I didnt mean this to flow off topic. Just at the basic level of you topology for a head in Maya. what are people working with polygons or like a subd sphere.
Topology research
flingster
#102
this is a fantastic thread…any chance a mod can make it sticky?
surely the head topology concept and method depend on what you intend to use it for…animation or static image? hence the variance in method diplayed in this thread…just a thought.
well done by the way to all those who contributed…as a complete novice it has lots of appeal to users of virtually any 3d software app.:buttrock:
ThirdEye
#103
Ahem… it’s already sticky 
Btw i think that head modeling has to be targeted to animation. I don’t think anybody is going to hire someone who makes extraordinary heads that don’t deform 
gnarlycranium
#104
From what I’ve seen, the best methods for making animatable heads are also the most efficient, intuitive, and easy to get the right shape in. If the head is animatable, that’s just because it was built well in the first place. If you were doing a static image of a head… wouldn’t you build it pretty much the same way? You might be a little less fussy… but still.
Stahlberg
#105
Yes, I’d definitely recommend to always build a head as if it’s going to be animated, because it forces you to think more about structure, it turns out more real, and who knows - you might want to animate it down the road! 
About Maya SubD’s, I chose them over polys because of the hierachical feature, which I love.
But I also work with polys - I’ll explain. I have my own workflow that it seems no one else shares… :hmm: at least I’ve never met anyone on these forums that say they do.
The difference: from what I understand most people use the Poly Proxy mode to work in, make edits, add or delete edges, etc. Like you can in LW or Max. This works fine on a simple object, but it quickly becomes impossible on something more complex, like a face, due to Maya’s implementation causing drastic slow-down. I didn’t know that this was the way it was done in other packages, so in my isolation I ‘invented’ my own way that accidentally seems to work pretty good.
This is what I do: start in polys, then at a certain level of complexity start jumping back and forth between normal polys and standard mode SubD’s. This is easily accomplished by 2 buttons on my modeling shelf (see the how-to section of my site).
I can keep this up for days, tweaking in both SubD’s and polys, and editing topology in polys. Of course once I take the plunge and go for the hierarchical edits I can’t go back to polys anymore without loosing those edits.
I avoid SubD’s in Proxy mode like the plague, due to the slowdown. Though occasionally I have to go there, either for some minor emergency topology change (when I don’t want to loose my hierarchical edits), or to fix gaps that can appear in the model and in the UV’s (some kind of bug I think).
RichSuchy
#106
Originally posted by Stahlberg
This is what I do: start in polys, then at a certain level of complexity start jumping back and forth between normal polys and standard mode SubD’s. This is easily accomplished by 2 buttons on my modeling shelf (see the how-to section of my site).
I can keep this up for days, tweaking in both SubD’s and polys, and editing topology in polys. Of course once I take the plunge and go for the hierarchical edits I can’t go back to polys anymore without loosing those edits.
Up until you “take the plunge” we work essentially the same.
I’m most intrigued by the rigging issues with your method. It buys you allot by not needing to re-rig from the ground up. I will have to give it a go with a more stripped down base model, than I currently use.
Heres a work around for not being able to go back.
-
create a blend shape for the lower level edits (a copy) before going to poly mode,
-
create a clean level 0 model to blended.
-
Use the clean one as a wrap deformer on your new derived geometry. then
-
delete history.
I think that will do it.
The difference: from what I understand most people use the Poly Proxy mode to work in, make edits, add or delete edges, etc. Like you can in LW or Max. This works fine on a simple object, but it quickly becomes impossible on something more complex, like a face, due to Maya’s implementation causing drastic slow-down.
I agree. Even in Lightwave I worked primarily in Polygons only do some tweeks in Sub-D mode. Its just less convoluted visually, and less unwieldy with big models.
…Maya’s implementation causing drastic slow-down. I didn’t know that this was the way it was done in other packages, so in my isolation I ‘invented’ my own way that accidentally seems to work pretty good.
Thats one reason I was intrigued by XSI. It is so much more responsive with the same geometry. It doesnt require such heavy workarounds for rigiiging either. Id say that the people over there were listening to the artists. I still have much to learn about the program and some still about its implementation of Sub-Ds
I hear Marai has the ability to delete geometry from a derived surface while still retaining the root level unmodified. Is this true?
Im not sure what it would buy you because you would have to carry the data for the edit history, but I might think of some good uses when an apropriate situation presents itself.
chudofsinister
#107
wow thats awsome, steven stahlberg replied to a question I had. I feel like a giddy school girl. No really thanks for the info. I have been trying to learn maya oh… going on three years now, on and off. I am pretty damn confident with max, but it sounds like from
Rich S that you need to jump through a bunch of hoops to get a sub D model to animate. I dont quite get it, in max I model the low poly cage bind it to a skeleton and throw the meshsmooth on top of the whole mess, how is it different. Again i apologize if this is off topic and if you want to move this to another thread I totally understand. i have a head i will post soon that i have been working on, just a little intimidated by the present company.
thanks
flingster
#108
ThirdEye_01: DOH:wip: …ooops sorry guys i came in from another link! still no excuse…rather sloppy of me…musta been late no coffee…:eek:
as for the static or animation bit…i agree with you its good practice by the sounds of it to make it able to deform…but you also have to remember you are thinking about the issue from a commercial point of view and who hires/fires your ass when its on the line…but if you’re modelling for an image/artwork that is never ever gonna be rigged…its less about planning deformation with a rig and more about getting what you want to see in your final static image…
just a thought…loving the thread very informative for all.
Stahlberg
#109
Rich - so your workflow is similar! Cool, I’m not alone.
But I’m not sure that Blendshape idea would work for the purpose you said, since the point of ‘going back’ and loosing higher level edits would be to change the topology, and even a small change in topology would invalidate the Blendshape (I assume, I’ve never tried it)…
However!
The idea is very good and works fine for UV mapping problems, something I’ve actually done. It works well, and what a blessing that is too…
Editing UV’s on a hierarchical SubD can crash Maya, and you have a gazillion more points to move, also often the UV’s will get totally screwed (for several different reasons)…
Then you can go back to polys and clean the UV’s up, and get the higher level detail back using a Blendshape like you said.
chudofsinister
#110
Well here is my head with the topology I used. Still a work in progress like everything.
RichSuchy
#111
Originally posted by Stahlberg
[B]Rich - so your workflow is similar! Cool, I’m not alone.
But I’m not sure that Blendshape idea would work for the purpose you said, since the point of ‘going back’ and loosing higher level edits would be to change the topology, and even a small change in topology would invalidate the Blendshape (I assume, I’ve never tried it)…
However!
The idea is very good and works fine for UV mapping problems, something I’ve actually done. It works well, and what a blessing that is too…
Im not sure. Do you loose the edits of the higher level tweeks or the complete refined area is lost? A more complicated workaround where you make selection groups of geometry that will be refined, ahead of time, would make this method possible… alot depends on how drastic your modifications will be and setting the influence of the wrapper. Ill have to test it on a sphere or some such when I have a moment.
Originally posted by Stahlberg
Editing UV’s on a hierarchical SubD can crash Maya, and you have a gazillion more points to move, also often the UV’s will get totally screwed (for several different reasons)…
Then you can go back to polys and clean the UV’s up, and get the higher level detail back using a Blendshape like you said.
Good use. I wish you could tell maya to subdivide the UVs acording to the way the root is subdivided rather than an even split. I’ve noticed #D Studio MAx 5 does this… SOmetimes it could actually cause mapping to be harder, but I would rather have that than have the funky stretching of trianglular shaped quads (used for increasing local detail, among other things)
RichSuchy
#112
Just though of another solution… though maybe I should change this to a TD or Rigging thread… save your mel out (frequently) at the refined levels of the edits. I don’t believe maya changes point numbering when you delete components. then just apply the cleaned up mel (after removing all the do/undos) and other types of edits you would want or need. you can always apply this script to you original model to get it back to where you want it… and in fact can just edit out mistakes if thats easier.
A little more time consuming as you go, but it would be very useful down the road.
Rich
Stahlberg
#113
Yes, Stefan Tabacco posted a tut on something like this a while a go, with a melscript called EditRecovery, seems promising, can’t find it now…
RichSuchy
#114
Originally posted by chudofsinister
Well here is my head with the topology I used. Still a work in progress like everything.
Nice model. my only coment is considder how you would make him worried. There isnt enough detail to get the expression in the skin of the forehead without deforming the shape of the bone structure under it.
RichSuchy
#115
Originally posted by Stahlberg
Yes, Stefan Tabacco posted a tut on something like this a while a go, with a melscript called EditRecovery, seems promising, can’t find it now…
Even cooler!
RichSuchy
#117
What topic?
Originally posted by Dipesh (India)
carry on the topic…:wavey: :wavey: :wavey:
robkoni
#118
Hi Rich ,Thought you were a LW kinda Guy,took a lookat your topology after ,just finishing a new head myself and its quite freaky how close they are:eek: especialy the Midlle Brow section,with the 4 sided poly (looks like a threesided)stradleing the centre line…
when Ive got time i’ll post it(in the middle of building many characters,with no time:buttrock:
All the best Robin
robkoni
#119
:bounce: I love those Bouncy’s ,Hi Rich Katherin 'scoming a long(looks a bit stretche in the Neck and Torso()Everyones a CRITIC)
just wondering how long the modelling took you,
Allthe best Robin…again:bounce:
:bounce: