need to be rather then propagated through the whole mesh. Its also more difficult to control flow when modeled details as you go. Flow is very important for shadows to lay right, things to deform properly and details to go into the right places to get wrinkles and so on. The mesh also begins to cover up the background image very quickly.
Being able to have the time to draw a nice front and side view would be great but a luxury Ive never had in actual production.
Sometimes you get a nice model sheet with a nice front and side view that actually matches up. Most of the time you get lousy images and a rough description of how something will look and you get 3 days or so to completely model, texture and rig the character. Theres a huge difference in drawing for 2D and drawing something that REALLY works as good 3D reference. Most people , even IF they can draw a decent head dont know how to draw with the idea in mind of HOW it will work in 3D. This certainly narrows things down in such a way that MOST people have a very difficult time modeling point by point because its counter intuitive. Its more intuitive to start with a rough shape and get the general layout and flow happening and THEN add in the details. Making a detailed eye, then another detailed eye, then a nose and so on and building things up that way is a sure way to screw things up quickly. Human proportions are governed by rules and when combined with a good, logical technique that is easy to repeat allows people to actually produce something quickly. Keep in mind that once youve made a hundred heads and know by reflex where things go that by then its easy...and anything is easy if you know how to do it. Most of the people Ive dealt with and taught dont know how. :)

[Remi]

im an idiot sorry. I thought you said it was on the front cover. My bad:shrug:

[Remi]

This went from trying to help someone to arguing which way is better to model. Can't we all just get along?:applause:

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.