Looks really good! I have a question though, does it do the following: When you create a loop between two loops at an angle to each other (but still running parallel obviously), does the newly inserted edge-loop get an interpolated new position between the previous two loops? (Think of a chamfer that predicts where the new edge should go and is an averages of the two edges it’s been built from, rather than just a new edge pulled along the existing face normals)
Whoa! Looks greeeeat! It would be better if it is free, hehehe Do not get me wrong, but i can live with those ton of kind of selections. Maybe 25 /$ would be a much more affordable price. Up to you
Anyway, you have done a great job. What would discreet do without users like you?
Yes, very impressive indeed. This will probably be one of the 2-3 most important plugins for myself. Vray is the only one that comes to mind that I need more.
As you may know me and RivenDale talk almost daily about these cool selection thingys, but this is the first time I really see them in action.
I think there are a large number of possible uses for these tools we haven’t thought about. The fill tool is very cool I think. You should be able to paint a shape in max and then fill it.
I think we can all try to help riven by trying to figure out examples of our own where some weird selection tool would be useful.
On situation where the random select would be useful is if you model organic objects and want to make random holes (extrude) or if you are doing sf geometry that needs alot of random plates etc. So take random select and then extrude along edge for example. And you got some cool planes comming up very quickly.
Well, perhaps not 100% fair Percy. Yes discreet shoudl add more selection tools to max. At least the outline and some more.
But many seem to forget the enormous amount of time they spent working on maxScript so programmers CAN create tools like this. Their effort in maxScript and the documentations should not be forgotten. It’s a surprisingly powerful program although they have still more work to do.
Wow, it’s great with all this positive feedback, thanks a lot.
urgrund- thanks, the uses for the patternmaker tool are just about anything you can come up with, but one idea I’ve had is to be able to quickly make highly detailed meshes for use with normalmapping. Or it could be used as a layout-tool for building structures, and it’s perfect for making sci-fitype surfacestructures. You can as an example make a pattern, extrude it slightly, make another pattern, extrude that and so on until you have some nice shapes that would take you hours to make by hand.
sforsyth- hmm I’m really not sure what you mean, can you explain a bit more?
f97ao- thanks a lot, I’ll talk to ya later
If I get the time, tonight I will record an additional video showing some of the tools that were not included in the first video, like the Bitmapselect tool, Perpective select and some more.
Here, hopefully this animated gif will help to explain. (if it works!)
sforsyth- aha I see, that’s a great idea, I would like that myself. I can look into it, might take a while though if I find a way. Perhaps it could come as an upgrade if it’s not ready by release. Thanks.
It’s almost the same thing I proposed in this topic, I think:
It would be very nice to add geometry to the object without affecting its hires geometry!
Hmm, hmm, I think I know how to technically solve that problem.
I think is just to move the affected rounding vertices of the Isoline cage (of the hires model) to the same place of the lowpoly model. I mean “just” in a very noob programer way.
Or make the details you want in the hires model and it pushback to the lowres.
Yea, I’m thinking of something similar to that. Hmmm, I will look at it. Ok I looked at it a little and some things worth mentioning:
- you can’t use the high res version for the low cage since they won’t create the same high res.
- very nasty problem is that ALL the vertices may have to change to fit the high resolution version. If you have a fairly smal object and introduce another edge loop then the complete geometry may change. I don’t think there is much that we can do to fix that.
So it should be possible to make it look pretty close to what we want but never exactly I think, then we would have to move around the other vertices of the base mesh.
Hey, I have worked out a tool for adjusting the connetion to fit the flow of the mesh like some suggested. Here is a short video example of that:
There’s still some work to do on it to make it work well on some occasions. Right now it only works well if the edges “above” and “below” to the connectd edge are roughly the same size.
I havn’t had time to do a video on some of the other features of SelectionMaster but I will get around to it soon.
Cool. I don’t think it’s possible to freeze the sub-d completely, but this should be almost as good.
Very very great!!
yeah this script looks great! can’t wait,
but in the meantime this script http://www.flamefx.com/
it has alot of the same features and it’s free! and very powerful as well…I give many thanks to him for creating this great tool to use and giving it up for free…along with sample videos!!!
That script looks very useful Rivendale, I’ve been wanting something like that for a while for game models. I can rarely afford to subdivide an area in both directions (if I did I’d have to remove the edges in one direction) so this sort of tool would really help keep the poly count under control.
Just one question though- does it only work on whole rings or will it work on a selection of edges that don’t go right round? It’d be much more useful to me if it can work on a selection.
I agree with Bezerker75, this script deserves very much appreciation. God saves him. I have just sent him my praises for it. I have already learnt using all in a day start kicking @ss in polys. I think people like this and cspolytools and meshtools should be awarded.
If I look from the programmer’s point of view I cant even imagine how much it will take to design an interface like Pola X with maxscript. And best of all it works!
$60 bucks is too much for a thing like this if there are other solutions. Maybe I sound harsh, but for me the free way is the way to go, but the most appreciated and praised way too. Be it TreeMaker, Orionflame, csPolyTools, Meshtools.
By the way discreet should add it to its core, or make it in one way or another. We are the ones who gives 3495 bucks for every license. And I think I deserve some functionality like this. We cant ask people like these to code them for us.
Thanks for the feedback people!
Why don’t you tell that to your boss, I’m sure he will be happy to hear that you will be working for free from now on;)
Sure, if this was just a few tools then there would not be much sense in charging for them, but this is quite an extensive set of tools that has taken a lot of time to develop, so I see nothing wrong with charging for a thing like this. Just because these tools are made with maxscript doesn’t make them any less valid as a plugin in my opinion, and you’re not saying that all plugins or software should be made for free are you? The time tools like this can save on a project more than makes up for the cost in the end, plus they are fun:)
The orionflame scripts looks great, I did not know about them until recently. It has some good things in there that I think can complement the SelectionMaster tools.
man I respect your view, and watched your video, but after downloading Orionflame, and in my opinion I dont think it is a tool at that cost. Man look at scripts around you many are very good, and I dont know but for cspolytools, or meshtools or orionflame, these should also take reallt much time. From what I have read from Orionflame’s site, he says he wrote all that in 2 months. and for free. Thats what I am talking about. I dont know if people pay or not. But if you will sell some code, which can be replaced with other scripts, I dont think anyone will buy it. Simply subtract the ones which can be done with free scripts, and think again if you can charge for it. I mean if you really make something like surface tools as peter watje did, even in maxscript, then it will definetely deserve it. Seeing ideas and writing them without any change or maybe little then adding them to a toolset doesnt make it a “new” tool = reinventing the wheel. but thats how I see things. And by the way I dont have a boss, I am freelancing but generally I do another regular job.