Rodney

Having not programmed anything in OpenGL I have to say that I didn't know that but it makes sense. I wish I had a better understanding of it. This is a good example of what I was suggesting in my response to Vong's post. People state an interest but that interest evaporates for a number of different reasons even before the desire is voiced. I was one that added my voice of approval to your Blender add on because the merit of the work was self evident. That and I tested it. But those that clamored for such... where are their voices? The level of real genuine interest from those that state they need these things falls short. As for A:M users (with an emphasis on use) there is going to be less interest because A:M largely supplies what they need right out of the box. And since many/most don't use Blender because it doesn't add significantly to what they need it's hard to support. Those that need to support it are those with the desire to use Blender and other programs with A:M. Again, where are those voices of support? It isn't the A:M users that don't care. They demonstrably do. It is the non users of A:M that say they would use A:M if only this... if only that... but demonstrably will not. I appreciate your Blender to A:M addon because I keep an eye on Blender and periodically download and try it out. I tested your add on and it worked for its intended purpose. But for those who really should care... will such efforts ever be enough? I'm ever the optimist but I must confess that I have doubts.

To piggyback off of what Nemyax has said here... In the far flung past OpenGL itself ensured the point based data would be tesselated (into tiny triangles) but that isn't where this thing ends. There is still a rasterization process that determines what data is rendered to pixels on a 2D screen. But lets focus on the initial processs of tessellation first because what happens there defines what flows onward from there. After the initial vertex shader is applied OpenGL dives into tesselation. As of OpenGL 4.0 programmers gained the ability to assign additional vertices as GL patches. So since 2010 programmers were no longer strictly constrained to triangles and strips of triangles. BUT this created a very different and significant problem in continuity of said patches as initially there is no continuity whatsover in these GL patches. The tesselated patches are individual quad primitives with no knowledge of their adjacent patches. But let's move on for a moment because there are other inequalities to consider. For instance, it is important that processing reduce variation as much as possible because according to the OpenGL spec: Emphasis added Therefore the reading of the OpenGL spec is highly recommended when considering OpenGL implementation and upgrades to those configurations. Ref: https://www.khronos.org/registry/OpenGL/specs/gl/glspec45.core.pdf#page=657 Added: The lack of continuity in rendering isn't particularly problematic because the blending process of color shaders makes everything appear to be smooth and continuous. Where we run into problems is with animation in that those surfaces must be interpreted and manipulated by various means generally not equivalent to animating with splines and patches. On the plus side, there have been tremendous gains on this in the animation industry of late. I do like how the OpenGL spec states the following as if they have a good sense for priority: Of course those of us that use A:M would very likely prefer the term 'spline' over 'line segment' but the are largely the same thing. It might not be immediately apparent but in that sentence they are saying point, line, patch (or polygon). The last of those three elements being the one of notable preference; patches or polygons.

Looks to me like the difference is mostly texturing and lighting. As long as I've been using A:M we have always been able to export a model out and texture and light it in other programs. It's those other programs getting into A:M that has been the problem. (the sows ear to silk purse analogy)

Vong, Even if such a thing were possible I remain unconvinced and would guess that those in a position to fund such an important endeavor would be even less convinced. The promise of a return rings hollow although it's certainly something I'd love to see. It would go a long way to convince me personally if even a small number of those 'quite a few' were to demonstrate their stated interest and as a show of good faith simply purchase a one year subscription to A:M to demonstrate their desire to see A:M succeed. The worst that would happen is those devotees would spend $79 on a program they sincerely want to see succeed and that they hope some day will incorporate the features they need. This will not happen. We know that polygon/sub-d integration isn't important to those you speak of because as fellow A:M Users we have all seen and experienced their lack of interest first hand. And unfortunately this is the underlying reality of that particular pipedream. Perhaps if we start with one of those old friends and colleagues the ball will start rolling. Gotta start somewhere! In case folks have forgot the URL feel free to share the link: https://www.hash.com/store/

Nice! And just in time for the production of your short film!

You definitely have the knack for modeling heads/faces. Nice work! Your 'half done' surpasses my 'fully done' by a considerable margin.

It'll be good to see you more often here! I've often bemoaned the fact that there are few A:M users locally but then I see the same lack of interest for computer character animation from any approach too. And then to compound the matter there is a dearth of interest in other creative endeavors that align with that also. My theory is that a lot of the interest that is there is largely superficial and follows the path of consumers rather than creators although I realize that might apply to me just as well as anyone else. We often get inspired by what we see and experience but lose interest when the going gets rough and work must be done. You represent someone with the patience (and insight) to rig characters and that sets you even further apart. While a bit lonely... at least on the plus side... that's a great problem to have. All the more reason to hang out here in the A:M Forum with each other. Also: I don't want to downplay the importance of getting together in person wherever and wheever we can. I do wish we could do that more often. If you get the chance you should drop in on Saturday Live Answer Sessions. It's not quite the same as being there in person but it's a close second. Those sessions only last an hour (which is a good thing so people don't get burnt out) but nothing says folks can't still hang out together thereafter.

Here's the basic usage video: xhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&v=U6wtw6W4x3I

Thanks for the heads up on the first link. It apparently had the closing bracket included in the URL. The URL just takes you to the documentation of the method and that link is available via the download site also. Some of that depends on flow and continuity which will produce that economy and the user should be able to specify. Use the brush tool and then paint the preferred flow directly on the model and the subsequent retopologizing will follow. As for patch density I think the default target for density is set way too high for our needs although that might work well in other programs. That default was 999 or something and dropping it to 300 worked pretty well on a simple model.

Here's a free program that might be useful for those that want to get at quad based topologies quickly. It's based on fairly recent paper about 'instant field aligned meshes' (Link to project page here: http://igl.ethz.ch/projects/instant-meshes/ Binary files are available for Windows, Mac and Linux here as is the source code: http://igl.ethz.ch/projects/instant-meshes/ The quick tests I did turned out quite good. DIsclaimer: Don't think this will keep your textures mapped.... it won't as it's not that kind of program but rather one that works deeply on topology.

Some of you may recall Jeffrey Dates 'Day Off the Dead' short from many years ago when he was an avid A:M user. Like many others Jeff used his time with A:M to move into the animation industry and is still quite active in animation. He has been working for The Mill of late and their efforts at The Mill to promote real time character animation has recently made the news https://www.cartoonbrew.com/vfx/how-the-mill-is-embracing-real-time-for-character-animation-157603.html

Agree. Very nice character with great personality built right in to the splinage. Nicely done.

I find it a little amusing that there isn't much clamor for Stable Neo Hookian Flesh Simulation as of yet. It hasn't qualified as a popular buzz word or hasn't been promoted to the point where people deem it necessary. Give it a name that will roll off the tongue a little better etc. and it's sure to join the rest of the must have features in 3D software. On the surface this technology basically equates to gaining a level of performance mostly achieved through approaches like A:M's smartskin. This isn't to suggest that the improvements outlined don't go well beyond that of course but the complexity involved in setting up such simulations is hardly trivial. And that's why PIXAR is one of the few entities that can take advantage of such research and development and one could argue one of a select few who actually need it. The concept of skin moving over bone isn't particularly difficult to achieve but the preservation of volumes while doing so can certainly be challenging. At any rate, it would appear that PIXAR is finally catching up to A:M's smartskin and adding some new bells and whistles in the process.

As opposed to the less stable neo hookian flesh simulations... PDF and video are available here: http://graphics.pixar.com/library/StableElasticity/ Addititional info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Hookean_solid

The AV1 video format continues to move forward with support from all major browsers forthcoming and expected hardware to fully support the format by 2020. Here's a recent article that fills in some additional information and that reports on some of the competing technology: The article also captures some of posturing from those that expect to lose revenue due to the impending release of the patent free format. https://www.cnet.com/news/netflix-youtube-streaming-video-is-about-to-get-a-lot-faster-av1-compression/

Very nice Robert! Love the comedic timing.

Onward and upward... or... forward!

Also, if your model didn't have a hole in the middle you might be able to simply extrude and shape and then use 'Remove Internal patches'. The issue you'll run into with your current shape is that the process will likely get confused about which patches are internal and which are external.

I should have mentioned also that it is useful to change the offset for copy/pasting or duplicating to zero (0) so that the copy of the spline is at a known location. If you know the bevel needs to be at a specific distance from the original spline you might adjust the offset to that but understand that the Connect wizard will move the splines to connect them with a new Control Point if they fall within the wizards set tolerance. So, it helps to consider those tolerances and offsets.

Hi Bill, While there is no direct Bevel plugin or wizard that I am aware of there are several ways to get at what you are after. I will say that my primary method would very likely be to just stitch the bevel in as that is mostly habit to me. Depending on the layout of spline you might be able to use the Split Patch plugin... but I don't think that will be your best bet. The method I just tried that worked quite well is to use the Connect wizard. The process is to copy the spline that you want to have beveled and then place that where you want the bevel (I scaled it down slightly). Even better would be to copy that spline twice for use on both sides of the spline you wish to bevel. Then make sure the new spline(s) are as near as possible to where you want them stitched into the model. Then invoke the Connect wizard (which by default should connect splines with new Control Points where those splines cross. The tolerance can be changed if you don't want to mess with small tolerances. Forgive the cheesy attempt to replicate your model but here's an example of a spline automatically stitched into the model via Connect wizard in order to use it as a bevel: I uploaded the images in reverse order but in the second image you can see the selected spline that was copied and connected to create the bevel in the first image)

Tore, I hope you wont let this unfortunate event dissuade you from your enjoyment of using A:M. I'm sure Robert had the best of intentions in mind even if it did not come across that way. As for A:M reports, we all know Steffen is under no obligation to take on anything reported just as it is equally important that users should report what is of interest to them personally. Hang in there!

Don't forget that we can apply decals via the Chor windows too. Both of your methods will work in that way with the added benefit of stamping models from the camera view. And... the decal can be applied while in muscle mode too. The best way to get that done is likely to drag/drop the image from the Library or Image listing in the PWS directly onto the Model name/container in the PWS. The option to apply as Decal or Rotoscope will then appear.

I like him! (needs a blaster)

Mmmmm... looks like chocolate. Tinkering Gnome in Hawaii.... I'm not sure I can resist doing something with that...

Very interesting. Thanks for the deeper look. You've given us a lot to think about.