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?
Feature Requests
Bill_Young
#62
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.
hoochoochoochoo
#64
- 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
#65
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.
hoochoochoochoo
#67
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!
Bill_Young
#68
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
#69
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
#70
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
#71
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
#72
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
#73
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
#74
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
#75
Originally posted by Kalimol
[B]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. [/B]
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
#76
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
#77
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
#78
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
#79
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 arent 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.