silo 2 will come with splines?


#1

“T-Splines are a new surface formulation initially introduced in the Siggraph papers sessions in 2003 and 2004. T-Splines are a superset of NURBS and SubDs, and can convert losslessly from either, as well as polymeshes. T-Splines also allow T-Junctions, which allow you to terminate isoparms/edgeloops in a T, without creating ‘n-gons’. That is, the surface still shades and deforms like a quad, without needing extra geometry.”

Well this tool it seem great(well i think 900$ a plugin ,it too much money).

It will have silo 2 any kind of tool to create splines??(i think some like the topology brush (you can draw lines and press enter …and you have a spline)) it would be great.(…yes its wonderfull to dream;))

Roy.

pd: a tool to create a basic form(with splines) to begin a model , and then to can modify with the polygonals tool.edges.vertices…FANTASTIC,how a said a splinelogy brush :slight_smile:


#2

I think one thing that’s holding back the developers from implementing curves and curved-based polysurfaces is that users will almost always want the resulting polysurface to be driven by the (construction) curves/splines. This means that if you lay down your curves and generate the polysurface, users would like to be able to change the shape of the curves and the resulting polysurface shape should follow suit. When the user ‘freezes’ the polysurface, it turns into a regular mesh and you loose the ability to use the original construction curves to alter it’s shape.

A drawback to this method would probably be the inability to perform other operations (e.g. bevel, boolean, split edge, etc) on the polysurface until it is ‘frozen’. I’m pretty sure that eventually, users will ask for an XSI-type history to overcome this limitation and this is what’s giving them pause.

Plus, it is a complex bit of code they have to support.

BUT if users are willing to live with that ‘limitation’, it could pave the way for a different way of modeling within Silo. Imagine if you could just draw your construction curves and let Silo auto-patch them- part of the technology is already there with the Topology Brush. You could even probably dial-up/down the polysurface’s subd level before ‘freezing’ it.

I would, however, like something like 3DS Max’s implementation of Bezier curves over plain splines or evern NURBS (you don’t really need NURBS precision if you’re converting them to polygon meshes in the end).


#3

Or, maybe something in the likes of curved surfaces in Shade. True, they are somewhat bizzarre at first, but you can get some really outstanding things with them.


#4

Oh, yes. Shade is actually an excellent modeler if you can get past the unorthodox interface and workflow. Actually, it’s quite big in Japan (it’s country of origin) and most (Japanese) fan-made Gundam/mecha 3D models out there are made with either Shade3D or Lightwave.


#5

I think that Hexagon is probably the best way to get both working together. You generate and alter poly models with curves, you can then go on to bevel and what not whilst still altering the curves through the dynamic geometry panel.


#6

I do own Hexagon. It’s good but it still has a lot of workflow issues so I don’t use it much. Hopefully, that will change soon because a lot of guys on the new Beta test team are asking for the same (workflow and tool) changes I am.


#7

Nevercenter have said that Splines are unlikely to be added to Silo at least in the near future. They are concentrating on pure poly modelling, and rightly so in my opinion! - Baz


#8

I’ve also stated in the same forum that it wouldn’t take much to add curved geometry because it’s just a subdivided line. They probably have all the requisite code- they just have to put it together. Anyway, if the SDK is extensive enough, I’ll take a stab at it myself if they won’t.

IMHO, it’s a limitation that will take me out of using Silo if I can’t find a solution for this.


#9

“I’ve also stated in the same forum that it wouldn’t take much to add curved geometry because it’s just a subdivided line.”

That sounds like the line tool to me! I find the line tool works extremely well if you aproach from a bx modelling mindset. Draw you line low res and devide to get a smooth line!

A bezier tool would surely be quite complex to add wouldn’t it? - Baz


#10

The line tool works fine but it still needs refinements for it to become something like a ‘pseudo-spline’ object.

  1. Support for variable vertex creasing. This will allow me to ‘weigh’ vertices to simulate biasing. It also allows sharp corners if I need to alter tangency within a curve. Also, variable vertex (not to metion variable edge) creasing is a valuable tool in any polygonal modeling toolbox.

  2. Integrated way to edit the pseudo-spline. Currently, I have to be in ‘Auto-selection’ mode so that I can move vertices or segments as well as use the ‘Split’ tool on an edge to add vertices (I can use the ‘Dissolve’ tool to get rid of any unwanted vertices). After that, i have to switch to ‘Vertex’ or ‘Edge’ or ‘Polygon’ selection modes to work on an object because I really don’t like working in ‘Auto-selection’ mode. An automatic activation/deactivation of auto-select mode when the selected geometry is the ‘pesudo-spline’ would be most welcome.

  3. Permanent SubD line. This is that the regular ‘Subdivide’ and ‘Unsubdivide’ commands won’t work on a ‘pseudo-spline’ to maintain the illusion that it’s a real curve. E.g., as soon as the third vertex is dropped, go to SubD Level 3 and stay there until the line is deleted or is reduced to two vertices.

  4. Enable open-ened snapping option for ‘pseudo-spline’ (and also ‘Line’) objects. This will make things like ‘Create Polygon’, ‘Create Line’, ‘Create Circle’, ‘Create Arc’, etc. automatically snap to the ‘pseudo-spline’ vertices or segments (edges) without it having to be part of the object. I think this could be implemented as an enhancement to the current Snap option (not the snapping manipulator) that allows the user to snap to geometry elements (e.g. vertices, edges, mid-edge, polygons, polygon centers, etc.) aside from the grid.

These are just some of my sugestions. As you can see, it builds on the current Silo toolset. All NC has to do is put them together so that it functions more cohesively. I wouldn’t realistically expect full Bezier or Spline support from NC but this would be a huge step in supporting curved types in Silo, especially for modelers who would like to take an ‘illustrator’ approach.


#11

Well I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting LOL! I’d be interested in your plug though if you get it written (Mac version please!)

Personally I think .ai import would be a good compromise that could be added fairly easily. - Baz


#12

I’m not. I’m wating to see if the 2.0 API will support something like that. If not, I’ll probably drop Silo in the forseeable future and look at it again when that option is implementable. Being primarily a mechanical modeler, I personally find little use for tools like topology brush and displacement painting, and is the primary reason for pushing curves (or pseudo-curves) in Silo.

For me, .ai import would be lacking because you can’t draw 3D curves in Illustrator.


#13

i realy don’t see beziers go hand in hand with poly/subD
i love beziers too. but personaly think they have no place in poly/subD modeling.
beziers are a curve representation and so are subD algorythms, just get used to subD.

i mean if u make a curve with beziers, and let’s say u make an algorythm to represent it in subD > how will u control the edge placement/count ?
and from my point of view it’s crucial for poly modeling.

to summerize, i think beziers are great and definitely have their place in 2D and NURBS, i can’t see them be of help in poly/subD, and frankly realy hope silo doesn’t go that way


#14

Well, apparently, every 3D software developer disagrees with you. Look at all of them: Modo, Hexagon, Swift3D, Lightwave, 3DSMax, Cinema4D, XSI, Maya, Houdini all support curves in their modeler. So, apparently, there is use for these tools. Not everyone is comfortable with box/SubD modeling.

Plus, we don’t need exact Bezier and, besides, full Bezier implementation is quite complex. What I’m looking for is more along the lines of an interpolated curve, which can be accomplished by refining the current line tool.

But, to answer your question, edge placement would be handled independently of the curve’s SubD level. If the curve was fixed at SubD Level 3, there would be a separate parameter that goverened the actual segmentation of the curve when the user tries to use other tools, like extrude, on the curve. Because it will have it’s own data structure, it probably won’t be that hard to keep track of.


#15

just a friendly reply

maya does not support curves with polygons!
it does support them with NURBS tho.

las t time i used MAX, same thing!

i don’t know about modo and hexagon’s way of dealing with curves.

once u get used to subD it’s very predictable. i’d advise (since you are into polygonal modelers) just getting used to poly>subD algorithm

btw, i hate maya’s implementation of curves, beziers rock


#16

Modo, Lightwave, and Hexagon generates polygonal patches/surfaces out of curves (Hexagon supports Limited Bezier, Inerpolated, and Spline curves). I suspect all the other applications do to some degree (including Maya but I 'don’t claim to be a Maya expert). 3DSMax does support polymeshes with splines (please see attached image).

I don’t need super-accurate curves- I have Rhino3D for that- just something that’s useful. As I’ve stated, an implementation of a SubD line with the refinements I mentioned is fine. Lacking that, I’d settle for a well-crafted SDK that exposes as much of the internal mechanics as possible so I can roll my own Bezier plug-in, essentially adding a new type of geometry (I used to write device drivers for IBM AIX so getting my hands dirty isn’t new to me).

I’m primarily a NURBS modeler looking for a good polygonal tool. As such, I’m more accustomed to working with curves rather than edge and face pushing/pulling. My (and a lot of others out there) workflow is more akin to an illustrator’s rather than a sculptor’s (which is what Silo is advocating). Would you change your modeling paradigm for a program? Of course not. You first try to see if the developers can (or have the inclination) to implement features you need. If not, you try to see if other have done it. If not and you’re skilled enough (and have time to spare), you try to see if it’s even possible. If not, you move on to another package. Right now, I’m at the third stage waiting for 2.0.

The thing I like about working with curves is that it’s less algorithmic than SubD. Thus, if you’re planning to do a hi-res model, you can plan on the detail at the earlier stages of construction rather than subdividing and cleaning up later. I don’t use this for the entire model- just those parts that are noticable and need to be at a specific detail level because of, say a reuired shot I’m doing. But then, this is just my opinion.

I should state that I do primarily mechanical modeling (not much into characters) and I have tried to use Silo for that purpose. Their current toolset might lend itself well to character modelers but for hard-surface modeling, they are lacking some necessary tools (deformers and curves are just some of them). I do like Silo’s focused approach- I just think that as a hard-surface modeler (and I’m probably not the only one), the NC team needs to expand Silo’s toolset to gain more seats in that area.


#17

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.