Malo

Hi, Using v19.5a, win10, nvidia 940M For "DialogFreeze004 external JPG MAT MDL ACT CHO.prj" that freeze without panel. For "Delete.prj" it open, but without "vase" model. For "VaseSlide.cho", it's ok, a panel ask for the "vase.mdl". So I choose "vaseX.mdl", it dont' freeze, and open the scene with the vase. After If you close the project (not AM). You can open "DialogFreeze004 external JPG MAT MDL ACT CHO.prj" witout problem. (as if it had remembered the path of the folder where the files are located) On v15, not this problem, a panel dialog ask for the "vase.mdl" This is a problem that I have already encountered, when a file searches for an image for which it cannot find the correct path, it freezes. Hope this can help

Hello, perhaps to look also on the influences of the weights of its CPs?

Good evening everyone, 🙂 It is possible to create UVs, in a program external to AM, to re-import them into AM. I haven't used AM for a long time. But from memory I used several steps: I save my model in mdl file. I import it into Blender via the Nemyax plugin (Blender 2.79) https://forums.hash.com/topic/47778-am-importer-for-blender/?tab=comments#comment-409549 I create my UVs in Blender. At the same time I convert the MDL file into a "special" Obj file via my little program without subdivisions. https://forums.hash.com/topic/48836-some-tools-for-am/?tab=comments#comment-418077 I import the Obj file into AM while keeping the order of the vertices. I transfer the Uvs of the other model to him. I export my Obj file keeping the order of the vertices. I am using my little program for this time converting and transferring UVs to Mdl files. Note : when we use polygonal UV tools, we loose the richness of the splines. For example for a circle with 4CPs, the UV will be a polygon with 4 sides. We lose too the possible to use the same patch on several UVs. Aside from its peculiarity at AM, it works well. To paint UVs, this is another method. In AM I export the mdl with its UV in OBj with subdivision (to have the shapes) in Blender. I paint the model. The uv painte picture can be used after in AM.

Great animation!

On the picture what is in yellow are the CPs not included in the selection, the green ones that have been selected. Here is the modified file with the selected Cps. A patch to be selected needs at least one CP from each spline that makes it up.

The problem comes from your selection "Rear Glass" ... You have selected the CPs of the spline which circumvents the outside, and those of the center. But you did not select CPs common to both parties.

thanks Robert for your proposition. I will study that.

Thanks for your return. Paths are saved ... but strange thing they are only visible when the "Relationship1" window is open. If I close the "Relationship1" window then the path links disappear. It is not possible for me to use the pipette to select a bones or a path (v.19). My problem can come from there?

Thank you Serg for your reply. Unfortunately that does not change. So I rethink the rigging without path.

Hello, I found that the export of a model containing constraints of path, once animated and exported like a model, loses its constraints and the bones are not in their positions. Here is an image illustrating the problem, and the model to test the problem. Are there some things I did wrong?

Than you again!

Thank you very mutch David!

Thanks for the answers! David, that would be great, if that's possible. Thank you in advance.

Good evening, I'm looking for tutorials on expressions ... do you know links? I am also trying to understand the logic of the number of ".. |" before an expression. Thanks in advance!

Thank you!

Among the strange patches, there is this case in yellow. the subdivision is not done in x16 in AM, it is different from its mirror patch, and there is a bug to the export of this patch, but its subdivision is done.

Hello Robert, Yes, the ideal for exporting triangular patches into polygons would be this topology. Now I doubt that we will not rewrite a polygonal subdivision express for export. But I thought it would be possible to filter its triangles-quads to rewrite them into triangles. Hello Rodney, The proposal (left back foot) is good to avoid the problem of hooks, only does not solve the problem of triangles-quads. The best solution in this case would be to turn the hook into a CPs for export (see the front left foot). There I had to think about it before, because I have to redo the UVs. Hooks and triangles are two differents problems. What is strange to me is that this bad topology in AM is not seen, whereas when we push the creation of weird patches with the hooks, it is seen in general as for the following image.

Robcat, Yes, "f 3/1/3 1/1/1 1/1/1" is not correct. It's a flat triangle, it will not be visible. Fot me their writing lulls the file and does not bring any interest. The import of AM is a step that is not to do with the subdivision of the patches, however it remains interesting to study how the import interprets the writing of triangle-quads export by AM. if we look at the file export in a text reader, we see that there are only quads. The model is the same crtl / copy four times in the same file. So the order of writing the triangular patches is not the same. Hence the difference of topology. It is by modeling the foot of this dog that I noticed this problem:

This missing faces it is not a problem of normal inverted, but of interpretation of a triangles written like a quads. It seems to me that the problem comes from the fact that the three-sided patches are not a triangle but a four-sided patches whose one side is zero. That's why the quad topology focuses on one of the corners and not the center of the patches. The dynamic subdivision of AM does the rest, it eliminates the quads whose volume is almost zero, a flat quad is zero, it eliminates it. on the other hand, if a quad at a null side is volume it is not zero, so it remains. AM only manages quads inside a patch. Yes it is possible to create an external tool to correct the triangles of files exported by AM, but it seems to me that it is better to correct at the source. Here is a model where there is a 4-sided and a 3-sided patches, move the CPs for the differentiators. MODEL

It is true that the export triangles can provide a solution (without correcting the problem of hooks). The advantages of quads is multiple : a file less heavy to treat, may subdivide for zoom, or to make it more smooth, or to sculpt details over it, or to apply a displacemant map.

I think as you Nemyax, but I am not sure. Passing through Wings3D corrects the writing of triangles (without keeping vertices numbers), but does not correct the topology that is internal to AM. Part of the problem of topology does not come only from triangles, but from writing hooks that do not write enough information to know where to attach but try to guess it.

Hi, thank you for your answers. Is the problem not found in the SDK libraries? because the problem is found in the Lwo export. I doubt that the answer is not as simple as rewrite the line of triangles when exporting because it would have been done for a long time. And I am aware that the interpretation of the patches is a real puzzle, seen the number of non-visible combinations that exists. (even if I would like to hope that it is simpler than I imagine) Here is another problem related to the export and the three-sided patches. Here are the same three-sided patches, copy 4 times, which gives different topologies. We can see that sometimes the hook is attached to the wrong side. Is it due to the fact that he is lost to know if he is attached to AB, BC, CD or AA?

Good evening everyone, I ask myself this question for a few years already, without finding a logical answer. I noticed that the AM export Obj writes the triangles like quads. That is to say for a triangle ABC, the convention is to write as follows: f A B C But AM write them: f A B C A, which is the convention of writing quads (f A B C D). Some programs like Wings3D play them correctly, others like Blender, consider them as bad quads that they ignore, which creates holes and therefore unusable. I thought this was because the three-sided patches are a variant of the four-sided patches, but I do not understand the usefulness of keeping this writing export that makes it heavier files and that do not make them compatible with any programs. But seeing changes this done during the past years on the export plugin of obj, without this triangle writing being changed; I tell myself that there is something that I do not know or that I do not see, hence my question: why write triangles as quads? Thanks in advance for those who will be able to show me the benefits of writing these triangles as well. I ask this question, to know if it would be interesting to request an option to Stephen Gross to correct this problem in the export plugin. Not wanting to post this request if she is stupid.

You will encounter some problems that are as follows. AM makes an invisible subdivision in the patches. So either export the patches as polygons or export the invisible polygonal subdivision. The internal subdivision of AM poses different probems, the writing of bad triangles (a quad whose side is null), The hooks brings openings in the topology. (Do not use an adaptive subdivision, because it will not be only the hooks that will pose this problem and that will be seen in the rendering(displacemant)). The Nemyax plugin corrects this problem by converting the holes into ngones and polygons, and writes the triangles correctly. However, it does not export a subdivided model, and so we change the volume when we apply an external subdivision. There is a way to find an almost equivalent volume in Blender by applying a smooth invert before applying a subdivision. The advantage of this method is that your model has a correct topology that will be rendered correctly. Hope that will help you.

https://www.hash.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=12829