Muff
-
Posts
101 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Muff
-
-
Thought something would work but it didnt...disregard.
-
Dont know if this topic belongs here? But I need an answer. The model preview pane doesnt display inside AM? Mainly for extras DVD. Thats alot of files to go through. I need this feature to work? I just get the blank gray panel telling me preview not available.
Did a clean install, and the update patch. (This is the '07 upgrade by the way.....)
-
First off, thanks for anyones input. I dont want to be shielded from any criticism as far as what I need to know or understand. A child scribbles on paper and anyone tells them thats sooooo good. Im beyond that as an adult. I need to be corrected in order to understand. I read what you said "vpoissant" and at first I thought, well thats a rather vague input? But seeing how you know what your talking about from your works, I gave more thought. Of course anatomy crossed my mind, but after review of the meaning behind your response, Im really surprised by how mechanical I am in my approach rather than the anatomical approach. Example: cyclinders=breasts, tubes=arms, flat=back etc. Its stupid on my part, but logical in all common training. So thanks for getting me to think harder about what Im doing. And my thanks goes to anyone who gives me input.
-
Yes, I did mess with her. It was totally platonic, I swear! But for some reason, after going through the whole .OBJ conversion thing from other progs - Im just not satisfied with using other models. I feel like Im just not learning anything that way? Though I think its fine to do because other models are just so darn cool. Lambrina is a finely crafted model, but I need the satisfaction of something my own..you know? I do give my opinion to newbies to work off other models to see how splines run throughout the body for know-how understanding; but Ive done that and now I want to put to use what Ive come to understand as far as splines. Something that I know I started from scratch based on what Ive seen done. So that I can just pick up and begin a new endeavor for my personal know-how of how and where things relate when making a model? But Ive learned alot from studying others models. Otherwise Id still be making stick/tube figures. Im just on a campaign in my mind at this point to go it alone with what Ive seen done already and make decisions based on memory. The one thing that I really have to come to understanding is Bias tweaks. To me thats where shape really starts to come alive. But thats after I know how splines run throughout a form.
-
First off, thanks "Mage"! Didnt know this existed. Im wonder though just how similiar it looks to the old plug-in that used to work with AM as to whether its an improved version as an EXE? But I downloaded it, and wasnt sure if I had Net2.0; turns out I didnt. So I downloaded that. But the program just throws all errors when inside it (continue or quit dialog)? Cant even use it. Dont know if this is a bug or just my PC? Or even V12 of AM?
(below reply) -> "Mage" - Was really just throwing out a thanks to you. And the rest is to anyone really. Just checking to see if anyone else has these problems.I have the page and will contact this person.
-
I did notice the unproportionate body, but this took like ALL day just to do. Its definately not what I wanted to accomplish. I wanted to get the EXACT splining of Hunter pic. But after awhile I just wanted to get it done, for the most part. But the model is up for any use imaginable. Id like to see a better reworked model in proportion. The only thing I request is that I get a copy of any derivitive work for my own plesure. I mean, if someone could spline it better - Id sure like to see how its properly done. I dont know how many people come across this problem (at least it seems like a problem), where you end up with 5-point patches right at the bottom of the butt crack where it just starts to tuck under? Maybe this is a common technique for these 5-point patches or maybe Im just not running a HOOK somewhere to make it a 4-pointer? And the "censor" things in no way hides any real depiction of the model - there are no nipples for instance; and the but is just flat and boring. And I do have alot of reference images (actually as of today I dug them out of my archives). Im about ready to get back to it using different sources to experiment. This particular model, I used an 8 section lathe for the breasts like the Hunter model uses and from there I just started roughing in and pushing splines around. But that was my starting point. THats why I think alot of the model is unproportionate because of how large the breasts are. Thats what I get for trying to defy logic and reallity
Id like to see others depictions of their efforts to re-create the Hunter model from the pics available in the off-topic section, and to see others share their work like myself no matter how un-comparable it is with the real thing. Share in the revolution! Give and be given! Im thinking Hash outa have a section just for posting models because waiting (though its worth it), for a yearly collection is a long time. I know Hash has an ftp, but its just as quick to post them on the forum. It may take up space, but so does the off-topic section (which is cool), in which I spent wasteless time on my rants of bordom. Im always guessing on the possibilities of nothing for something? Hmmmm..... -
Well, you can model something by hand, but "displacement maps" for this type of thingis quick and easy. A displacement map is nothing more than a black and white image. Pure black is as low as any part of the terrain will go and pure white is as high as any part of the terrain will go and all levels in between these 2. Nuetral gray (128,128,128) -in color settings - is basically even ground/middle ground. You can make them on your own in any paint program. Or you can take a colored texture of some desert terrain and turn it black&white through the same program. You can even download a free/partially working program like world machine to make these b/w images for terrain. Just make sure that you create a square patch with enough cross sections to allow for deformation correctly (use AM grid wizard for this. 50 by 50/100 by 100 etc). The displacement map to be used in AM will also have options to intensify the amount of displacement performed, under the properties section for the image inside AM. Its definately the easiest way for quick terrains in which youll have good control over.
[updated section]
As for realism, that highly depends on the texture of the terrain. Thats a whole other job. But you could do it yourself in a paint program with textures aquired. Or if you know enough about procedural materials in AM, thats another option. But for starters to see what happens, just draw any arbitrary black and white design, and make a gridded (wizard) patch, and simply add the image as a decal (planar), to the patch. Then throw the texture on last through this same method (by adding another decal). Just remember the "varying" shades from black to white, as to what texture will occupy the geometry. Lowlands grass(green)/High peaks snow(off-white), etc.
-
You may have found it by now. But if not, I think this might be the page your looking for:
http://www.lowrestv.com/arm/search3.asp?bo...ateAdded%20desc
This address is from my favorites link.
-
[To satisfy any displeasure, I edited the pictures for reasons misunderstood by myself, without properly addressing the nature of the content in these forums.... I will make note to the nudity issue for any further posting should unappropriate skin areas which are revealing be involved.]
[This has been re-edited because of my misunderstanding on a reply, out of respect for the one that replied.]
*Main Reply*
Umm, because there is no implied nudity - just a human form. No textures, no detail (notice no "nipples").
-
Heres the model zipped - instead of posting vague pics of splines.
[And I owe you an appology "Mage" because it seemed like you were gripe-ing, (below reply), when it turns out you werent.]
Well, I was trying to spline off a picture of the Hunter Model. Obviously its gunna take alot more work and understanding. Not much to work with other than a side view as a reference. The Hunter model has such a minimal amout of splines, yet its cleverly done using bias tweaks. And plus theres only a couple hooks, which are hard to figure where they are splined off of? I tried to take snapshots off the Hunter videos of the wireframes, but the quality only gives minimal help. Took all day to do just this crappy thing - mainly using a single reference photo. But if anything, I do like the way the BACK-anatomy of this model came out (not the "BACK" picture).. Her ([Edited Word] - behind) has got to go though. Or it needs ([Edited Word] - touch-ups) for some serious shape
...My hands are tired... Im tired... uggghhh.. Im gunna try YVES's model next, using the pictures available from a WIP thread (fellow hashers directed me to it from the "off topic" section of my post). Im just determined to learn how to model such types of things. So if more than one person thinks they can do something more with this model, Ill throw it up here, to do what ever with, as desired? -
Nice pillars and textures, just to throw my 2 cents into the greek depository.
-
Though this reply is futile, seeing how Im not a professional in practice. Nor do I have a background resume. I'd work for free on any animation aspects for these models. Or should you have any architectural elements (sketches of the same quality shown) that need modeled, I'd be willing to try it for free. I may or may not be able to do it, but given the chance Id put the effort into trying with the looks of these models and what they propose visually in theme to me. But of course you have a time element to think of and Id be more of a chance than a deadline. But if you can use any help possible, regardless... Im free for the thought? These models look like they dwell in an abstract artsy early period environment. They are definately eye candy! Perk itself was an amazing piece of animation as the acclaim was noted.
-
I personally dont know of any 3rd party plug-ins just for props? As far as the hash ftp plug-ins for models, I dont think they import the textures? I could be wrong - if so point it out? But as far as the model plug-ins; I used the ones from hash ftp on my AMV12 and they offer both Imp/Exp in the contextual menu within modelling for me. This is of course just model related and not Props?
AM's native Prop import is the only one I know of for these particular file types? And I personally just finished my saga on Import and Exporting of these particular file types using the plug-ins and they dont seem to be texture related - just spline/vertices. And the .OBJ is the only one that works of these 2 particular file types. But this is solely model - not prop related.
-
Ahh cool! Been wondering what was going on with this. Cant wait, well Ill have too until the government sends me the money they owe me for overbilling me and calling it some kind of Income tax. Your model, Rodney, has a small head? Is it smart? Or is it a mindless bag of boltz trying to balance on an over sized airplane wheel as tries to rescue hero-ins in distress or even conquer its fears against the surmountable odds of some distressed planets ultimate doom at the hands of some evil villian?
Either way, it looks ready for battle even if it means the recycling center for fallen warriors! 
-
hopefully youve got the help needed for the font wizard. As far as the Tunnel, thats completely open for suggestions as far as design? Square-oval? Length? Trim? Pipes? Its really hard to know what design elements your going for? If its simple enough, then just use the "front" view to stencil out a tunnel shape/outline with a single spline (you really dont have to figure for the floor, or connect the bottom end points on either side until after the tunnel shape is done. This way you can peer into the underside/inside of the tunnel without the floor getting in the way.) Once you have the overall shape done from side to side, you can go to the "top" view and select the whole spline and do as many "extrudes" as necessary to achieve the shape and length of this tunnel. But its hard to give any hints on something without an idea of what your end result is desired to be? If you want the tunnel to turn or curve, after you "extrude" a few sections, then youll have to select the last section(spline section) of your extrude and use the rotate manipulator button (from the top view I suggest). Once the manipulator is in active (you can tell by the colored circled rings around your selection), there should be a thing right dead center of the selection/manipulator called the pivot. You can tell it by the way the on screen symbol changes from close-arrows to more seperated-arrows when you move your mouse over it. Plus you can tell its pivot thing because it has 3 straight handles or "arms" sticking out of it that are also colored. Simply move/drag this pivot thing over the farthest control point to the left or right side of the selection(depending on which way the tunnel is to turn), and then use the proper colored ring handle (square) when in rotate mode to turn or rotate that specific selection. Everything rotates around that pivot thing that you move or would move. Its a good rule to know that it takes at least 3 points(on a single spline) or 3 sections (as in extrudes) to complete or maintain a perfect curve. But again, its hard to tell what exactly your going for?
-
One ,pretty much final, thing while Im on this whole format kick with AM. Any Plug-In creators out there think that they can tinker with an idea, or even suggest whether this idea is plausable: Seeing how "polygon" based conversions "triangulate" patches - is there any way to create a plug-in that (in theory) can "Kill" or "delete" splines that cross paths with a/the normal? Seeing how "triangulation" simply splits a patch through the middle/center, and a normal is the center; Would this help with such problems when converting?
ANd by the way, I think Im concluding that IT IS BEST just to do your own thing, or at least learn to do your own thing. Ive proven to myself that this is all possible, but in my mind - its just not becoming a rewarding sense of being an Animation:Master! ANother chapter in my journal of 3d madness. So, on to the next chapter....
-
Well, the short answer is that this type of modding must be carefully done. Anyone cant be stopped from doing this type of thing as "they" realize; so "they" conclude that there are ways of telling what is a copy of an original - but should someone do a fairly reasonable (careful) job of modding "their" models; it can in no way give/or be in/ any competition against "their" models that were originally modelled. Nor can it compare in "looks" to their models. So it can be done, but one must be very careful as to how much of the original model is still intact when converted and modded. So hopefully when Im done with this model, Ill display a comparison to all of the original material, to the "Mod" that I finish with. But I do know that this model is blown as far as my testimony on this thread. So its all about exploring possibilities. I just wanted to know the full potential of AM's compatability with other programs. And to be fair, the MODELS produced from the "other" programs out there are more readily available and exceed in all variety than whats available for AM. AM has some very nice models, but only a handful in comparison to whats available in these "other" programs from the net. Did anyone see some of those models available for purchase from particular sites. ANd yes, before anyone says it, 'Well then why dont you go buy one of those "other" programs and be done with it'? Well, because I love A:M more than those "other" programs. And I do "own" those "other" programs. Thats why I wish, (or maybe it is and I dont know it - Im getting the 2007 upgrade when my income tax comes), that the "HUNTER" model was available for AM users. Now that model is what Im talking about!
....I know right now and Ive got this feeling that IM gunna get blasted for this type of talk!!
Should have learned my lesson from a previous encounter with my words said on these forums, but I just cant help but love any controversy I exhibit in my explorations of all aspects across the whole spectrum of the universe. But its all best said by CRToonMike: " Nice exercise..."
-
O.K. - this is an edited short version...
The camera seems too linear focused? Maybe getting the camera more involved with the motions of whats going on would dramatize the effect of blasting around mountainous areas. Theres plenty of room for all elements to act out on this composition.
And I just have to say whats already been said though on this point: thats a very nice model!
And b.t.w - a while back, I started working on an idea of a 1st person cockpit view concept. Its located back on the list of W.I.P from many months ago (if its even still on the W.I.P listing). If you think you can do anything with it, or even have any use for it -to modify to suit your cockpit layout, for any such specific conceptual shots... your more than welcome to have it because its just in my archive right now?
-
For anyone wanting to do this type of modding, Heres the skinny on my own thoughts above and the legal issues:
QUESTION:
Is it legal to distribute a derivative of a DAZ model?
ANSWER:
DAZ models may not be used to create derivative, second-stage, or further stage derivative 3D models which can then be distributed in competition with the original DAZ product (see Section 6 of the DAZ End User License Agreement).
At DAZ, we like to make the trade of our files, and add-on files, as free as possible. We realize that the ability for someone to diversify and improve upon our products actually makes our products more valuable, as long as these modifications are distributed in a way that doesn't circumvent the need to purchase the original DAZ product. Problems arise when someone uses our work as an unfair advantage to compete with us. As a result we have prohibited these types of actions in the DAZ License Agreement.
Creation of an illegal derivative model may involve reverse engineering, de-compiling, and/or disassembling. Occasionally modelers are unaware that "derivative works" refers to more than just incorporating portions of DAZ geometry in a new mesh. (A method frequently referred to as "frankensteining.") "Derivative works" also refers to most of the methods that may be used to create a "new" mesh around an existing model. With the continuing evolution of new tools and methods for modeling and distributing models, it is impossible to explain specifically every possible way that a model can be used illegally in the creation of a new product. To demonstrate the range of ways this can occur, however, here are a few examples:
One of the simplest ways to create an illegal derivative model is to convert a DAZ model (typically OBJ format) to another non-Poser format, and distribute that. Beyond this, a DAZ model may be altered by adding and/or removing geometry in order to create a derivative work. Even more difficult for most users to recognize, but still detectable to trained modelers, are methods involving tools that can create a derivative mesh without transferring the polygonal layout of the original. Many of these methods can result in a mesh which seems legitimate, often with no vertices coincidental with the original. These types of tools/methods may include: NURBS/poly conversions, subdivision/smoothing or triangulation operations, de-resing, shrink-wrapping/fitting and randomization operations.
The distribution of models created using any of the above examples is strictly prohibited, and any of these methods will result in a mesh that is still subject to DAZ's copyright.
-
Im pretty much thinking the same way you are. But Im just wondering how much is a fine line? I did tear this model apart, to where it is re-splined and basically a major overhaul while keeping proportions similiar. Once I get rid of all similarities of the original, I wonder if re-worked model isnt basically something new, though it started out as something totally different? Im definately not a cheater, and would never use this method for $$gain. That I know, just isnt ethical. THough, had I not mentioned Poser6, and finished this model before this posting; Im sure I could "get-away" with the "new" modification and no-one would really be able to tell otherwise? All "Polygon" traces/structure has been removed. But I do tend to remove all original "Flow" of design. But your insight is probably/most likely correct. But what would constitute the "fine-line" to this approach other than resemblance (dont know how to spell that word). And a quick "smart-ass" reply would be: Do your own from scratch. Yeah, understood. So if I were to delete spline-by-spline and then re-spline what I deleted; and do this to the whole model... or even "lock-Out" the original model and respline/model to the original in 3d? Im not argueing any point here... just wondering how much of re-inventing the wheel to make it "rounder" is to be considered. This is basically becoming a talking point by now.
-
O.K. Heres something to give an Idea of the possibilities for modifying existing work from OBJ files. These are 2 geometries from the Poser 6 program. These models can be purchased at numerous places on the internet. Mainly DAZ3d. Its important to know that the "descriptions" of the models on any site must INCLUDE "GEOMETRIES", which are in OBJ format. Otherwise you will just get a Poser specific format. But this goes to show that re-inventing the wheel isnt necessary? I dont know if its considered "cheating" or not? It all depends on how extreme the modify is. Considering this fact though: these models when imported reach around 26,000 splines/vertices. Ive managed to widdle them down to within AM's standards (at least eliminating 3/4 of the mesh size to whats pictured above. It probably takes the same amount of time to create this from scratch as is does to modify one of these pro-models that can be purchased. Its no easy task! But this is about 3-days of modding. Hoepfully itll be done within a week.
-
-
I dont know if you need an answer for part of your message, but the embedded thingy can be found under the model properties->file info [embedded on/off]. On - simply adds the model into a .proj file itself. Off-will only reference the model from wherever its located on your PC. (This is all for file size purposes and also sharing projects). If you alter any original CD items and want to save for more experimenting, I would Embed(On) the model into the Project, if you decide to save your work. This wont change the original model from the original CD file located on your PC. Otherwise, no embedding will change the original file loaded.
Simply go to your CD and re-find the Rabbit file and save it again to your PC.
As far as eye focus, youll want to activate "pose sliders" window/display. There youll find the "sliders" to open & close the rabbits eyes and also hands. Next, lights and cameras in the choreography can easily be dragged to any position from any of the views (front,side etc). Use the "rotate manipulator" to guide these items in specific directs using the colored manipulator "rings" when activating the rotate feature. Experiment with the properties of the camera and lights also by simply clicking on them. I would also suggest using "hotkeys" to setup your own personalized keys (under the options menu). THis will help you quickly jump in and out of modes (rotate, scale, viewports, posesliders, main camera view, and anything else). AM doesnt have millions of tools, so its perfect for keyboard customizing.
-
Previewing Models within AM?
in New Users
Posted
Well, Im sorta having a different problem, with AM's native "preview" model viewer (where you can rotate, pan, zoom) in the panel when browsing for a selected model, rather than the thumbnail folder preview. I hope someone understands what I mean? But thanks anyways for a quick reply!