was there a discussion on the list or something about subds?
My vote is a definite yes. After using Maya connect poly shape and Wing3d’s box modeling I cannot stand to use splines. Oh to be able to have n-sided patches and n-edged poles, such a thing would be grand. There is freedom there, you can do what you want, find out if it works and rework it very quickly if it doesnt. Also having multiple selection modes in tweak kicks so much @$$ for reshaping a model.
There are in fact some complex mechanical shapes that you flat out would not be able to create using AM (in a reasonable amount of time or otherwise) that you could in the sub-d capable apps that I’ve used. The fact that Hash splines do not really allow you to access the individual polys that make up the patches is absurd.
Gardner
Originally posted by EROMLIG
There are in fact some complex mechanical shapes that you flat out would not be able to create using AM (in a reasonable amount of time or otherwise) that you could in the sub-d capable apps that I’ve used. The fact that Hash splines do not really allow you to access the individual polys that make up the patches is absurd.
I’ve heard this before, and every time i’ve heard it a talented modeler has show that you can model just about anything using any tool you want to. I think the point that got us all sidetracked and has since been ignored was that options are good.
I’m happy you like polygons, really i am, but they give some of us hives. So saying that hash should ditch the splines or indicating that anything is ‘impossible’ really misses the point.
personally I don’t care if hash adds any modeling tools at all. then again I detest modeling more than just about anything else. ( calculus might beat it out… it would be a close call ) But Hash Patches make the process at least bearable for me.
-David Rogers
I won’t get into a pissing match here as I have other more important things to do with my time. I’ve built models for a living and can post examples of geometry that are not possible. with AM at present time.
“personally I don’t care if hash adds any modeling tools at all. then again I detest modeling more than just about anything else.”
Some of us like modeling and would like to see the tools added.
It is a very reasonable request.
Guys, would it even be possible to add some sort of polygon, sub’ds type of tool to the hash environment?
I mean, I guess it would have to be an affter effect type of thing. How the heck would even go about attaching bones if the individual control points were not there.
So, I suppose my question is, is it even possible to interactively use polygons in hash? I don’t hink so… maybe it would be some sort of close represntation cage type modelling tool, but you wouldnt see the final result till after the software converted the object to poly’s
Mike Fitz
If want to make a model fast then I don’t want to worry about getting all the patches even in size. I just want to put the cps here and there and have a nice smooth model. Is this selfish?
No, of course not, I just honestly didn’t understand what you were getting at.
It would take quite a bit of inmag/outmag tweaking to get the bias to work like that, and it would be nice to have some kind of automatic “round” mode…I understand what you’re saying now. Curvature has to be based on relative CP positions to a degree to get things like bevels to look decent and for curvature to be maintained in scaling, but…
Of course it would be the same effect if you used maintain curvature when adding one of the splines instead of moving it from somewhere else…but “it would take planning…”
Well I think that we can clear this little episode up now as I think that you have understood what I was saying about as well as I ever did. I guess that it is a question of putting subjective things into words.
I will go and think about it for a bit before suggesting anything to hash.
Originally posted by EROMLIG
I won’t get into a pissing match here as I have other more important things to do with my time. I’ve built models for a living and can post examples of geometry that are not possible. with AM at present time.
I would like to see some of these examples. To my knowledge there is only one situation that A:M lacks an effective way around a particular modeling problem. It can be solved but is very dificult to do effectivly. Now I’m not saying there arn’t some shapes that A:M couldn’t do easily, it’s just that I havn’t seen one thats totaly impossible as you sugest. This being said, I know I’m opening up for potentialy alot of examples that people will send, and some might be hard to replicate, but probably not totaly imposible.
OK my opinion doesn’t matter as an 8.5 user but nothing is impossible in any package given enough time to do it.
If you so wished, you could animate Jurassic Park type scenes by creating them in Photoshop and then manipulating pixel-by-pixel.
That’s my last as I don’t really want a pissing match either, my time is also more valuable for other things- like “downdating” the IKJoe rig to 8.5 as privately requested by others.
One simple thing that I would like to have when modelling (this would be similar to poly modellers) is this:
The option to have operations apply to faces, or groups of cps seperately.
For instance, say I want to make the knuckle spline ring of each of the fingers of a hand wider, at the moment, I have to select a spline ring then enlarge it, move on to the next etc. At the moment, if you select a load of spline rings or groups of splines, and then perform an operation, that operation will use a reference point that is common to all the geometry. It would be much better if We could press a button that made each spline-ring re-size or rotate from its own centre. It would also be good if moving a group of cps away from there serface normal didn’t use an averaged serface normal but used one for each cp.
There are many instances where this type of thing would be handy.
I don’t know wheter that was clear but I tried.
Also, true displacement maps would be great. They might even solve some of the problems with adding geometry. Check this thread:
Having something like that would do me fine for making crinkly beasts or knobly rocks etc. Couple it with texture painting and your laughing.
Have you checked out the Puzh plug-in? works on mac and PC and does the pushing along normals thing really well.
he also has a bunch of other very useful plugins.
-David Rogers
I’m sure that it is a nice little plugin, but don’t you have to type vectors in by hand? It would be better if it was all visual and intuitive. Also, it would be good to have the option to move the cps allong the average normal for the cps that it is attached to (like it is now but where you could move several groups of cps, each group moving allong its own normal. This would be an equivelent of pushing faces allong the normal.
If there was some kind of button that toggled through the modes, they would also be used for when you extrude. You wouldn’t have to extrude then call a plugin then push the cps. you would just have the right mode set then extrude.
Tell me if I am talking monkey splatter.
No not at all, just offering a workaround for the current toolset. Puzh requires that you input an amount by hand since it’s a wizard plugin. It does a nifty job, but an interface widget would be much appreciated.
-David Rogers
Be sure to check out the ZBrush beta thread referred to in that post.
I want to be able to export a poly model from A:M and then import the UVs from the unmodified poly model back into A:M for use with the original patch model. Basically, I’d like to extract a high-detail displacement map (created in ZBrush) from the poly model and apply it to my original patch model. I think this should be possible, since the geometry of the exported poly mesh is not modified in any way.
When a model is exported from A:M, each patch results in a group of however many polys. If A:M could extract the displacement map from each of these groups and apply it to their corresponding patches, we’d be all set, right? Or, perhaps there’s a better way. I just think we need a way to add detail to our models in a 3rd party sculpting app (such as ZBrush).
Maybe it’s just me, but I find my library gets messed up very easily. With the constant updates, the links keep getting lost. And I do move the stuff in the “Data” drawer over. It doesn’t seem to work.
Anyway, aside from that niggle, I have to say the updates are coming along nicely. Keep it up.
When highlighting a bone for animation, I’d like to be able to press a keyboard key(r=rotate, etc) and then movement of my mouse will effect the joint locally in the xy directions.
That way, you don’t have to fiddle around with those axis orbiters.
A spin spline connection: pick a Spline and change the flow of the splines across the CP. Would make it fast to fix flow problems.
Extrude leaves patches where they come from so they are not good for adding detail to a model. Fix it so that a hole is left behind or make a new tool… say bevel that allows this.
Jay
I submitted this to Hash today… hope something comes of it, but I would like to hear feed back from other users…
http://www.hash.com/users/gherkin/feature_request/UI_idea.html
-David Rogers