CGTalk - 3d max metaballs?

Hires

11-05-2002, 12:17 PM

Hi all i'm new, i have a question phaeraps someone can answer me.
Im searching for a max plugin that allow an object (such as sphere or box or more complex model ) to become a metaball with its area of melting aroud it.
If that plug in is not in ur knowledge can i ask if u know of a simple metaball plugin ( i mean u have 2 sphere u put them aside and they fuse)?
I, ve tried metareyes but since i'm serching for a medeler help it does not work because metareyes metamuscles and metaballs cannot be collapsed whitout losing the melting area around them sigh sob.

thanks for help

Matt-Clark

11-05-2002, 01:06 PM

Claystudio by Digimation.

Hires

11-05-2002, 01:52 PM

thanks a lot i ve found the plugin and it does exactly wait i need :bounce:

3rd Dimentia

11-05-2002, 11:38 PM

If you want a free plugin, try blobmod
http://www.max3dstuff.com/max4/blobMod/blobMod.zip

or blobs
http://www.habware.at/max4/Blobs4.zip

ToddD

11-06-2002, 03:02 AM

Just a note, while claystudio may be a fun little plug, I wouldn't recommend it. If you are just starting out, it is an easy way to model organic stuff, but you will soon find that it will produce poly dense meshes that aren't really practical for everyday use. I see you're new here, I don't know how much experience you have with max... but, I would say if you're new to max, don't become a plug-in junkie. The best results in many cases are achieved by proven modeling methods, not some plug-in. Just a little side note:)

Hires

11-06-2002, 07:46 AM

Thank u guys for the support i'm happy to see that this forum is really live (sorry for my english).

:applause:

cache

04-12-2004, 01:30 AM

Just wondering ...
why people do not use metareyes any more ?

(was it at all used in production areas?)

can you help me out with some info why its 'bad' to model with ?

thanks !!

thorn3d

04-12-2004, 04:35 AM

Simply stated, MetaReyes (and other mesh-blob methods) don't create an efficient mesh. Instead of a planned topology with logical edge flow and efficient density, you wind up with an incredibly dense mesh with no rhyme nor reason to it... bad for texturing, bad for animation.

thorn

cache

04-12-2004, 11:30 AM

tx for the reply,
i did not think of texturing them, and it could be hard job yeah.. true... that could be a disadvantage...

but with animation

isn't metareyes good for that as well ?
I mean - although i never saw any wires of object created with it (so dont know if its made out of quads, tris, poles, ngons etc*) - its modeling is based on muscles.. isn't it the best way to have a structure to an organic model to be animated ?

(*btw these stuff are only bad if you are subdividing the mesh with an algorithm afterwards, am i right ?.. but as far as i know metareyes does this after creating the mesh, and I saw no shading/animating abnormalities in the test anims they show on their website.)

just curious nothing more :)
i'm subdiv addict anyway :)

thanks in advance

Autarkis

04-12-2004, 11:39 AM

Well, you could also (alternate method of modeling that I've yet to try, been thinking a lot lately though) do everything with metaballs and blobs, and then once your shape is done (very organic looking) just use the paint modifier plugin to trace splines all around it and generate a clean mesh ;)

However, I think i'm happy with the way poly modeling treats me, so..I'll stick with it for a while !

CGTalk Moderation

01-13-2006, 09:00 PM

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.