PDA

View Full Version : Feature Requests


Wegg
03-26-2003, 10:16 PM
What do you want from AM? How would you make it better etc.

John Keates
03-26-2003, 11:10 PM
I will kick in here with the request for a faster renderer. I have been playing about with multipass and I like it. However, it is realy fustrating knowing that those big clouds are being rendered 16 times when they only need one pass.

There are three roots to go down (as far as I can see).

1. User controll over the number of passes for each object:

Maybe there could be a master controll and you can set each object to a percentage of that. For example, Master=16 passes and object a=half of that(8passes). Some textures need much more multipass than others. The problem with user controll is that it could cause a lot of hastle for small/one man studios who have limited render test time.

2. Automatic controll of multipass level:

This is where I get a little out of my depth, but surely AM could look at the areas that it is rendering and say "Ok, this pixel has been exactly the same shade of blue now for 4 passes, I won't bother rendering it again". Or "This object is not moving much so it doesn't need many motion blurr passes, I will just use point sample AA on it"

3. A combination of the two.

Roger Eberhart
03-26-2003, 11:51 PM
1. A knife tool - This would allow us to quickly add detail to the model. I see it primarily as a way to add edge loops, say to an arm. Go to front view, hit knife tool, drag a line across where the new loop goes, and bingo. Certainly much faster than the current method, which usually involves me hiding half the model.

2. Break spline without altering the curve. This is the obvious counterpart to the new add points without altering curves. Why have one without the other?

antonyw
03-26-2003, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by Wegg
What do you want from AM? How would you make it better etc.

I'm using AM since version 3.5 till now, I really want AM become a Professional 3D program(even price will boom to over US$1000), now it just a toy.

I want.......

1. Make it MORE STABLE, version 10(latest ver.) constraint still has I lot of problem, the problem I cant report coz I dont have enough time to get the exactly step. if Hash inc. have a Animation department, then they will know how many problems we/they meet during making the animation.

2. Write more simple tutorial explain what the function is, (ex. Oren Nayar shader and Anisotropic shader, Fur, etc.

3. 5point patch & hook render without any problem(smooth).

4. Add a subdivion function(selected patches).

5. REAL smooth function(now I need to waste a loooooot of time for weak the cp to make it smooth,(the result is never smooth). POLYGON have smooth and subdivion, so they dont need waste time on that.

6. Make the spline more like Nurbs(just like), so that we can turely trim the surface and it wont affect the other spline Bias(of course the above No.3 must no any problem otherwise useless).

still have alot of things I want.......

But the above few points is what i reallllllly want hash can do.

Btw, I wasted my money on v.95 and v10(coz still has a lot of problems so I still using v.85 for commercial project).


:annoyed:

Kevin Sanderson
03-27-2003, 12:09 AM
The way A:M handles light with materials and objects...

A:M should allow sub-surface scattering of light in materials to make more believable skin, wax, etc. The materials I've bought from Eggprops are great, so are DarkTree and the others that I've found online over the years as well, but some materials would look better with sub-surface scattering. I would think it could be achievable and backward compatible with existing material libraries by adding some setting that could be easily added or tweaked.

If it could help caustics, that would be great as well. I'm thinking of the way light through glass, crystal and jewels can be prismatic...rainbow colors, etc., as can be done in Virtual Light and Brazil. If it can be done in A:M, I'm missing it...

While we're working on the way the renderer handles light, maybe add true HDR capabilities...

daft
03-27-2003, 01:03 AM
I have never understood what fur is doing on the A:M features list:). How many have been using fur since it was implemented into the software, and has it ever worked. Think I tried it one´s and my whole system crashed. I have always felt that Hash should first and further more focus on getting a rock solid modeling and render functions up and working. Before implementing something like fur. Hash could also try to open up more functions for import/export, maybe then some 3d party developer would come along and write a kick ass fur plugin:). It´s also a idea to get some kind of camera data info export/import in A:M, could be come easier to work with other programs? For example make character animation in A:M and some other elements in other programs. In the end everything could be combined together in post production.

Top off my list.
I would like to see integrated Skylight, Hdri, and images passes output render.

:buttrock:

Kalimol
03-27-2003, 01:38 AM
Antonyw--after all of that, especially the nurbing and price, what would be left of AM that would be any different from any other CG program? Why even use AM?

Personally, I'd like to see a complete texture map generator (which would apply a decal over the entire model and output a .tga that could be painted in), a return of negative lights, and a 2D post blur attribute that could be attached to a material (for, say, blurred reflections.)

And I would definitely prefer to see an emphasis on stability over things like fur and particles and weathering that never seem to work correctly.

[Edit--And some more versatility in the materials would be nice. Drag & drop attributes and access to all of those funky decal channels through procedurals would be a grand start.]

koon69
03-27-2003, 05:07 AM
Being able to render in different passes like specular, diffuse so you can bring into After Effects.

Bugle
03-27-2003, 08:44 PM
I'd like to be able to turn off email notification by default... I hate that feature...

Oh, you mean in A:M?? Sorry!

Well then...

Dunno if this is a reasonable request, but I'd like to be able to define areas of geometry or models to be "always on top" so for example a character would always render on top of the ground it walks, someone's hand on another character's shoulder doesn't sink in, clothes don't show skin through when folding... would save hours of tweaking, I think.

Kalimol
03-28-2003, 02:07 AM
I don't think that would work. Turn at the wrong angle, and you'd see the clothing through the hands and things.

Just Hide the geometry that's under the clothing. Much simpler.

And a feature request to keep this on-topic and non-commentary.... Built-in sky domes that map a sphere about the "world" that would always render under whatever geometry is present, negating the necessity of pan-unfriendly mattes or tiny, constrictive geometry domes. They would simply apply part of an image map or procedural texture as the "background" color. This would work like a watered-down version of Bryce's skies.

John Keates
03-28-2003, 11:46 AM
I second that. Sky domes would look good, render fast and be easy to set up. I am off to send it as a request.

amsmf
03-28-2003, 03:27 PM
One little feature that would be nice would be one that Wings3D has: incremental save.

You would do a "Save As..." to name your project, object, whatever... then when you want to save some changes but not over-write the original you click "Incremental Save" and it saves the file with an "01" at the end the first time, "02" the second, "03" the third... etc...

Very fast and helpful when doing a bunch of expirimental changes.

Bugle
03-28-2003, 06:56 PM
Well, obviously it wouldn't remove the need for the animator to be careful... but I think Playstation games already do something like that for their real time rendered games, it couldn't do any harm.

And it would come in handy for all sorts of model interactions, not only clothes (What I do is make the skin, when it exists, the same colour/material as the clothes... kludge!)

To do incremental saves manually, I select the file in explorer and press ctrl+c ctrl+v in succession, and a new file +1 is added. It doesn't sound like something impossible to make.

In fact some sort of autosave buffer, given that A:M files are text files, is something they could've had years ago and saved animators tons of grief and made A:M's stability largely (You still need rendering stability) a moot point.

John Keates
03-29-2003, 06:57 PM
Texture painting. If there is not going to be good export support then this would be great. It would be great anyway in fact.

koon69
03-30-2003, 05:21 AM
What about clicking on a cp and being able to bevel. I know there is a plug in but every time I try to use it I get some weird results.

gra4mac
04-02-2003, 11:56 PM
All the above requests sound great, but I would like one simple thing. I want to be able to hit the space bar and get the grabber hand so I can pan the work space, just like in PS and most other graphics apps. I hope this isn't asking too much.

Cheers, Graham

Wegg
04-03-2003, 12:06 AM
"M" doesn't do what you want?

gra4mac
04-03-2003, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by Wegg
"M" doesn't do what you want?

No it doesn't. You have to keep hiting m to drag more than once. I want to be able to hold down the space bar and drag to my hearts content. Actually, If there is a way to set the tools to stay selected after clicking, I'd like to hear about it.

Cheers, Graham

fastfingersneal
04-03-2003, 07:43 AM
If you have a scroll wheel on your mouse that also acts as a button, in AM you can just hold down the scroll wheel and you will be able to drag the screen about! instead of having to keep pressing the m key.:) :)

Wegg
04-03-2003, 04:58 PM
Actually, If there is a way to set the tools to stay selected after clicking, I'd like to hear about it.

Thats the one thing I'm really NOT liking about most other applications. 99% of the time I want to use a "tool" for one specific little purpose. But I'm constantly having to select the tool, do the operation and un-select the tool. AM's workflow is consistent throughout the application in that you pick what you want to do, do it, and your instantly back into a wonderful "tweak everything/direct to the mesh" mode that is very unique.

You gotta embrace the few things there are about AM that really rock.

binder3d
04-03-2003, 06:19 PM
You gotta embrace the few things there are about AM that really rock.

Wegg
04-03-2003, 06:27 PM
I thought I was paying AM a complement. . .

:-/

From experience, the workflow in Animation Master is its strongest asset. Its just all the other little things that look good on the back of a box that tarnish that amazing foundation.

Does that sound better?

binder3d
04-03-2003, 06:44 PM
No disrespect to you Billy. I have a lot of respect for you and eggington. It seems that so many posts always takes a dig at AM. They say something nice then turn around and slam AM for something else. Thats all.

Wegg
04-03-2003, 07:00 PM
I think thats due to the very nature of AM. It is full of so many contradictions. What other package allows for multiple rigs to be created with ease and dropped on to a character at any time? What other application allows direct mesh level animation at ANY time, in almost ANY mode. What other application allows the artist to work in one single environment right from the beginning to the end.

But on top of that. . . is there an animation package out there with a worse renderer? Is there a package out there that is less stable? Are there companies out there that treat their users in a worse way?

The contradictions are mind blowingly frustrating. And history has proven that if people are un-willing to openly talk about it. . . then nothing changes.

I am VERY excited about the future of AM. Way more so than a few months back when this forum first started. But I'm not going to hold back now just when things are starting to change. Nore do I think anyone here should or for that matter. I believe my reasons are justified, but if you don't agree with me, than I want YOU to call me a ranting loonie and back that up with evidence to prove me otherwise.

To me. . . thats what this forum is all about.

Goon
04-03-2003, 07:35 PM
Marking Menus. These rock so much i cannot express it.
A hotbox would be nice too, and since max and maya rip each other all the time i dont see that as much of a problem.

Dolly. I only have 8.5 but i dont remeber having a dolly function and since the perspective gets messed up if you zoom in perspective mode this is critical.

Are the constrain to axis back? In 8.5 you can use 1,2,3 to hold a selection to xyz axis and move. I dont like the transform widget that you have to call up to do this otherwise.

Layers. Being able to group objects and hide/wireframe, whatever them without doing it on an individual basis.

Modeling: the rebuilding patches/textures maps takes an irritatingly long time when working with high patch count models.

Kalimol
04-03-2003, 09:58 PM
AM's workflow does rock, especially with all of the keyboard shortcuts. Everything's right there, like you're using one tool for everything, or at least like they're all right in front of you on the work desk, instead of having to pick up a toolbox, open it, unfold the hidden compartment, pull out the tool, etc., as it seems in some apps (like Truespace, or Wings 3D.)

Layers. Being able to group objects and hide/wireframe, whatever them without doing it on an individual basis.

I don't think so. That just makes it more restrictive--you can't edit all or a combination of the layers at the same time. With AM 10, you can select groups from the list and hit either "hide" (or H) or "lock", and get the same effect with far more versatility.

Goon
04-04-2003, 02:49 AM
Yet another reason to spring for an upgrade. Dang it, i dont have the money.

Tho i have to say, things could be more compact. That find and unfold the hidden compartment can get bad, but once you know where things are, getting back the wasted real estate is nice. What is key is getting those menus back quickly. Hence marking menus.

I went back to AM recently and immediately got irritated by the navigation. I realize this is a personal issue as i used to be very comfortable with it, but something like wings3d were you can change the navigation method to suit your preferences/accustomization would be nice.
Personally, Mayas implimention is my favorite. Just hold down alt and you can use the mouse to do any of the required moves.

JBarrett
04-04-2003, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by Goon
Personally, Mayas implimention is my favorite. Just hold down alt and you can use the mouse to do any of the required moves.
There is something similar in A:M if you have a wheel-mouse (where the wheel also acts as a button), although it's not well documented. Check out my post over here...

http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52085

SouthernLaw
04-16-2003, 04:52 AM
The ability to enable toon rendering on a per-object basis. I can do a couple of passes and then composite to get that effect now... but sometimes it would be so handy to do it all at once.

eboy
04-28-2003, 10:27 AM
My AM wish list:

1) Better overall stability period - backed up by Hash employing some full time animators to quadruple check every damn update, before they put it out, rather than relying on free beta testing from their paying customers. How many times has one bug been fixed only to introduce three others. Hire more programmers as necessary to get the job done in a reasonable amount of time, i've been using AM since v5.0 and only one really solid release 8.5p+ in all that time, i wish Hash would hire some new blood - i like so many things about AM but not Hash's cheapo half arsed approach..

2) Update the renderer - even the 10.5 version cant hold a candle to say C4D or Lightwave in terms of quality and speed.
Even budget apps like Cararra have far better renderers.

3) Ditch cloth,fur, flocking and concentrate on adding new modelling, rendering and animation features and stability - some kind of feedback prior to a crash or the usual dissapearing act would be useful to provide debugging info if indeed we are left to do it.

4) Sub division like surfaces.

Jimstein
05-04-2003, 04:37 PM
1. multiple gizmos to place layers of cylinder/projection/spire/cubic mapping. There is none at all right now.

2. knife tool like the one in Lightwave. I simply :love: it. Or an Edge Loop tool would be the greatest feature ever to come into this application!!!

3. stability! stability! stability! :thumbsdow becourse AM freeze my different computers I have used over and over again since verion 7.0 and still do. I don't realy need more features... I need stability!!!

4. The ability to handle more complex characters at a reasonable speed.

Goon
05-04-2003, 05:04 PM
a turn edge type command, say click on one spline side of the control point click on the desired other spline and connect the two without having to detach and reconnect all of them.

JackMcRip
05-09-2003, 11:03 AM
1.
when i copy and paste Groups, theyre materials will copy, too!
Is it not a fundamental feature?


2.
where's the function hold [STRG] and Drag&Drop Shortcuts?
In V.9 the Shortcut not will be move. The Shortcut was copied and paste. So you must not go high up in the Projekttree to the Materialtree when you use a Material. You can simply copy it from another Group where you used again.

nerrazzi
05-24-2003, 04:48 PM
I'd like to see some sort of constraint that allows the wheels on a car to move on a surface like a real cars wheels do. I know about using PI and stride length to fake it, even creating action files and looping or repeating that action I know about all that, I'd like to see something more real-world. After the constraint is applied, when you move the vehicle the wheels ought to move even to the slightest degree according to the position of the vehicle. If Hash could pull that off, I believe that would be a first for any animation package.

JBarrett
05-24-2003, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by nerrazzi
I'd like to see some sort of constraint that allows the wheels on a car to move on a surface like a real cars wheels do. I know about using PI and stride length to fake it, even creating action files and looping or repeating that action I know about all that, I'd like to see something more real-world. After the constraint is applied, when you move the vehicle the wheels ought to move even to the slightest degree according to the position of the vehicle. If Hash could pull that off, I believe that would be a first for any animation package.

I think this would be possible with expressions in v10 (and perhaps v9.5...can't recall when expressions were added). All you need to do is convert the distance the vehicle moves in a given direction into a certain degree of wheel rotation based on the circumference of the tire. However, for totally accurate simulation -- i.e., where the wheels would properly respond to turns as well as straight movement -- it'd be tricky because in a turn, each wheel rotates a different amount depending on....well, several factors.

From what I can see, it's not a matter of Hash pulling it off, but some clever user pulling it off. :)

ngrava
06-06-2003, 11:20 PM
Stability. That's obvious. I think they've gotten better at that over the year. I love the interface, Smart Skin, Constraints, IK, Pose Sliders, the new smoother renderer, Channels editor, and a lot of other great new features. It's one of the best “Animation” programs on the planet.

The Thing I think that sucks about A:M: (and I know I will offend most of you. no way around that) is Modeling... I'm sorry but Hash patches look terrible in my opinion. Lumpy, bumpy, creased, crap. There are exceptions of course. I have seen some very good models made with meticulous patience. It can be very difficult though.

I absolutely love Subdivision Surfaces. I've been using them for years and I have yet to find an object or surfacing situation that was difficult to create. I can not say that for Hash patched at all. If Martin really wanted to kick ass (and we all know he doesn't want to do that ;-)) he could integrate a new Sub-D "like" geometry type.

I've heard his arguments against Polys and Nurbs and for the most part he is right... Polys are to dense, Nurbs... Give me a break! What a pile of overly complex crap that only works in certain situations and not at all in others. Don't get me started on Nurbs!

...But not when it comes to Sub-D Surfaces. He used to say that the problem with B-Spline surfaces (very similar to Sub-Ds') was that you couldn't grab the actual surface and instead had to manipulate a control hull around the object. Well, that's correct. It creates a sort of disconnected feeling that so I can understand his point on that. It's one of the reasons I love the Sub-D's in LightWave's modeler... You can actually grab and manipulate the patch intersections! So, If LW can do it, I don't see why Martin can't.

I can see a really simple modeler based on Sub-D's that had a way to select whole patches and edges, Extrude, Slice, create edge loops, symmetry... And that's about it. Oh, and a way to convert Polygon models to the new Sub-D'ish format. Wouldn't that be great?!! Man, that would rock my world!

That's all I have to say. Sorry for offending you all. Thanks,

-=GB=-

hoochoochoochoo
06-09-2003, 10:14 AM
I'd like 2 simple developments..
1) An ability to select a spline and then have it's length worked out by my computer.
I'd never have to sit worrying about working out how long a path is for stride length etc. Yes I can use math, but 9 out of 10 of us bought computers because they do math 10000 times faster & more accurately than I ever will. (and I'm getting older and losing brain-cells by the day.!)
I still remember the sheer disbelief when I first read "work out the spline length for stride length then input in PWS"

2) Linked to that (if it's too hard for my computer to work out a spline's length) get AM's import/export measurements more like the real world.
Yes it means many of us would then model in AM and export DXF or OBJ models but many of us already are.! AM would then take it's rightful place in more studios as I could model in AM and import or export to other apps knowing my measurement system is the same as my colleagues.
Going back to the stride length point though, I could select a spline, copy and paste into another application that would give me an accurate length if AM can't measure my spline for me- but AM needs to export at similar model measurements that nearly all the other apps on my computers do.

John Keates
06-09-2003, 12:55 PM
hoochoochoochoo,

Try right clicking the spline and selecting "measure spline lenght".

John Keates
06-09-2003, 01:01 PM
If I am endevering to do some mechanical or archietectural modelling in AM (or anything involving lots of copied sections attached to each other), I often find myself connecting a whole load of dangling splines up together. It is like making a patchwork quilt.

It would be a great time-saver if there was an option to connect all the CPs that are not connected. They could connect to the closest non-connected CP or the first non-connected CP that is found that is within a certain distance.

If it were also possible to have each section copy with poses then I would be in heaven.

hoochoochoochoo
06-09-2003, 01:05 PM
hey John is that a new feature in v10? Don't know if after all my criticism AM would let me upgrade to the new version...:p

Maybe your request would be answered by the copy/flip/attach button? I remember sometimes there was an issue with duoble splines at the seam but workarounds where posted on the AMList long ago. I'm still on 8.5 though so likely out-of-date..

John Keates
06-09-2003, 04:29 PM
Yes, I think it was added quite recently (9-10.5) But it is there now.

Why I didn't think of copy/flip/attach before I don't know. Thanks for the tip!. However it would be nice to be able to do this without relying on it all being allong one line.

KenH
06-11-2003, 02:19 AM
I don't know how feisible it is, but I'd like to see collision detection introduced to the process of modelling and animating. Much like you can make a rig react to the ground when dragged too far down, I'd like to se that extended to....say....not being able to move an arm through a body.

dagooos
06-13-2003, 10:31 PM
I would like to request an auto-spline interpolation method. Spline interplatation that automatically adjust your f-curves to be smooth with out overshoot. I know max now has this as their default interpolation method and I like it.

Bill_Young
06-14-2003, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by John Keates
I will kick in here with the request for a faster renderer. I have been playing about with multipass and I like it. However, it is realy fustrating knowing that those big clouds are being rendered 16 times when they only need one pass.

Ok. I'm going to play devils advocate for a few of the responces here. Lets start with this one.

I believe this is is more of a compositing issue. If some thing has to only be rendered one time then indeed why are you rendering it with the rest of the stuff? Break it into a seperate project and render it out ones, and then either comp it using A:M's comping capabilities, or more likely using a program like after effects. This type of comping has been done since the early days of Animation. And if you say because you animation can't interact with it, then it may need those passes for interactions with what ever happens to come in contact with it, so a single pass isn't and option here. Just an oppinion. It's an interesting idea, but not one that I see as overly practical.

Bill_Young
06-14-2003, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by Roger Eberhart
1. A knife tool - This would allow us to quickly add detail to the model. I see it primarily as a way to add edge loops, say to an arm. Go to front view, hit knife tool, drag a line across where the new loop goes, and bingo. Certainly much faster than the current method, which usually involves me hiding half the model.

2. Break spline without altering the curve. This is the obvious counterpart to the new add points without altering curves. Why have one without the other?

Part 1. I think a knife tool is a bad idea when dealing with A:M patches. Hash splines, though capable of conecting in many diferent ways and remainign valid would not work well with a knife tool as people who don't understand the diferences between a poly and patch modeler will wind up slicing there 5 point patches into 6+ point patches, and turning 4 pointers in to a 5 pointer and a 3 pointer side by side. also what about if the knife isn't all the way through the model? then you wind up with a 5 point hooked area... Just messy... I'm sure you can see the problems with this kind of tool in A:M. A more practical and likely solution is a subdivide patches tool. This could add geometry in a way that A:M can actualy deal with. In fact I'm going to submit a detailed discription of how A:M would handle this with diagrams to hash as a sugestion. probably won't be implamented till around v11.5 or so, but if you can't wait you might try zevel http://www.kci-group.com/z/zevel.htm it infortunatly offset the splines, but does add extra geometry. Or you can use stich, but it does lack the precision to keep your spline evenly distributed.

Part 2. Well this is actualy a good feature idea. why not submit it to Hash?

Bill_Young
06-14-2003, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by antonyw


3. 5point patch & hook render without any problem(smooth).

5. REAL smooth function(now I need to waste a loooooot of time for weak the cp to make it smooth,(the result is never smooth). POLYGON have smooth and subdivion, so they dont need waste time on that.

Try v10.5 with porcelain.


Originally posted by antonyw

6. Make the spline more like Nurbs(just like), so that we can turely trim the surface and it wont affect the other spline Bias(of course the above No.3 must no any problem otherwise useless).


I'm not sure why you want a trim in A:M? If you are after a hole, you can use a boolean, if you are thinking of then trying a filet, extrude or intrude from this for mechanical purposes, then with creative use of booleans, and other objects you can achieve prety much any shape you would want a trim for in these sitations. The only other possiblility that comes to my mind is for some thing like conecting a characters arm, facial features, or other such nurb use that is not needed in A:M as it can do this kind of thing with out trims due to how the spline system works. I'm not putting down your request for this feature, I'm just not sure why you need it in A:M?

Bill_Young
06-14-2003, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by daft
I have never understood what fur is doing on the A:M features list:). How many have been using fur since it was implemented into the software, and has it ever worked. Think I tried it one´s and my whole system crashed...

:buttrock:

You need to play with the hair in V10.5 it's been totaly reworked. Hair renders much faster now. It has eliminated many of the aliasing artifacts that use to accompany it. The ends now fade to tranparency making the hair look softer and more natural. There are realtime rendering options for it so you can actualy preview things like kinkyness and thickness easily. You can control many of the attributes of hair with maps now. There are hair splines, but they arn't quite perfected yet.

Bill_Young
06-14-2003, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by Kalimol
Antonyw--after all of that, especially the nurbing and price, what would be left of AM that would be any different from any other CG program? Why even use AM?

Well even though I agree with you, I can tell you a few. A:M's animation interface. The integrated NLA/ time line is one of the best features of A:M. Also you can animate points of a posed character to make small adjustments to the surface. Or how about the ability to layer a UV decal over any point on a model from any angle even if it overlaps other already placed UV maps. This feature is probably my favorite most over looked mapping feature in A:M because there is no need to play the stupid seam streching and blending game you have to do in other UV systems.


Personally, I'd like to see a complete texture map generator (which would apply a decal over the entire model and output a .tga that could be painted in)

This is kind of strange that hash has not implamented this yet. The reason I say it's strange is that if you export a model as an AV2 or a 3DS and turn up the genorate maps to a value of 128 or 256 you can get prety decent maps of your materials burned to images and plopped on to an exported model; however, there is no way to my knowledge to get these maps back into A:M with the models intact. Yep silly, and it was put in as a feature request. ;)


a 2D post blur attribute that could be attached to a material (for, say, blurred reflections.)

Well this is in the works right now... it's called post effects and is a new feature in 10.5 not sure how well it works yet, but I know this is the kind of thing it's going to be used for.


And I would definitely prefer to see an emphasis on stability over things like fur and particles and weathering that never seem to work correctly.

Ouch! Not sure what problems you had with particles, but this is the first complaint I've herd about them other than that they didn't motionblue untill version 10.5. The hair was a problem, but is much better now... Oh in a previous post I didn't mention that hair now can casts and catches shadows and reflections. And as for weathering... well ok weathering hasn't proven it self all that usefull to me as of yet, but I havn't tryed in in 10.5 yet. so can't say if it's working.


[Edit--And some more versatility in the materials would be nice. Drag & drop attributes and access to all of those funky decal channels through procedurals would be a grand start.]

YES, I agree.

Bill_Young
06-14-2003, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by John Keates
Texture painting. If there is not going to be good export support then this would be great. It would be great anyway in fact.

If they implament the burn maps feature that already exists for exporting to AV2 and 3DS formats for A:M models then one could simply burn a simple material on their surface, export their model as a 3DS model with maps, and poof instant access to a fully UV accurate model with the maps that you could simpely load into your favorite 3d paint program. Of course this is dependent on A:M using the original maps for the export... if not hopfully the uv order would remain in tact so one map could easily replace the other... oh well this is speculations at this point.

Bill_Young
06-14-2003, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by koon69
What about clicking on a cp and being able to bevel. I know there is a plug in but every time I try to use it I get some weird results.

Not familliar with a plug-in that bevels one point, but I would say that that is the problem. beveling a single point runs the risk of errors mentioned with the knife tool responce I made a few posts back. Zevel http://www.kci-group.com/z/zevel.htm is a form of beveler if use properly.

Bill_Young
06-14-2003, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by Goon

Dolly. I only have 8.5 but i dont remeber having a dolly function and since the perspective gets messed up if you zoom in perspective mode this is critical.


You can dolly by holding ctrl while zooming in the camera view This will both dolly in and out and adjust the focal length of the camera producing a great rack effect in 10.5, but to turn it into a dolly just rest the focal length, and poof instant dolly. To adjust the focal length with out adjusting the cameras position just hold shift while zooming in the camera.


Are the constrain to axis back? In 8.5 you can use 1,2,3 to hold a selection to xyz axis and move. I dont like the transform widget that you have to call up to do this otherwise.


1,2,3 = global x,y,z movment axis restriction (restricts the axis for rotation to skew as well)

4,5,6 = local (point normal based) movment axis restriction (restricts the axis for rotation to skew as well)


Modeling: the rebuilding patches/textures maps takes an irritatingly long time when working with high patch count models.

Just disable real time textures in the options>rendering>realtime(8.5 tab only)>show decals to stop this from happening.

Bill_Young
06-14-2003, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by SouthernLaw
The ability to enable toon rendering on a per-object basis. I can do a couple of passes and then composite to get that effect now... but sometimes it would be so handy to do it all at once.

This can already be done. Every attribute has individual toon control. By setting the toon option to shaded the object renders normaly, setting it to one of the other toon modes and it will render toon shaded. Just make shure when you turn on toon shading in the rendering pannel you don't tell it to over ride the objects or every thing will toon render. obviously toon lines also have to be set on a atribute by attribute basis.

John Keates
06-14-2003, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by Bill_Young

I believe this is is more of a compositing issue. If some thing has to only be rendered one time then indeed why are you rendering it with the rest of the stuff?

I understand what you are saying but would like to make two points.

1. It would be good to have some more compositing controll withing AM. AM is marketed as "everything that you need to make animations" and already has the basics of compositing tools. It would be cheaper, faster and easier if we could just set a layer to "only render in one pass".

2. My comment was meant as a general one about speed. The clouds were given as an example. Another example would be where you have a character with a big smooth belly. The edges of the belly need more passes (for AA), but the centre will render almost exactly the same for each pass (a waste). For more of my blathering on this issue, look at the "speed in 10.5" thread. What I am after is some kind of stochastic approach or something.

I aggree with many of your other comments though. You obviously know what you are on about.

Bill_Young
06-14-2003, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by eboy
My AM wish list:
2) Update the renderer - even the 10.5 version cant hold a candle to say C4D or Lightwave in terms of quality and speed.
Even budget apps like Cararra have far better renderers.


Have to inquire about this. I can't say that the other renderers arn't faster, but you specificaly state that they are better quality then 10.5. Now seeing as 10.5 is the fastest I've ever seen A:M's renderer (still not the fastest), but many of the old artifacts that I use to notice have been almost all resolved in 10.5 using multi pass, and the second I spot a new one I pop it off to try and get it resolved. I do know a few features are still missing, but in the works. The missing features are more advance then what somthing like cararra can do currently so they can't be what your talking about. So please explain.



4) Sub division like surfaces.

Wouldn't mind seeing this one my self.. Actualy I'm very curious abot the up coming hamapatch shareware version.. As people probably alreay know it models almost identical to A:M in many respects, but they are implamenting sub divs into it. If it has the manipulation freedom that the patch modeler has then I'll have a new subdive modeler. Check out hamapatch at: http://www.geocities.com/hamapatch/program/index.html#2f
and the screen shots of the upcomming shareware version:
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Ginza/6625/laputa.html

John Keates
06-14-2003, 11:38 AM
Another request....

I would like to see a modelling feature that handles multiple selectoins in a more flexible way (as in wings for example).

An example would be to be able to move/extrude cps away from thier normals on an indevidual basis. At the moment and "average normal" is taken and all the cps are moved allong that.

Also, it would be good if spline rings could be re sized/rotated/scaled indevidually at the same time. An example of this would be where you want to make all the fingers on a hand get fatter at the same time. At the moment, if you select all the fingers and scale them, the whole mass of digets anlarges together when you want each spline ring to grow out from its own centre.

It would be great if there was a button that could deal with this in a universal way so thateverything from objects in a Chor. to bones in a model could be rotated indevidually or as a mass depending on whether the botton is pressed.

User interface heaven = programmer hell.:p

John Keates
06-14-2003, 11:48 AM
Hey, Bill_Young, you were writing your last message as I was writing mine and it looks like it might answer my dreams. That Hamapatch looks pretty damn usefull to me. Mind you, it would certainly be preferable to have this stuff in AM as one of the strengths of the program is its cozyness.

Bill_Young
06-14-2003, 12:29 PM
Ok, I've made many comments about other peoples wish lists. I'm sure people would love to have a go at mine. ;p

Just so people know, there is a simple back up utillity like PRJsaver will make your life easier. http://www.amxchange.com/flash.html

Knowing that here is my list:

1. I would like to see the ability to copy and paste material nodes and their sub heirarchies

2. I would like to see a full fur mode, like a modeling mode for dealing with hair. Hair is a must have in any character animation package of any decency. To drop this would be more detramental then benifical. This needs to be improved not removed.

3. Improved SDK documentation. Belive it or not many parts of the renderer are directly accesable through the sdk suposedly, but heaven help me if anyone knows how to access this stuff.

4. Suprise suprise, Subdivs. Simpely because there are times in a production you need to be user friendly, and subdivs are a modeling format that renders as good as any spline system, they can be controled from the surface as can be seen in LW. Some implamentations let you controll the mesh at several levels making it easy to make grose adjustments using a low detail mesh, and then switching to a detaild mesh for subtle mesh tweaks.

5. Procedural Map burning for A:M models with the ability to keep the resulting image referenced uppon export to 3DS & AV2 formats.

6. A subdivide patch sequence that splits patched based on their orentation the the other patches selected with them. if a horizontal row were selected then it would split them right down the center hooking the ends unless the ends were touching. If this happend it would make a spline loop. If a vertical column of patches were also selected then a cross would happen where these two selections overlapped. the exception to this rule would be that a vertical and a horizontal selection could not end in the same spot because of a duel hook issue so and exception would be thrown here. Also you could not end a selection in a 3 or 5 point patch, thought you could use these to redirect a spline subdivision with the exception that no other selection could share that 3 or 5 point patch as there is no way to determin the exiting trajectory in this situation. This would alow for the subdivision of all patchtypes, and result with all valid 3,4, and 5 point patches with hooks only treminating in 4 point patches with only one hook per subdivided patch. Compex thought process since I've not slept all night ;p

7. A bed... oh no wait thats where I'm going when I'm done posting this message whichis right now.

ATAHUALPA
06-15-2003, 08:06 PM
Over all I'm really happy with A:M, but most time I have to deal with LW or Maya, so what I really need is a motion exporter to Maya or LW...hm fbx would be fine. Biovision ist a good solution, but has no support for handbones.

It would be so much easier to model and animate in A:M than in Maya or LW ...then export to the host application the studios are running....(here in Germany).

Martin

KenH
06-18-2003, 02:14 AM
AM is looking alot healthier these days. :thumbsup:

Another thing I'd really like(can you do it already?) is to pick a group in the workspace and be able to drag it onto a bone and have the grouped CPs controlled by that bone.
Thanks

Goon
06-25-2003, 07:20 PM
TurnEdge type function. So we dont have to break and re-attach splines if they go in the wrong direction.

Fix that annoying rebuiling splines, texture maps, etc stage, slows down modeling to unacceptable levels at high resolution.
(I know you can split of a part, but having it take a minute per spline when re-attaching them is just a pain in the ass)

Kalimol
06-26-2003, 01:44 AM
Re-attach it in wireframe. They you only get the stuff once, when it actually searches for new patches. Anyway, maddening as that cycle is, there's really no way around it--the program has to find all the new patches. Perhaps if there were a way to make it only check the area you were working on...with Hide mode, perhaps? So that it would not consider the hidden splines when searching and aligning?

Bill_Young
06-29-2003, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by Kalimol
Re-attach it in wireframe. They you only get the stuff once, when it actually searches for new patches. Anyway, maddening as that cycle is, there's really no way around it--the program has to find all the new patches. Perhaps if there were a way to make it only check the area you were working on...with Hide mode, perhaps? So that it would not consider the hidden splines when searching and aligning?

Actualy Finding patches is for decal and material representation in quick shaded (realtime) mode. If you go into your options and disable decals in the real time options it will no longer rebuild the patches.
-Bill Y.

Kalimol
06-30-2003, 06:12 AM
Really? Cool. I'll have to do that.

hoochoochoochoo
07-07-2003, 12:02 PM
4. Suprise suprise, Subdivs. Simpely because there are times in a production you need to be user friendly, and subdivs are a modeling format that renders as good as any spline system, they can be controled from the surface as can be seen in LW. Some implamentations let you controll the mesh at several levels making it easy to make grose adjustments using a low detail mesh, and then switching to a detaild mesh for subtle mesh tweaks.

No, subdivs aren't a surprise on a wish list. My way of thinking about this without altering what AM is about (patches) would be the original patch mesh serving in it's present form or as a (partial?) cage for a smoothened mesh underneath. I do model in AM and export low poly DXF's to other apps already. My biggest problem with subdivision surfaces is the size of the resultant smoothed mesh underneath. Could a different algorithm be used in AMb to represent surfaces so that the volume of a model is retained?

By the way - it's nice to see the calibre of some of the recent contributors to this forum. (Not to say Jim Talbot, Wegg, JoeW etc etc aren't of high enough calibre)

Ah well, backs to me liddle puddle...

Wegg
07-07-2003, 04:44 PM
If you take your exported AM mesh into Wings3D, select all the points and do a negative "Tighten", you will increase the volume of the mesh and even bring back some of the detail put into your low patch tweaking.

I have used that quite a few times. It works very well.

Kalimol
07-07-2003, 06:37 PM
AM needs its own "tighten"--but that's what that Push-Z plugin is supposed to do, right?

hoochoochoochoo
07-08-2003, 12:32 PM
If you take your exported AM mesh into Wings3D, select all the points and do a negative "Tighten", you will increase the volume of the mesh and even bring back some of the detail put into your low patch tweaking.
My admiration is endless and my gratitude for this tip knows no bounds..

In other words - one hell of a tip!
:beer:

Bill_Young
07-10-2003, 01:46 AM
Originally posted by hoochoochoochoo
No, subdivs aren't a surprise on a wish list. My way of thinking about this without altering what AM is about (patches) would be the original patch mesh serving in it's present form or as a (partial?) cage for a smoothened mesh underneath...

Ok just want to comment that I personaly think A:M's new porcelain brings it's modeling easily on par with subdivs for how they render; however, the main reason I think subdivs should be implamented in A:M is not because of the "superiority" of either of these modeling methods. I think comparing subdivs to Hash splines is like comparing drawing to painting. Some people draw better than they paint, and others paint better than they draw. Is either method better than the other? Well they are diferen, but the truth is it comes down to the artist. A complete art set should not leave out a paint brush just because it has the best pencils, because this keeps the great painters from doing their best work with it. I find that subdivs are a better modeling method for people who sculpt in a push pull fashion starting with a globular mass, where as Hash splines tend to be better for people who like to weave and sew their meshes together. There is nothing wrong with either of these, they are just diferent ways to get to a similar end result. With this in mind there are alot of people who couldn't care about either method of modeling. Why? Because, there are a pluthera of subdiv models out there that Animation Master animators can't use. To tell these people to "just remodel it in A:M" seems like needless overhead that some of them can't do. Why reinvent the wheel? It wastes precious time that could be spent setting up the character, and animating it.

Personaly I like the sewing method of modeling better, so I'm fine with what A:M currently has, but I do know others who prefer the other modeling method better, and thus feel hampered while using A:M.

Zaryin
07-10-2003, 05:33 AM
A Feature I think should be placed within A:M is a Translusency Option in both Projection Maps and Decals.

If we can't have SSS, this would bring us closer to getting more relaistic skin.

Anyone else think this would be good?

hoochoochoochoo
07-11-2003, 12:30 PM
I find that subdivs are a better modeling method for people who sculpt in a push pull fashion starting with a globular mass
hey Bill!
you can just as easily "weave" a mesh in a good subdiv app so it does offer a bit more flexibility than that. I'm not arguing in a hostile way - but I don't agree that AMsplines are superior or inferior to subdivs.
You can do more that hooks and 5 point patches currently won't allow though - like closing off more than 1 of what in AM would be called a hooked spline into a 4 point polygon (read patch) and you won't come across surface anomalies in the same way. (My proviso again is I'm only on 8.5) May I add that I can also go back at a later point and add detail without having to rework a whole mesh!
I used to be of the opinion that a good modeller should work out ALL the detail before modelling but experience with directors and creative heads asking for changes after the model is done has taught me otherwise. All I can say there is I would rather add detail with a subdiv model than a patch model...

I could be accused of lazy modelling with subdivs then but equally someone who can work with a patch heavy model could be accused of being "spline-inneficient" (spelling!) But I won't go there!

My secret wish was to see AM's modelling flexibility increased - could a mesh be made from subdiv as well patch areas or surfaces? Maybe / maybe not. It'll never happen though as AM will stay a patch based program and though I may not like the stance, I definetly respect a man or a company that sticks by its choices. I truly do.

Bill_Young
07-11-2003, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by hoochoochoochoo
hey Bill!
you can just as easily "weave" a mesh in a good subdiv app so it does offer a bit more flexibility than that.

Well I won't disagree that you can weave a mesh in most subdiv programs, but not nessicarily as easy. In A:M You hit A then lay down a spline, then hit A again, and weave in your next spline. Every where you click on another spline they get woven together. No other app I've had the oppertunity to play with (LW, Maya, Soft, Max, Wings) makes weaving this easy.


I'm not arguing in a hostile way - but I don't agree that AMsplines are superior or inferior to subdivs... ...(My proviso again is I'm only on 8.5)

Translation: This is going to be your oppinion of why A:M splines are inferior to Subdivs; however, based off your own message you're using an old version of A:M so it is an un fair comparison as it compares an old versions technology. My statement clearly says A:M NEW porcelain when compared to subdivs are dabatable which is superior render quality wise.


You can do more that hooks and 5 point patches currently won't allow though - like closing off more than 1 of what in AM would be called a hooked spline into a 4 point polygon (read patch) and you won't come across surface anomalies in the same way.

I can agree that you can link poly's in ways you can not link splines; however, I was talking about how they looked when they were rendered and not talking about peoples modeling techniques. Yes, Due to the nature of spline modeling you have to use good modeling techniques, and have a basic understanding of how to stich things together to get them to work. With subdivs you can model in a sloppier fashion and still get decent results. Does this mean that Subdivs are better? It's debatable, and not worth arguing over as ultimatly if some one models better with one than the other then let them. ;)

May I add that I can also go back at a later point and add detail without having to rework a whole mesh!

This is a broad statment and way to generalized for a good reply as rework can be interpreted in many ways; however, I can rework a mesh at a later date in A:M with out any major problems. So I'm not sure what you mean.


I used to be of the opinion that a good modeller should work out ALL the detail before modelling but experience with directors and creative heads asking for changes after the model is done has taught me otherwise. All I can say there is I would rather add detail with a subdiv model than a patch model...

Great! You're one of the example people I am talking about for why I think A:M should implament Subdivs.


I could be accused of lazy modelling with subdivs then but equally someone who can work with a patch heavy model could be accused of being "spline-inneficient" (spelling!) But I won't go there!

Spline efficency, and lazy subdiv modeling are individual issues that can impact a persons model, but don't have any relevence on wether one method renders better than the other. I will agree that a poorly constructed spline model will usualy look worse than a poorly constructed subdiv model; however, that doesn't mean that a good spline model won't be the equivilent of a good subdiv model.


My secret wish was to see AM's modelling flexibility increased - could a mesh be made from subdiv as well patch areas or surfaces? Maybe / maybe not. It'll never happen though as AM will stay a patch based program and though I may not like the stance, I definetly respect a man or a company that sticks by its choices. I truly do. :)

Well I agree that I would like to see A:M's modeling tools increased to accomodate people, such as your self, who model diferently than it currently does. I'm incline to belive you are also right in that we will probably never see subdivs added to A:M as Hash splines were after all designed by the person who owns the company, and they are a very good, though debatable, modeling option. I posted subdivs as a feature request, because it never hurts to ask for somthing even if you know you'll probably never see it. Hey I ask Santa for for a million dollars every Christmas, but know I'll never see it. ;)

dfaris
07-11-2003, 08:10 PM
Bill,
I'm going to have to dissagree with you on the sds spline thing.
I have used AM since version 4 and back then splines were great, but to day they just dont stand up any more. Even with V10.5 and the tricks used to smooth out the splines they are just not on par with SUBD's.

Here is a test: make this model in AM, I made this in C4D in about 3 mins, max.

With AM the work flow will be longer and then to use porcelain you have to apply it to the patches you need it on ect ect ect forget it splines just dont hold up any more. Now AM's animation tools still kick butt anyway you look at it.

Kalimol
07-11-2003, 10:27 PM
That shape really wouldn't be very difficult in AM, but it would take some planning (I.e. the two spline loops to the sides and the one at the center of the intersection) and bias tweaks (at the centerline.) You can easily add extra detail to meshes with Stitch, InMag/OutMag, mouse-driven Alpha/Gamma, and Maintain Curvature in ways that make 8.5 or 9.5 cry, but it still, always, takes planning, takes analysis.

A good modeler is an intuitve one that allows free expression of form and never gets in the way--AM isn't that, not in the way that SubD is. And as for me, I don't lend Martin Hash any undue respect for sticking to an idea whether it's a good idea or not.

I like Hash splines. They're a very tight, controlled way of modeling, infinitely tweakable and very compact in filesize. But I can't say that I wouldn't ditch them in an instant if SubD's were availiable.

Wegg
07-11-2003, 10:35 PM
Go ahead and try it Kalimol. I doubt I could get it as smooth as that.

SubDs have their faults but. . . I'm finding they far out weigh Hash's solution right now.

dfaris
07-11-2003, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by Kalimol
That shape really wouldn't be very difficult in AM, but it would take some planning (I.e. the two spline loops to the sides and the one at the center of the intersection) and bias tweaks (at the centerline.) You can easily add extra detail to meshes with Stitch, InMag/OutMag, mouse-driven Alpha/Gamma, and Maintain Curvature in ways that make 8.5 or 9.5 cry, but it still, always, takes planning, takes analysis.

A good modeler is an intuitve one that allows free expression of form and never gets in the way--AM isn't that, not in the way that SubD is. And as for me, I don't lend Martin Hash any undue respect for sticking to an idea whether it's a good idea or not.

I like Hash splines. They're a very tight, controlled way of modeling, infinitely tweakable and very compact in filesize. But I can't say that I wouldn't ditch them in an instant if SubD's were availiable.

Thats my point, to make something this easy you dont have to plan and tweak and plan some more then tweak and apply porcelain and all that you can spend your time modeling and let the computer figure out how to make it smooth. Just like AM's animating tools you setup the bones apply constraints and let the computer figure out the rest. The same concept should be applied to modeling.

Obnomauk
07-11-2003, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by dfaris
[B]
Here is a test: make this model in AM, I made this in C4D in about 3 mins, max.


well bill is probably a better modeler than I am, but I made this in 10.5 in 4 minutes. including the time to apply and adjust the porcelain material.

just my 2¢

-David Rogers

Kalimol
07-11-2003, 11:03 PM
Not bad, but it would take some serious bias tweaking to get it to really look like the Maya model...this is really the same form, but the curvature is totally different.

Edit--I just tried it--I got the basic geometry and biases in a little over six minutes, but the scaling was wrong and I didn't realize that one end ring was peaked until I hit the stopwatch....

Wegg
07-11-2003, 11:19 PM
well bill is probably a better modeler than I am, but I made this in 10.5 in 4 minutes.

Looks like lumpy clay to me. . .

:shrug:

John Keates
07-11-2003, 11:22 PM
I think that it is clear that the Sub-d method wins here, and there are better examples of models that are hard to make with hash splines but painless in subs. The only thing with the sub-d version is that I can see some very slight tessellation but this is not present on all implementations. I have done some playing about with sub-d implementations and then tried to make the same stuff in am and it was a nightmare. One problem is that many of the people using AM are new to modelling and don't know what they are missing. They are therefore un-likely to request it as a feature.

I will say that I love making heads etc. in AM. I can't imagine it being any easier. But mechanical modelling is a real pisser. It isn't so bad if you don't want to bevel, or if you want stuff to look like marsh-mallow, but other than that it is quite painful.

I think that the issue with model detail could be partly resolved with a really good Displacement feature (for adding skin knobblyness etc) and 10.5 is MUCH better than previous versions. However, one of the first disappointments that I got when using AM was when I made a ball, selected a patch and extruded. I got a square section and not a nice bloby thing at all. OK, the same shape could be made with AM but it literally takes twice as long. If 5p patches were made automatically then life would be much easier (faster). But a decent approximation of Sub-d style tools would be a great help.

Whilst I'm writing a book, there is an issue with roundness: Porcelain solves it in most cases but not all. I have attached an image that shows this (it is an image that I will use for a feature request). You make the same thing by lathing a tube, deleting all but an end circle, then lathing that. Then AM would calculate bias to make it round. But what if I am making a mass of tree roots? Then I have to do it all by hand!! There must be a way for this to be automated so that the geometry follows what porcelain achieves and makes nice rounded shapes rather than "peaked" ones.

If hash aren’t going to put sub-d modelling in then they have to carry on improving splines. Modelling and rendering should never stand still in a 3d app.

John Keates
07-11-2003, 11:24 PM
Ooops, here is the attachment as it got erased from the above waffle...

Kalimol
07-11-2003, 11:40 PM
I'm not certain I understand your point...what is supposed to be rounded that isn't in that image?

The problem with making a more intuitive interface is that it often tends to be a matter of making it more automatic...which often means that the user ends up backtracking a lot when the function the machine assumes was needed wasn't. Extruding from a ball and getting a globby little protrusion would take quite a bit of automation to accomplish with splines, as would automatic smoothing; but not everything needs the same smoothness or needs to be connected in the same way....

I think that really the modeling could be streamlined extensively if the five-point patches were automated somehow, though I can't imagine how.

Still, making patches more like SubD seems impossible--it's just a totally different dynamic. In some ways, with the total lack of automation and the total control of Hash spines, they're antitheses.

BTW, the shape is possible in AM, but it took me 10 minutes or so....

http://www.micoks.net/~jpmiller/T.jpg

dfaris
07-11-2003, 11:59 PM
Kalimol looks like there are some creases or seems in there.

I agree what people are saying about subd's and patches and I also agrre hash needs to keep there modeling tools up to date.

I think hash sould make some kind of spline weight feature kind of like subd's weighting but the spline one would control how sharp or rounded the splines are that pass thought a CP. I know there is the bias setting but it needs to be updates with a slider or something and not freak out when you animate it.

As for 5 point patches I think they should be auto also and as for creases there should be some way like a slider for you to adjust it from smooth to real creasy (if you want creasy) just like the weight controll in Subd's.

John Keates
07-12-2003, 12:11 AM
Kalimo,

By rounding, I meant that I would like the shape to be more circular (not peaked). To get technical, I am looking for sine waves rather than porabolas. I wouldn't want this all the time, just when I have toggled a switch. Another problem that I didn't mention is that in extreem cases such as the one given, porcilain will make the shading of an object incongruous with its geometry.

I think that 5p patch creation could be automated. After all, 4 and 3 pointers are. Again, a toggle to turn this off would be good. Maybe it would require a lot of hash-power to do it but it would be a BIG time saver.

Also, your last example isn't rounded at the edges. Proper bevelling means being able to select a load of geometry and slide a slider to vary the amount. In am, things are the polar opposite of that. If you take one of the primitives provided on the CD and stretch it, the bevels get screwed.

John Keates
07-12-2003, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by dfaris
as for creases there should be some way like a slider for you to adjust it from smooth to real creasy (if you want creasy) just like the weight controll in Subd's.

In 10.5 there is a slider to vary the amount of porcilain. But having said that, I don't know why anyone would want creases. I have herd a lot of people say "It is ok that hash patches are creasy because so are peoples faces". I don't understand this statement. The fact is that if there are going to be creases in my models then I want to put them there and I want them to be where I put them. Build creases into the geometry or use bump maps but don't expect flawed geometry to make the right choices for you.

John Keates
07-12-2003, 12:21 AM
Here is an example of what I want AM to do sometimes:

Kalimol
07-12-2003, 04:00 AM
Kalimol looks like there are some creases or seems in there.

The bias should have been set differently on the lower part. The actual connection was creased a touch too much, and there really should have been another spline ring in there to form the seam...

Also, your last example isn't rounded at the edges. Proper bevelling means being able to select a load of geometry and slide a slider to vary the amount.

Maya can do that (subjective use of the word "proper" notwithstanding)?

In am, things are the polar opposite of that. If you take one of the primitives provided on the CD and stretch it, the bevels get screwed.

Well, naturally, since it's just another bit of the model that's getting scaled/skewed/whatever. I'd think that would give you a good bit of extra control and cause a lot less problems....

I still don't get the arch thing...isn't that a simple bias issue?

Bill_Young
07-12-2003, 04:46 AM
:blush: Dig a hole, and dig it deep. Ok Let me rephraze a few things. For me to have said that the new porcelain brings A:M's splines easily on par with sub divs was a poorly made statment. There are advantages and disadvantages to both Spline modeling and subdiv modeling. The new porcelain and bias normals make getting a good looking model much easier then ever before, and so are not a bad alternative to subdivs. There are some modeling situations that subdivs can produce a model quicker; however, there are also situations where hash splines can make a model faster. My attached image has my 3 minute 15 second attempt at the said model, but it also contains a 45 second model that I don't belive could be modeled as quickly with subdivs either. Yes, I know I'm setting my self up here. ;p Ultimatly, however the point of my message was why I feel that subdivs should be implamented with out trying to stir up the debate that is currently happening. :thumbsdow Bad on me... Oh well...

Wegg
07-12-2003, 05:40 AM
Your right Bill. . .

That is a tricky model to make using subDs.

http://www.3d-geeks.com/Wegg/Wings.jpg

With AM you get way more precision over the edges. And Lightwave doesn't even HAVE edge sharpening in its subD implementation. . .

Nice splinin dude. . .

Bill_Young
07-12-2003, 06:01 AM
Wanted to take one more stab at it as I wasn't happy with the original ends I made on the first one. Also I tryed to mimic the angle a little better on this one. took me about another 10 seconds worth of modifications to the lathe shape. This should also show how good the new porcelain is. I think this is very comparable to the subdiv example. My stubs arn't quite as long, but thats not overly important.

Hookflash
07-12-2003, 06:47 AM
Bill_Young: Would it be possible to get a smooth branching shape like that *without* porcelain? Porcelain just seems like a bit of a kludge, since the actual geometry still has creases (from what I understand).

Obnomauk
07-12-2003, 07:53 AM
I think that an important question needs to be asked though... how _practical_ is the example we are looking at? it seems a bit contrived in my opinion. I just looked at my project and I can't see one place I have this exact join, how often do you suppose it comes up?

and bill did a much better job of it than I did, which since I equate modeling with painful dental work on the list of things I like to do makes perfect sense... and that's with patches.... god polygons... how can i express my extreme distaste for modeling with polygons... words fail me here. I don't enjoy modeling in the best of situations but mashing cubes together and trying to get a head? no thanks.

which is kind of what bill was getting at in his original post. I'm a billion times more productive with patches since I can stand to work with them. every attempt I make at polygons or nurbs or what have you just gives me a headache. different tools for different minds.
:)

-David

Kalimol
07-12-2003, 08:18 AM
Now I feel really bad...everyone's a better modeller than me....

Anyway, as for the likelyhood of using a geometry like this...I can imagine some uses, and I built something like it as part of a joint in a robot character recently. But I think the point is that it displays a very machined-looking object that runs counter to Hash's organic splines--the point all along was that some things are easier with SubD and that they should be added in, right? Not necessarily that they were better? So the shape didn't have to be practical, just atypical for AM. Not like it matters, with Bill's success...(You rock Bill!)

But as I've said before, I've never really had a chance to try out any decent SubD modellers...is edge sharpening like peaking along a specific edge spline?

Bill_Young: Would it be possible to get a smooth branching shape like that *without* porcelain? Porcelain just seems like a bit of a kludge, since the actual geometry still has creases (from what I understand).

Yeah, the outline doesn't seem to match the shading in some situations...still, I don't think it's really avoidable, and it doesn't look that fake on lower settings.

I still think photorealism is boring anyway....

John Keates
07-12-2003, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by Kalimol
I still don't get the arch thing...isn't that a simple bias issue?

You could say that it is a simple bias issue but simply fiddling with bias handles all day does my nut.

Look at the first and second examples that I gave. The first is all pointy and the section shape is kind of triangular. The second shape had its biases altered so that it was nice and rounded. If I had a complex model then I realy wouldn't want to do this by hand.

There are other times when you need to edit bias too, for instance where you have a big patch next to a short one. This is usually fine and can be used for making creases on purpose, but sometimes I am making a background object that I want to be smooth and I don't want to spend my time making all the patches even in size or editing bias.

Hope this makes my point clear.

pequod
07-12-2003, 02:57 PM
Once again I find myself arriving late to this thread, but here's my penny's worth.

For me the great advantage of Hash patches is smartskin, especially the new implementation where you can adjust your mesh on any angle of bone rotation. You can achieve really accurate/realistic deformation with smartskin which I believe is more difficult with weight maps and other polygon options.
Now if Hash introduced SubD, wouldn't features like this type of CP manipulation be difficult to use? If you could tweak the SubD mesh at anytime during your animation like you can with patches, then judging from the examples I've seen on the net, SubD would certainly be a welcome addition to AM's toolset.

Here's an example of some truly impressive SubD modelling (it's a bit risque)

http://www.cgchannel.com/forum/viewthread?thread=1629&offset=29

The girl's nose for example, shows exquisite modelling detail that I would find quite difficult to achieve with patches.

Kalimol
07-12-2003, 06:56 PM
John Keates--You could say that it is a simple bias issue but simply fiddling with bias handles all day does my nut.

Look at the first and second examples that I gave. The first is all pointy and the section shape is kind of triangular. The second shape had its biases altered so that it was nice and rounded. If I had a complex model then I realy wouldn't want to do this by hand.

Yeah, but you can just select them and set the bias mag in the properties box....

Or are you saying that you want a way to set the automatic bias to 167ish% instead of 100% so that it's round on a 90* arc?

In any event, I can think of just as many uses for the first form as the second....

Edit--Saw the girl model--Daaang. I'd sell my right arm to be able to model like that.

Bill_Young
07-12-2003, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by Hookflash
Bill_Young: Would it be possible to get a smooth branching shape like that *without* porcelain? Porcelain just seems like a bit of a kludge, since the actual geometry still has creases (from what I understand).

Ok. Porcelain is sort of a "Kludge" but then again almost all shading on models is some form of "Kludge" and this isn't that bad of a one. Porcelain from my understanding is samples the patches more like polygon shaders typicaly do with a series of sampled normals blended togeter with the normals around them. The sample rate per patch was increased in version 10.5 to produce a more accurate reproduction of the original surface. This means, if I'm not mistaken, that the patches are more aware of how the surounding patches are blending to produce the surface. With the normal renderer the patches shade them selves independently of one another, and look smooth because they are butted up against one another at a sub pixel level. In theory this is a far more precice representation of each patch surface, but because the surfaces are not "aware" of one another if they don't line up creases may occure. Again this is speculation based off the information I've herd about how hash patches work. I could be way off base; however, To answer you question in theory you could get a normal patch surface to render like this, but it would take alot more work and mesh detail than it would be worth. IMO Porcelain is a much easier way to get this result. It's not overly harmfull you a model so long as you are aware of how it's going to effect youre model. I think of porcelain as hitting the tab key in lightwave to turn on subdivs. Technicaly they are just as much of a "kludge". Poly's normaly shade facited unless you make them normal aware. After all they are flat.

3DArtZ
07-12-2003, 07:42 PM
I'd really like to be able to tag an item as alpha object only. Or exclude from alpha map. that way one could reduce the number of layers you'd have to render if you were thinking of using compositing to tie the video together.
Anyone think this would be useful?
I am aware of the other methods one can take to get all the channels one needs but with this option you could really cut down on the number of different renders you need to do.
Mike Fitz

John Keates
07-14-2003, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by Kalimol

Or are you saying that you want a way to set the automatic bias to 167ish% instead of 100% so that it's round on a 90* arc?

In any event, I can think of just as many uses for the first form as the second....

Edit--Saw the girl model--Daaang. I'd sell my right arm to be able to model like that.

Well, if I edit the biases as you suggest, thhen start moving cps about, the geometry is no longer rounded. The bias that you want is dependant on the relative cp distances. If all the patches were the same size then setting the bias to 167 would do but this is not always the case.

If want to make a model fast then I don't want to worry about getting all the patches even in size. I just want to put the cps here and there and have a nice smooth model. Is this selfish?

hoochoochoochoo
07-18-2003, 10:24 AM
so what was the final outcome to all who joined the subdiv discussion?
Is it just a question of supporting polymodelers or is it about keeping hashspline or AM technology up to date?

Bill- we seem to have gotten of on a bad footing (by my reading of your reply to me) I have no desire for a battle. May I apologise if you saw my comments as "personal" in any way!

dfaris
07-18-2003, 07:02 PM
Well it took me a while to get around to it but here is my subd model that Bill wanted us to make and compair to the AM model.

It took me about 3 mins to make using C4D but I did have to think about the best way to do it because I just got C4D and dont know the best way to do some things. It was pretty easy once I knew what to do.

Goon
07-18-2003, 07:03 PM
was there a discussion on the list or something about subds?

My vote is a definite yes. After using Maya connect poly shape and Wing3d's box modeling I cannot stand to use splines. Oh to be able to have n-sided patches and n-edged poles, such a thing would be grand. There is freedom there, you can do what you want, find out if it works and rework it very quickly if it doesnt. Also having multiple selection modes in tweak kicks so much @$$ for reshaping a model.

EROMLIG
07-20-2003, 01:28 AM
There are in fact some complex mechanical shapes that you flat out would not be able to create using AM (in a reasonable amount of time or otherwise) that you could in the sub-d capable apps that I've used. The fact that Hash splines do not really allow you to access the individual polys that make up the patches is absurd.

Gardner

Obnomauk
07-20-2003, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by EROMLIG
There are in fact some complex mechanical shapes that you flat out would not be able to create using AM (in a reasonable amount of time or otherwise) that you could in the sub-d capable apps that I've used. The fact that Hash splines do not really allow you to access the individual polys that make up the patches is absurd.

I've heard this before, and every time i've heard it a talented modeler has show that you can model just about anything using any tool you want to. I think the point that got us all sidetracked and has since been ignored was that options are good.

I'm happy you like polygons, really i am, but they give some of us hives. So saying that hash should ditch the splines or indicating that anything is 'impossible' really misses the point.

personally I don't care if hash adds any modeling tools at all. then again I detest modeling more than just about anything else. ( calculus might beat it out... it would be a close call ) But Hash Patches make the process at least bearable for me.

-David Rogers

EROMLIG
07-20-2003, 06:21 PM
I won't get into a pissing match here as I have other more important things to do with my time. I've built models for a living and can post examples of geometry that are not possible. with AM at present time.

"personally I don't care if hash adds any modeling tools at all. then again I detest modeling more than just about anything else."

Some of us like modeling and would like to see the tools added.
It is a very reasonable request.

3DArtZ
07-20-2003, 06:28 PM
Guys, would it even be possible to add some sort of polygon, sub'ds type of tool to the hash environment?
I mean, I guess it would have to be an affter effect type of thing. How the heck would even go about attaching bones if the individual control points were not there.
So, I suppose my question is, is it even possible to interactively use polygons in hash? I don't hink so... maybe it would be some sort of close represntation cage type modelling tool, but you wouldnt see the final result till after the software converted the object to poly's
Mike Fitz

Kalimol
07-21-2003, 04:50 AM
If want to make a model fast then I don't want to worry about getting all the patches even in size. I just want to put the cps here and there and have a nice smooth model. Is this selfish?

No, of course not, I just honestly didn't understand what you were getting at.

It would take quite a bit of inmag/outmag tweaking to get the bias to work like that, and it would be nice to have some kind of automatic "round" mode...I understand what you're saying now. Curvature has to be based on relative CP positions to a degree to get things like bevels to look decent and for curvature to be maintained in scaling, but....

Of course it would be the same effect if you used maintain curvature when adding one of the splines instead of moving it from somewhere else...but "it would take planning...."

John Keates
07-21-2003, 04:32 PM
Well I think that we can clear this little episode up now as I think that you have understood what I was saying about as well as I ever did. I guess that it is a question of putting subjective things into words.

I will go and think about it for a bit before suggesting anything to hash.

Bill_Young
07-23-2003, 06:43 AM
Originally posted by EROMLIG
I won't get into a pissing match here as I have other more important things to do with my time. I've built models for a living and can post examples of geometry that are not possible. with AM at present time.


I would like to see some of these examples. To my knowledge there is only one situation that A:M lacks an effective way around a particular modeling problem. It can be solved but is very dificult to do effectivly. Now I'm not saying there arn't some shapes that A:M couldn't do easily, it's just that I havn't seen one thats totaly impossible as you sugest. This being said, I know I'm opening up for potentialy alot of examples that people will send, and some might be hard to replicate, but probably not totaly imposible.

hoochoochoochoo
07-23-2003, 05:06 PM
OK my opinion doesn't matter as an 8.5 user but nothing is impossible in any package given enough time to do it.
If you so wished, you could animate Jurassic Park type scenes by creating them in Photoshop and then manipulating pixel-by-pixel.

That's my last as I don't really want a pissing match either, my time is also more valuable for other things- like "downdating" the IKJoe rig to 8.5 as privately requested by others.

John Keates
07-23-2003, 05:59 PM
One simple thing that I would like to have when modelling (this would be similar to poly modellers) is this:

The option to have operations apply to faces, or groups of cps seperately.

For instance, say I want to make the knuckle spline ring of each of the fingers of a hand wider, at the moment, I have to select a spline ring then enlarge it, move on to the next etc. At the moment, if you select a load of spline rings or groups of splines, and then perform an operation, that operation will use a reference point that is common to all the geometry. It would be much better if We could press a button that made each spline-ring re-size or rotate from its own centre. It would also be good if moving a group of cps away from there serface normal didn't use an averaged serface normal but used one for each cp.

There are many instances where this type of thing would be handy.

I don't know wheter that was clear but I tried.

John Keates
07-25-2003, 10:26 PM
Also, true displacement maps would be great. They might even solve some of the problems with adding geometry. Check this thread:

http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=77779

Having something like that would do me fine for making crinkly beasts or knobly rocks etc. Couple it with texture painting and your laughing.

Obnomauk
07-26-2003, 07:59 AM
Have you checked out the Puzh plug-in? works on mac and PC and does the pushing along normals thing really well.

he also has a bunch of other very useful plugins.

-David Rogers

John Keates
07-26-2003, 09:51 AM
I'm sure that it is a nice little plugin, but don't you have to type vectors in by hand? It would be better if it was all visual and intuitive. Also, it would be good to have the option to move the cps allong the average normal for the cps that it is attached to (like it is now but where you could move several groups of cps, each group moving allong its own normal. This would be an equivelent of pushing faces allong the normal.

If there was some kind of button that toggled through the modes, they would also be used for when you extrude. You wouldn't have to extrude then call a plugin then push the cps. you would just have the right mode set then extrude.

Tell me if I am talking monkey splatter.

Obnomauk
07-26-2003, 07:54 PM
No not at all, just offering a workaround for the current toolset. Puzh requires that you input an amount by hand since it's a wizard plugin. It does a nifty job, but an interface widget would be much appreciated.

-David Rogers

Hookflash
07-27-2003, 06:42 AM
http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78102

Be sure to check out the ZBrush beta thread referred to in that post.

I want to be able to export a poly model from A:M and then import the UVs from the unmodified poly model back into A:M for use with the original patch model. Basically, I'd like to extract a high-detail displacement map (created in ZBrush) from the poly model and apply it to my original patch model. I think this should be possible, since the geometry of the exported poly mesh is not modified in any way.

When a model is exported from A:M, each patch results in a group of however many polys. If A:M could extract the displacement map from each of these groups and apply it to their corresponding patches, we'd be all set, right? Or, perhaps there's a better way. I just think we need a way to add detail to our models in a 3rd party sculpting app (such as ZBrush).

KenH
09-19-2003, 01:14 AM
Maybe it's just me, but I find my library gets messed up very easily. With the constant updates, the links keep getting lost. And I do move the stuff in the "Data" drawer over. It doesn't seem to work.
Anyway, aside from that niggle, I have to say the updates are coming along nicely. Keep it up.

KenH
09-28-2003, 11:08 PM
When highlighting a bone for animation, I'd like to be able to press a keyboard key(r=rotate, etc) and then movement of my mouse will effect the joint locally in the xy directions.
That way, you don't have to fiddle around with those axis orbiters.

Zack
11-27-2003, 12:01 AM
How about better hair, oh wait they're adding that in 11.

jmcalpin
12-14-2003, 04:49 AM
1. A spin spline connection: pick a Spline and change the flow of the splines across the CP. Would make it fast to fix flow problems.

2. Extrude leaves patches where they come from so they are not good for adding detail to a model. Fix it so that a hole is left behind or make a new tool... say bevel that allows this.


Jay

Obnomauk
01-16-2004, 07:59 PM
I submitted this to Hash today.. hope something comes of it, but I would like to hear feed back from other users...

http://www.hash.com/users/gherkin/feature_request/UI_idea.html

-David Rogers

pequod
01-16-2004, 08:28 PM
I really like the interface David, especially how the PWS could be split up into separate scrollable areas or as you put it 'folder bars'...neat idea.
Colour coding (slightly tinting) the adjacent timeline would certainly add to the readability, in fact they should implement this idea regardless of whether they would use the folder bars.

Some mock-up!

Wegg
01-16-2004, 09:05 PM
If had to use that Aqua interface for more than an hour. . . I think I'd friggen explode. White. . . on off white. . . with more white. . . oh and a few gum drops.

Throw some of that brushmetal in there David. From the new Finder.

John Keates
01-16-2004, 09:23 PM
Nice mock-ups.

I have already suggested colour coding for the pws. I guess that it wouldn't be to hard to implement. The idea for collapsing things is inspired. They are going to implement that kind of thing for the menus anyway so they should be able to hack it. An alternative would be to have it so that filter tabs could be ripped off making their own detatched pws's.

By the way, has anybody noticed the menus that pop up when you right click on the pws scroll bar or the handle that separates the pws from te main screen? I only found them just the other day. I wonder what else is lurking around that interface?

Pengy300
01-27-2004, 08:34 PM
After doing a looong render I would like to see a shut down computer when complete function.

Wegg
01-27-2004, 08:52 PM
Can't you just configure your computer to go to sleep when the cpu usage goes below a certain amount for a period of time?

Pengy300
01-28-2004, 12:29 AM
that's possible..dang I dun learn sumthin ever day on dis here forum..thanks Wegg

Kalimol
02-02-2004, 02:13 AM
jmcalpin--2. Extrude leaves patches where they come from so they are not good for adding detail to a model. Fix it so that a hole is left behind or make a new tool... say bevel that allows this.

It'd have to be a new tool, or maybe an extra extrude mode of some kind--like a "shift +" sort of thing. It's nice to have a basic extrude that doesn't do anything automatically--AM tends to make a really lame job of guessing at just what you're trying to do with some of the "smarter" tools and plugins. . . .

But yeah, that would be incredibly useful. It'd feel sort of like subd modeling.

hoochoochoochoo
04-28-2004, 03:37 PM
How about the ability to close a spline into a hooked spline. If you have done any subdivision modelling this may sound familiar as it's basically subdividing a polygon.
Only thing is, in a polymodeler, you can keep subdividing and subdividing where necessary.

The advantages?
You can close off more awkward splines and add a lot more resolution if necessary
AM subdivision of patches is NOT the same as subdivided polygons - patch surfaces are curved or straightened BUT you are the one in control and you can add porcelain to create further smoothing.
This might allow AM models to have the necessary resolution WHERE necessary to allow the use of Z-Brush as an add-in technology

Disadvantage - Hash would have to improve how hooked patches render at render time

If this sounds stupid please say so, I'm just thinking aloud.

hoochoochoochoo
05-26-2004, 01:10 PM
1- The ability for Materials to influence hair or hair colour like the way image maps can at present.
2- In the light of Z-Brush and the impact its having on the future of 3D texturing (like Photoshop did with Image Maps), how about modifying or allowing Materials to be influenced by decals so that you can mask areas out (or in). Z-Brush does work best with mesh (poly/patch) heavy models but some materials can sculpt surfaces fairly heavily.

I'm not sure Z-brush and AM will work to AMs strengths unless we start to produce mesh heavy models.

Zack
05-29-2004, 02:07 AM
The ability for Materials to influence hair or hair colour like the way image maps can at present
They already can... Have you seen the Hash tutorial/explanation? They even include a project file.

odinseye2k
05-29-2004, 04:56 AM
2- In the light of Z-Brush and the impact its having on the future of 3D texturing (like Photoshop did with Image Maps), how about modifying or allowing Materials to be influenced by decals so that you can mask areas out (or in). Z-Brush does work best with mesh (poly/patch) heavy models but some materials can sculpt surfaces fairly heavily.

I don't think that heavy meshes are necessary if Hash would implement sub-pixel displacement maps. Since patches are already infinite resolution, all you have to do is modify what is made up at render time and poof! You're right back in the ballgame with a low patch count.

Would perhaps again make Hash patches > sub-ds.

hoochoochoochoo
06-02-2004, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by zero2zillion
They already can... Have you seen the Hash tutorial/explanation? They even include a project file.
Hi Zach! I get what you mean (I haven't looked at the project file) and my first trials for Stone Scales on top of a material had the colour picked up but it didn't pick up the different nuances (dent/crumple/scales etc etc) that the material itself gave the patch mesh underneath.

Do you get what I mean or should I post an image reference?

Originally posted by odinseye2k
I don't think that heavy meshes are necessary if Hash would implement sub-pixel displacement maps.

LOL.. that's why I made a feature request! Hopefully someone from Hash or someone Hash takes seriously reads the feature request sticky and makes suggestions forward!

Originally posted by odinseye2k
Would perhaps again make Hash patches > sub-ds.

Wouldn't that be great? I'm NOT a programmer and neither am I a Technologist but does your reply about sub-pixel displacement maps take in the problem of the effect Displacement Maps have on hooked patches??

odinseye2k
06-04-2004, 02:17 AM
LOL.. that's why I made a feature request! Hopefully someone from Hash or someone Hash takes seriously reads the feature request sticky and makes suggestions forward!

I think it's an idea that's been floating around for awhile, even amongst the Fellows if I remember my semi-recent history correctly. It seems like a pretty logical step to evolve with some of the tricks the other guys have been using (mathematical scripting, CP weighting, UV editor with patch-splitting capability).

Wouldn't that be great? I'm NOT a programmer and neither am I a Technologist but does your reply about sub-pixel displacement maps take in the problem of the effect Displacement Maps have on hooked patches??

That one was a little flippant - I have a fascination with the history of technology evolution and the competition that very naturally goes with it (although a parallel Hash/Catmull story would be very interesting). In talking about sub-pixel displacement, I assume that any algorithm developed would necessarily work for *all* types of Hash patches - including hooks, 5-pointers, 3-pointers and 4-pointers.

Pablo
06-04-2004, 04:49 PM
if there would be sub-pixel displacement maps it would be fantastic to be able to paint on it like on the hair, so that there is automaticly a map on the model on which you can paint directly in shaded mode or so

hoochoochoochoo
06-14-2004, 03:47 PM
1- copy paste grooming info (include copy flip and paste)
2- copy paste relationships.

Just create a model with fur, groom and then try dragging a rig with constraints into it...

I now know that really, I should create a new model in a rigged mdl if I want to use a pre-made rig....

raillard
06-29-2004, 07:03 AM
Here's an idea for a new constraint that I think might prove handy.

http://www.sonic.net/raillard/hash/spherical_translate_limits_constraint.gif

Currently we have a Translate Limits constraint that allows a bone to rattle around inside a box, defined by three maximum and three minimum parameters, in the X,Y, & Z planes, respectfully.

This new constraint would be similar, except it would keep the constrained bone within a ball. My picture shows how it might work. I show what would happen with three possible settings.

In the first case, the minimum diameter setting is set to 0 and the maximum diameter setting is set to 6 cm. This would allow the constrained bone to be translated anywhere inside a 6 cm. diameter sphere.

In the second case, the minimum diamter setting is set to 4 cm. and the maximum diameter setting is set to 6cm. This would allow the constrained bone to rattle around between two spheres. It can go no closer to the origin than 4 cm, and it cannot go beyond 6cm.

In the third case the minimum diameter setting and the maximum diameter setting are both set to 6 cm. This would force the constrained bone to stick to the surface of a 6 cm. sphere.

I don't know how difficult it would be to program such a constraint, dumb artist that I am. Still, I'm fairly certain it would be very useful. Consider the Setup Machine rig. Currently, the SM rig uses a plain old Translate Limits on the Bicep control bone. The underlying shoulder geometry bone (which is hidden) has an Aim At constraint, which points to the Bicep control bone ... hence, you can control two bones, the bicep geometry bone and the shoulder geometry bone, with this one control bone. This is sweet. Why hassle with two bones if you can use just one? Well, actually there is a reason why you might not like this. Since the bicep control bone is free to bounce around inside a box, it no longer perfectly superimposes the underlying bicep geometry bone, whose origin has to move in a sphere defined by the length of the shoulder bone. This is not really a major deal ... but it does produce a bit of wiggy behavior within the automatic elbow pointing rig, from time to time. To the best of my understanding, this is the chief reason why the Setup Machine offers the option to NOT install an automatic elbow control system. However, it cannot be denied that an automatic elbow managment system is a nice thing to have! Anyway, this is my chief gripe against the SM way of shrugging shoulders, and why I prefer a visible shoulder bone. If this new spherical translate limits constraint were available to us, then the SM way of doing things would instantly become the preferable alternative for everyone. A visible shoulder bone would become a thing of the past.

Okay. I've made my case. Feel free to throw flowers or bricks at it.

Respectfully,

Carl Raillard

hoochoochoochoo
06-29-2004, 11:12 AM
Sounds really clever! But in a way, can't you do this with "constrain to surface" and then choose a sphere? Or does constrain to surface affect one spline on a surface only? Forgive me if I'm being thick, rigging isn't something I have a full grasp of.

sonofpat
06-29-2004, 12:39 PM
My two cents can be best summed up in the image below

http://sonofpat.bravehost.com/PWS.jpg

http://sonofpat.bravehost.com/PWS.jpg

This can be summed up in the following way
1: The ability to lock a group in the PWS by toggling the lock icon
2: The ability to toggle between wire frame and shaded mode on
groups instead of the whole model.
3: Toggling visibility PhotoShop style in the PWS. In addition, the
visibility status of a group must be saved when the project is closed.

These came straight out of wings and all speed up modelling without any big change in spline technology per se.

Luv

Pat

raillard
06-29-2004, 06:49 PM
Sounds really clever! But in a way, can't you do this with "constrain to surface" and then choose a sphere? Or does constrain to surface affect one spline on a surface only? Forgive me if I'm being thick, rigging isn't something I have a full grasp of.

Hello, Hoochoochoochoo.

Well I can think of a couple of reasons.

A surface constraint requires two bones; one bone rides on the surface, and the second bone serves as a pointer. Its job is to control the first bone's placement on your chosen surface. In other words, you are orchestrating the movement of bone1 by means of bone2. You can't just grab bone1 and move it directly, and expect it to remain on the surface. If you do that, you'll just add offset channels to the surface constraint. Not exactly a hard and fast limit! ;) I guess what I'm saying is that a surface constraint is really a position-me-on-this-surface constraint. My proposal is for a genuine translate-limits constraint. I want it to restrict bone translations, not just guide them.

Also, I don't want a big honking ball at every joint where I might wish to employ this new constraint. I'd be willing to waive this gripe aside if Sonofpat's idea of group visibility parameters became a reality.

Pat: Your group suggestion is TERRIFIC! :bounce: Just imagine hiding & unhiding groups without going into muscle mode! Man, that would save time!

Sincerely,

Carl Raillard

iso
06-29-2004, 07:53 PM
to prevent the user from having to go to great lengths to try to report a bug and have them say that either they couldn't replicate it or that your instructions were too avague, why don't they have someting that is internal recording the users action (probably exists already for undos) and then when there is a crash the history along with other necessary details, such as stack data etc, be sent off to hash so they can see exactly what the problem is. Really this is just like the feature that MS has in winxp. Obviously this is only for crashes and something that is done in some global exception catcher.

raillard
07-02-2004, 07:53 AM
You know, the more I think of it, the more I think my new constraint idea is not gonna happen. I'm no programmer ... but I get an uneasy hunch that a Spherical Translate Limits constraint would be a major undertaking. It's one of those things that's easy for a human brain to understand, but (like collision detection) I think it'd be hard for a computer to grasp. I'm guessing it would involve differential equations, or something like that, to keep the bone inside the spherical space. Rocket Science stuff.

I'd still love to have this new constraint, don't get me wrong. But ... well. It's foolish to expect a Nasa-level guidence system for a bone in an art program.

Sincerely,

Carl Raillard

John Keates
07-02-2004, 02:26 PM
Actually, I wouldn't have thought that it would be all that difficult to impliment. A sphere is an easy thing for a computer to understand. The only hard part as far as I can see would be working out how the bone would react to hitting the limit on an angled curved serface. It is probably worth asking anway if you think it would be beneficial. Maybe the Anzovins would have something to say on the matter if you asked them?

itsjustme
07-02-2004, 05:13 PM
Like Carl said, this would probably be pretty math intensive....but couldn't it be done using "Expressions"?

Maybe my brain isn't working right today, but if you put translate limits all the way around a bone (min and max all set to the same distance on x, y and z) it seems like it would accomplish the same thing.

I might not be right...I'll have to put a project together to illustrate what I mean when I get a chance, probably not until extremely late tonight.


EDIT:

Doh! Okay, now that my head has cleared (and reading the previous posts) I understand that the translate constraints I suggested wouldn't fit the bill. Sorry about sounding so dense...I still think there is a solution. How about a bone anchored at its base with the scale set to a range? That would give you a sphere with the kinds of limits mentioned. It's probably worth some experimentation...

itsjustme
07-04-2004, 11:09 AM
Okay, it took me a while to actually mess with it, but here's my interpretation of a spherical constraint that you can impose limits on and such (in the attached zip). When you open the "spherical.prj" project, it should have "Action1" open and ready to mess with. What you see is "Bone1" as the bone that defines the sphere, "Bone2" as the bone you would attach any geometry to and "Null2" (at the intersection of "Bone1" and "Bone2") which is the manipulator...there is also a "Null1" that is set so that it isn't seen which helps drive this.

When you move "Null2" around ("Bone2" can be moved independently as well, but the constraint only works by manipulating "Null2") you'll see that "Bone2" follows while remaining within the area defined by "Bone1". You can move "Null2" outside of the defined area, but "Bone2" will still remain inside. You can adjust the area within the sphere that "Bone2" can occupy by changing the setting on the "Translate Limits" of "Null1" in the "Pose1" relationships folder. To make "Bone2" able to operate in a larger sphere, you'll need to increase the maximum translate limit for "X" to something above zero, to keep "Bone2" from reaching the center of the sphere, you have to change the the minimum translate limit for "X" to something higher (-14, -13, etc) than "-15cm".

It is my humble attempt at solving this problem with the tools I understand, I hope it helps.

raillard
07-04-2004, 11:01 PM
Hello!

Thanks, Itsjustme, for spending the time investigating this problem. It's certainly a fascinating rig.

It's not quite what I'm after, though. The fact that bone2 is distinct from Null2 is the deal-breaker, for me. What you've cooked up is very similar to a Surface Constraint (one which uses a ball as surface, except you cleverly employ bone1 instead of a lathed sphere). You're still positioning bone2's placement on the ball by means of another bone (Null2, actually). I love how elegant you've made the adjustment of bone2's freedom, just by adjusting Null1's Translate Limit's constraint. That's cool. Still, my main need is to position everything with one bone, not two. Essentially I want Null2's freedom to be curtailed. Picky, aren't I?

Consider my Anzovin shoulder-rig example. The elbow-pointing paraphanelia is directed by the visible Bicep Control Bone. By analogy, this visible Control Bone would be Null2, in your setup. Since it's still free to pull free from the end of the shoulder, it's going to carry the elbow pointing stuff with it. This is exactly how a discrepency is introduced, between the control bone and its underlying geometery. This is how unpredictable behavior creeps into the system. Of course one could set it up so that the elbow control mechanism is directed by bone2, instead. But then bone2 would have to be visible all the time. This means you'd have two Bicep Control Bones ... and Null2's function would be reduced to that of "Shoulder Pointer." Really, it would be simpler just to keep the shoulder visible. This is one of the reasons why I favor the Egg rig, because the shoulders are visible, and the elbow pointers function more precisely as a result. Still, I do envy the simplicity of the Setup Machine Rig. To be able to adjust the shoulder and upper arm with one bone, instead of two, is neat.

So for my purposes, your setup doesn't quite cut it. Still, it's neat to study. Joe Williamson needed something like this, for the knee of his Hunter model. Maybe it'll be useful for him?

I'm definately keeping a copy of your rig on my hard drive, Itsjustme. If I ever need an object to remain in a spherical orbit, I'm going to use this puppy.

Sincerely,

Carl Raillard

itsjustme
07-05-2004, 12:33 PM
What you've cooked up is very similar to a Surface Constraint (one which uses a ball as surface, except you cleverly employ bone1 instead of a lathed sphere). Well, this version of a spherical constraint isn't like a surface constraint in that a surface constraint would keep a bone on the surface of a sphere while this keeps a bone inside the area of a sphere with the added option of limiting the percentage of that area as well.


Still, my main need is to position everything with one bone, not two. In order to make a spherical constraint I think you'll have to use at least two of something (unless you use a single bone that defines the sphere like "Bone1" with CP weighting I'm guessing, but then you would also have to vary the scaling of that bone so that it doesn't operate like a surface constraint). Whether one is a null or a bone doesn't matter, you'll have to have a bone/null to define the center of the sphere. I used "Bone1" to define the center, "Bone2" to attach geometry, "Null1" to limit the area of movement inside the defined sphere (which can exceed the length of "Bone1") and "Null2" to manipulate the rig.


Essentially I want Null2's freedom to be curtailed. You could limit "Null2" with a box-shaped "Translate limits", it would keep the manipulator close to correct...except on the corners of the box that exceed the radius of the sphere. For me the fact that "Null2" can move outside of the defined area wouldn't cause me any grief since the bone I want constrained can't move outside the area I've decided on...actually, you could move "Null2" farther away with an offset on it so that the controller is easier to grab instead of reaching inside of something like a shoulder to manipulate it.


If you're going for just a bone that is constrained to the surface of a sphere, you could use a bone to define the center of the sphere (like "Bone1") with a child bone set to "Attach to parent" (let's call it "Bone1/2") then add another bone like "Bone2" to attach the geometry with a "Translate to" constraining it to "Bone1/2". That would give you the spherical constraint, but you lose the adjustable area within the sphere that the original version has (I have attached a ZIP with a project to illustrate...the manipulator is "Bone1/2"). If you're not worried about rotatation of the bone attached to the mesh, you could eliminate an additional bone.

I'm positive that there are other ways to accomplish what you're shooting for, this is what I came up with by using the existing tools that I have a pretty good grasp of...there is probably the ability to set the "Translate limits" constraints as a sphere using Expressions, but I wouldn't know the proper syntax since I haven't messed with any of that yet. I'm thinking that the equation necessary can be found on the internet...I'm also not much on math. You could probably use an expression to vary the scaling of "Bone1" to stay within a radius, but, once again, I wouldn't know the syntax etc. to implement it.

As for how the rig in "spherical.prj" would work inside of either the Raf or Egg rig, I'm only familiar with small portions of each...I generally roll my own, but it would be worth some experimentation in the future.

raillard
07-05-2004, 07:20 PM
Well, this version of a spherical constraint isn't like a surface constraint in that a surface constraint would keep a bone on the surface of a sphere while this keeps a bone inside the area of a sphere with the added option of limiting the percentage of that area as well.
You're quite right. Your rig does have that advantage. I guess it reminded, a little bit, of a Surface Constraint because it involves two bones (surface and pointer).

As far as boxing Null2 in with a Translate Limits constraint, that's not going to work. The problem with the aforementioned elbow pointing mechanism is due to the fact that the bone that guides the shoulder is not EXACTLY superimposed on the underlying geometry bones. Rigs are similar to lawn chairs. The looser they are at the joints, the more prone they are to folding or twisting in the wrong direction. Even a slight discrepency is enough to create wacky behavior.

I should mention the Setup Machine rig is fine, as is, for characters with insubstantial shoulders (e.g. Mickey Mouse). But if you're using it to rig the Incredible Hulk, and you want him to shrug his shoulder in combination with complex arm swings, then I'd advise telling the Setup Machine NOT to install the elbow guidance system.

Thanks for the new zip file, Itsjustme. I'll snatch a look at it, when I get a chance.

I'm intrigued by your suggestion that a Spherical Translate Limit might be accomplished by means of an Expression. I haven't had much luck with Expressions, though. Every time I've tried to create an Expression -- any Expression -- I couldn't get it to work. The dang things hate me! :curious:

Sincerely,

Carl Raillard

itsjustme
07-06-2004, 01:41 PM
Since there isn't a whole lot of documentation for Expressions yet, I think everyone is in the same boat for the most part with them. I tried putting an Expression on a limit, but it didn't appear to be an option. At this point I don't know what can or can't use an Expression without some trial and error. Then I'd still have to get the syntax right...and so far I've gotten a lot of syntax errors when I tried some experiments.

I haven't really used Raf's or Egg's setups I wouldn't know how to address anything specific in them...from what I've looked at they're both very nice. Can you show an approximation of what you're trying to achieve? Maybe somebody here or the Hash forums would know how to accomplish it.

thekamps
07-23-2004, 05:25 PM
I finally took a good look at the Generi-rig for Maya (with the learning edition). I see the charater used everywhere and now I know why. The shelves feature and the trigger UI sure make selections a breeze. I would like to see something like this. Or something like this just for organizing a custom PWS.

http://www.andrewsilke.com/generi_rig/generi_rig.html

raillard
01-12-2005, 12:50 AM
Hello, folks.

A while ago on this thread I suggested an idea for a Spherical Tranlate Limits constraint. I said "Feel free to throw flowers or bricks at my idea."

Well, now I want heave a big heavy brick at this idea of mine. Quite frankly, I don't think this feature suggestion is worth the trouble to implement.

What prompted my revevaluation was Sonofpat's SURE rig. http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?t=197057 He pretty much achieved what I hoped to achieve with this new constraint by simply hiding a pertinant bone. Upon careful consideration, I realized that having the bone's rotation drivers in the timeline was not a big problem. What I didn't like was having to select an extra bone while animating. Pat's solution is better than a new constraint, I think. Just hide the sucker, and rotate it by means of its visible child.

Pat had another suggestion, which I think is worth repeating:
Make Patch Visibility a property of each Group.
That is a majorly brilliant idea! :buttrock:

Sincerely,

Carl Raillard

Fuchur
01-31-2005, 11:19 AM
If you didnt find a resolution on the smoothing-issues, I have one:
Stefan Gross has written a free plugin which can smooth a spline out...

And he wrote a free plugin which can subdivide selected patches... check the plugins out at:
http://www.sgross.com/

Bye *Fuchur*

XYZRGB
01-31-2005, 07:37 PM
GENUINE SUB SURFACE SCATTERING ( please ! )

Oh ... one more : A curl and clumpiness feature to hair.

CGTalk Moderation
01-31-2006, 08:00 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.