Malo

That helps, David! Thank again!

Thank you all for your answers ! I'll study it all tonight.

Good evening everyone, I am looking for a way to give the same size of a bone to another bone by the constraints or expressions. Anyone know how we do it?

good news!

Nice work! I have not 3DCoat , so I could not do testing, but have you found a way to not break the topology hooks and patches to 5 sides in futur? Again congratulations.

thanks you!

Happy holidays to all! Congratulations Nancy, your image and colors are very beautiful. Congratulations Robcat! Your work on procedural material gives an impressive result! Thank you for voting for me, it'll allow me to restart my subscription for another year! Thank you all very much!

It's a great tool! Look at this picture: Keep the purple topology and you get a topology compatible with AM: I explain the method in this topic: http://www.hash.com/forums/index.php?showt...mp;#entry390604 Don't need to remodel or to retopology the model in AM. (there is some correction to do, You can find some patches made with more than 5side, but it is very easy to repair, before import in AM)

Thank for your reponse. That is a good news!

If it helps, I had this little flash animation for a fish (modeled in Sculptris to create the rotoscope) modeled in AM ... we see the steps by steps : flash animation

Hello, Is it a way that the bones which the attribute "Assigning Prevent PC's" are "on" are not visible in "Edit CPs weights"?

Hi, Thank William for the link. I have done a new test. Using Xnormal to bake a Sculptris sculpt on AM model. The two solutions have goods and bads renders. But I think, with a high export (4096 subdivs), unwrapp in AM will give a better solution. I will do new test then when V18 will be done.

A hight subdivision in V18 will help to have a good result. Do you know, when V18 will be finish? Here's a little experiment I do today: I create a model. I just peak the model in modeling window before to apply UV. To try to have à peak UV (try, because it seem that it don't peak it completely) I export the model x1 with its uv. I repair the 5 sides polygons in wings3d. The UV is the same, except that we have lost the coordinates of bias. I use Troer to convert this new obj, Troer recreates the coordinates of the bias. I import the models in AM16, and render : A : the original model, B : the model converted by Troer. If you want to compare Uvs, here are the two mdl files and the map in this zip file

From what I understand, and so I thought Troer. The uV a patch is subdivided into nine areas defined by the bias. The picture of the UV polygon is divided into 9 part to be distributed to each area of ​​the patches. If the bias is not located in tier length, there will be deformation. And I think, the bias coordinate of the wizard plugin is calculate on the 1/3 of the % magnitude and not on the length of the side. But I ma not sure. What I am sure, the bias coordinate of the wiazrd is not on the 1/3 on the lenght, and it is why there is bad result.

Sorry, It is not easy for me to explain this in english. In the UV window, a patch have bias, but you can't see them. A polygon have not bias. To write an UV for a polygon, you need to write the X Y and Z coordinate for each vertices. For a patche you need to write the coordinate for each CPs and for each bias (8) (in blue on the graphic) The problem when you import the UV of a polygon, you have no coordinates for this bias. So you must create them. (The CPs have the same coordinate as the vertices) For Troer, I use the 1/3 of the side for each bias. What I understand about the wizard plugin, is : it use the 1/3 of the magnitude of the CP, so the the map in the patch is deformed.

Benoit is the programmer of Troer. This is a friend who knew very little in 3D, and nothing in AM. It was kind of program Troer in his free time. Troer is not the solution to long therm. It would be better to improve the import AM plugin (and also export with more options). To return to the issue of the wizard import. I think it would not be difficult to fix it. It seems to me that the calculation error come from there is a confusion between the tier of the side and the tier of the magnitude. I'm sorry if I'm not very clear in my English. A picture to help to understand:

Hi Robcat! No, because it's not a bug from AM. I did not understand all the way to encode the Mdl format. Troer written an incorrect file. Luckily before version 17, AM rectified the code, now it no longer does as expected. But it is not a bug. Nothing to do, I read quickly in a topic, the closure of 5-sided patches will be automatically ... Is this true? If this is the case, it will be great.

Yes since version 17, there is a problem with the UV of the mdl converted by Troer. At the end of the topic http://www.hash.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=40743 , we talk about it. The solution is to download the version 16 of AM, and open your mdl via import mdl in a empty modeling window, and save it, to open it again in version 17. This is hugely steps and constraints. But it works.

Hi ToreB, "Troer" is a free standalone converter OBJ2MDL. (It can't convert all Obj) There are more explications in this topic : http://www.hash.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=40743

The problem come from the import Obj plugin in AM. It's Uv is bad. The Uv for the Props is good. If I use Troer to convert Obj with his UV, I get good results too :

An another way to do this. It is possible to create a cube subdivided into a polygonal program and convert it with "Troer." (More the object is dense more the conversion is long.) Download the MDLl

I got the V.17. So I pushed my analysis of polygons that are behind the patches using the new export plugins. By chance, I using Jpatch by curiosity, and found that Jpatch exported and converted patches triangular polygons differently to AM ... so I could compare and see some of the problems of the two methods. Here the analysis: AM exports in subdivision X1, X4, x16, x32, x64. with UVs Jpatch exports in subdivision X4, x16, x64 and x128. Without UVs Therefore not possible to compare the subdivision X1, x32 and X128 and Uvs. For AM : 1. All export models of AM have the same problems related to triangular patches: -An abnormal number of normals to the number of vertices. - Degenerated faces (see the alert window meshlab on the pictures). -Polygons with vertices whose normals seems reversed? - Asymmetric topology of the polygons of the model. 2. Export 32 and 64 has torn joints, not exploitable. For Jpatch. I have found two problems: 1. polygons triangular patches are not welded, making rendering the polygons visible. Some polygonal program can weld to import (eg, Poser, Metasequoia ...), and corrects this problem. 2.Triangular patches form corners where it should be smooth. Here's a little experiment to illustrate this problem: I create a sphere with three perfect circles and 8 triangular patches. Impossible to create a perfect sphere in AM with this method. as we see from this little image. the patches is unstable, just making a rotation of some millimeter, the patch changes shape. Export this sphere by the export of AM is identical to AM. Export this sphere by Jpatch is more spherical, but has a big problem, it gives the feeling of a square inside as the center point of the polygon patches. Red sphere is just to compare : not find the good solution

Hi rodney, No, if I use the v13, it's just that I have the CD version 13. I have not tried version 17. I expected a little more time to take out a subscription and be able to work seriously on a project and a way of working ... For now, I trying to use my knowledge of AM when I have a little time. To return to the topic, no there is no difference between the 13 and 17 models mdl that I could download (other new features) but their treatment in AM could be different. The rendering looks better in version 17, saw the pictures I've seen.

Ludo thank you for the test. This confirms what I thought. It is clear that 3Dcoat product very good map for AM. The problem is in AM. Once this problem set, AM will be very powerful.

Hi Ludo ... Can I ask you to do a test with this model, if it is not abused (thank you in advance). I have not 3Dcoat and would like to see if the result is better than the triangles that I have when I go through Sculptris and xNormal: