Autodesk 2014 Product Line unveiling

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03 March 2013   #61
Originally Posted by hanskloss: And why?
People are so attached to conventional functionality that they have no concept how it would speed up their workflow. I have seen and used this concept in production and trust me once I used it, I did not want to go back to this old "click select crap and use tool" paradigm. It's faster, more efficient and way more elegant. You can always give users a choice, if they want to use this or stick with the old method.

i dont like that idea also...
selection testing is taking long very long in highres sceens... i wont delete anything this way...
and i dont want do any complicated operation without selecting... presection highlighting is good in some cases yes... but i dont want to go that path for all tools...
__________________
...
 
Old 03 March 2013   #62
Originally Posted by hanskloss: I have seen and used this concept in production and trust me, once I used it, I did not want to go back to this old "click select crap and use tool" paradigm.
Out of curiosity, how does such a system handle dense scenes with overlapping objects?
__________________
SKETCHBOOK
MDI
moonjam.com
 
Old 03 March 2013   #63
Originally Posted by AJ: Out of curiosity, how does such a system handle dense scenes with overlapping objects?


It's a modified raycast selection system so it works quite well. In my tests it's fast and does not impede selection at all. You can change the area of influence or the distance between the pointer and the object so that it doesn't analyze the entire scene. Again you could disable this to work on just components, objects or both. It's simply a question of whether you are open to change or not.

Originally Posted by oglu: i dont like that idea also...
selection testing is taking long very long in highres sceens... i wont delete anything this way...
and i dont want do any complicated operation without selecting... presection highlighting is good in some cases yes... but i dont want to go that path for all tools...


Not necessarily. If you have well programmed an optimized viewport engine then selecting things in this fashion is not an issue. Besides I am not talking about deleting individual components from a model that's 20 million count. I am talking about deleting faces, edges or vertices on 1k to 50k poly model. C'mon When you are dealing with models in Maya we are talking low rez models with displacement maps not zBrush or Mudbox hi rez meshes. Things need to be efficient in order for you to animate right? I have also tested this in rigging and it is fantastic.
__________________
Happy beebee smile time.....----> My work

Last edited by hanskloss : 03 March 2013 at 04:07 PM.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #64
Originally Posted by hanskloss: It's simply a question of whether you are open to change or not.
Ha! That's a pretty loaded question
__________________
SKETCHBOOK
MDI
moonjam.com
 
Old 03 March 2013   #65
Originally Posted by AJ: Ha! That's a pretty loaded question


It sure is Things change in this field dramatically so I'm approaching this concept believing that we are all malleable and receptive to change If it's change for the better naturally
__________________
Happy beebee smile time.....----> My work
 
Old 03 March 2013   #66
tada...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...d&v=EuGuBDhUEWU
__________________
...
 
Old 03 March 2013   #67
God it must be hard developing Maya downloading all those pre-existing plugins...
__________________
Vizual-Element | Automotive Superstore
 
Old 03 March 2013   #68
retopo in mudbox...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...e&v=rsKeZUpZTC0
__________________
...
 
Old 03 March 2013   #69
Thumbs up

Originally Posted by oglu: retopo in mudbox...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...e&v=rsKeZUpZTC0


Now that I am very happy with. Awesome! Why so late ?lol
__________________
Happy beebee smile time.....----> My work
 
Old 03 March 2013   #70
Looks like they are mimicking 3D Coat's Auto-Retopo tools. If you look a little closer though, you will see some areas that will need to be cleaned up (that's common for automated topology....it leaves a lot of guesswork for the algorithm).

I wonder, then, if they have also incorporated Retopo tools to fix those areas, or are they expecting the artist to send the mesh back to their host application to do that?
 
Old 03 March 2013   #71
Too late, but it's not really a 3dcoat retopo thing, it's somethinig that was known long before. I was aware of that and ask myself, why nobody has applied that to cg softwares..
I was going to give it a try. but Some time later we started to see it in implemented in programs like 3dcoat.

But anyhow the nature of remeshing, is usually a limited not very clean topology but somehow relatively even.
__________________
may not be following this thread.
.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #72
Originally Posted by Ruramuq: Too late, but it's not really a 3dcoat retopo thing, it's somethinig that was known long before. I was aware of that and ask myself, why nobody has applied that to cg softwares..
I was going to give it a try. but Some time later we started to see it in implemented in programs like 3dcoat.

But anyhow the nature of remeshing, is usually a limited not very clean topology but somehow relatively even.

The potential, or at least the idea, for this kind of thing has been around for some time, but I'm not sure what you mean by "known long before". The original research papers that were presented at SIGGRAPH and other conferences, on which this stuff is based, aren't all that old (i.e. only a few years).
 
Old 03 March 2013   #73
Not just the potential or idea, I wasn't referring a specific paper, but Quad Remeshing in general.. there is a long history about this.

3d-coat, based it's work on a specific paper. Maybe 'Mixed-Integer Quadrangulation'.
Each paper may be an improvement or they address it in a novel way. But that doesn't mean that good solutions(tech papers) didn't exist a decade before.
__
Many people somehow believed this was a creation from 3d-coat, or that this was something 'new'. Until they realized that it is based on a specific paper. But different solutions existed before, and any developer could have implemented them many years ago.

It was a matter of time (very late it happened though).
It makes you wonder how many things could be implemented right now.
__________________
may not be following this thread.
.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #74
I get where you're coming from, but I think a fully automatic, 100% quad, with some feature based constraints like following the curvature in a nice way, aren't things that were really doable more than a few years ago.

Are you aware of any implementations or research papers from more than say 4 or 5 years ago?

And I'm not trying to be annoying or anything...I'm truly interested :-) I was following a lot of Pierre Alliez's work for some time and went to a few conferences that he presented at.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #75
Originally Posted by goleafsgo: I get where you're coming from, but I think a fully automatic, 100% quad, with some feature based constraints like following the curvature in a nice way, aren't things that were really doable more than a few years ago.

Are you aware of any implementations or research papers from more than say 4 or 5 years ago?

And I'm not trying to be annoying or anything...I'm truly interested :-) I was following a lot of Pierre Alliez's work for some time and went to a few conferences that he presented at.
You are correct. If there is nothing on the market and some developer creates the first usable tools that put the theory to practice...IT IS NEW!

And based on user feedback/input, the dev of 3D Coat devised a way to make the new routine follow some user-created guides. In that regard, he most certainly DID invent that technology. Some users asked for paint guides (using masks) or modification of parameters to drive user-directed edgeflow. An idea was suggested to use the Strokes tool in the Retopo Room to drive this functionality. Then a subsequent idea was submitted to paint a mask to give the algorithm an idea where to increase polygonal density.

None of this was part of a Siggraph white paper. And for what it's worth, there are lots and lots of white papers that go without having anyone develop the concepts....so, why discount the contributions of the developers who take an idea and make it work in a practical way, within their software. This is no easy task. Takes a LOT of research and development time from the vendors, themselves. It's rather insulting to them, to suggest that they didn't create anything NEW, when there was previously nothing on the market that offered the technology.

If MIT, for example, were to devise a new battery technology that would make it easier for even large trucks to go all electric, and a manufacturer took that initially concept, developed it further and later released the first commercial work truck to run exclusively on battery power...why should they not get credit for creating something NEW? Something no other manufacturer had ventured to do, to that point?

If 3D Coat hadn't brought it to market, I highly doubt you'd have this feature in Mudbox, right now...or Q-Remesher in ZBrush.

Last edited by AbnRanger : 03 March 2013 at 11:48 PM.
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.