Malo

This looks promising, at least the current result is beautiful. Nice work!

Escuse me for my english ... I mean a triangle which is reduced in line with two vertices that have the same coordinates. Of course all triangles are flat

The purpose of the triangles in 3D are to create a face. While these flat triangles have no faces, so no need for rendering. AM using only quads for subdivision mathematical reason, the flat triangles are inevitable in the topology of the creation of 3-sided patches. The topology of the 5-sided patches suitable for 3-sided avoid that. Now ... is this flat triangles have an impact on the rendering? ... I don't know. I guess the renderer ignores these triangles, but I guess it gives a little more calculations.

I see this as a very good thing for AM. It must not be forgotten that AM is a polygonal subdivision program . This open source gives solutions to boost the display and polyganal subdivision in realtime. This can be very useful to AM.

Hi, By studying the different subdivisions built in AM and Obj export: I had a surprise when exporting patches with three sides. Whatever the level of subdivision, all models are exported to obj consists of quads, even triangles! : Even stranger, exporting functions with the "Export triangles", we end up with flat triangles, which are useless. So I'm probably wrong, there are only quads in AM and there will not solitary triangle in the subdivision of AM, but couple of flat triangle and good triangles. PS : The table is misleading to the subdivision level "Variable". Subdivision is compared to the side of the model on the screen in realtime, while the export is based only on the size of the model. I would have had to find the right size for export. Example: here the same model enlarges or reduces in order to have a different resolution export.

Thank you for your answers, they allow me to better understand certain thing. I went further in understanding, here is what I see: The first thing that strikes me is the lack of symmetry of the division of 3-sided patches. It offers three possibilities when the quad and the pentagon have only a possibility. Here is the rendering of the same model with the three cases for the triangle to see the influence of the latter. There are differences in the rendering. In writing MDL format, it is this difference, mostly repeating twice the CP "problem" in writing the patch. (here the first-line, the others being the 4 and 5 patch sides) (?*8) CP1 CP2 CP3 CP1 NormalCP1 NormalCP2 NormalCP3 NormalCP1 0 (?*8) CP1 CP2 CP3 CP4 NormalCP1 NormalCP2 NormalCP3 NormalCP4 0 ((?*8)-1) CP1 CP2 CP3 CP4 CP5 NormalCP1 NormalCP2 NormalCP3 NormalCP4 NormalCP5 0 The other system of division would he give a better result? I do not know. She ask me other questions: - Does it Bring a division more homogeneous? - Subdivide 3 rectangles instead of 4 rectangles, it does not reduce 1/4 subdivision calculations? - It does not reduce the weight mdl format? : (?*8) CP1 CP2 CP3 NormalCP1 NormalCP2 NormalCP3 Normal 0 - Topology for export would not it more compatible with the desired topology in other apps polygonal subdivision?

Hi Rodney and Robert, Thank you for the answers! "Martin has not abandoned his baby." I am pleased "This is not something that is likely to be discussed here in a public forum." I understand that ... I will not bother Stephen Gross, my questions are related to my curiosity I do not know what you mean here by the word 'consolidation'. I meant the latest evolution technicque for the subdivisions of patches. In version V8.5 (2001), it is possible to see the subdivision patches. I just wanted to know if it has evolved since 2001. This 2001 subdivision intrigues me, especially the patch to 3 sides: if I use an orange line for the first subdivision, and a purple for the second, 3-sided patch is different in the subdivision (the orange lines and violets grow in a single vertex ). The three-sided patches, can produce a triangle among the quads. What appears to be a problem reading some articles on the web. Hence a question that I come to mind: a subdivision of patches for 3 sides, would not it better like that?: I want to clarify my total ignorance on the subject, if the question sounds stupid "Martin said once here that in the beginning there were no polygons at all"... Very interresting! So far, I thought that there were only triangles and voxels in 3D. "Possibly, but it would have to be for a fabulous reason." Luckily

Hello, I ask myself some questions about the history and evolution of the polygonal subdivision in Hash patches after reading this link from pixar, which reminds me a lot with AM patches : http://www.opensubdiv.com/?page_id=84 - When was the last consolidation made ​​on patches? - When was made the triangle patches? - When was made the quad patches? - When was made the five sides patches? - Is that the subdivision of polygons in the interior of patches has evolved since the beginning? - Martin Hash did he actually abandoned his baby, or does he think back on it later? - Stephen Gross, does it have the right to change the code of the constitution of the patches? (I do not know where to ask these questions, feel free to move the topic.)

Hi, I often read an opposition between the polygon's world and patches. Probably related to the policy of Martin Hash: "Say No to polygons". Out of habit, we confuse polygons and polygons&Catmull-Clark subdivision. This combination seems simple to use. I say "seems" because I recommend reading this post: http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread...Poles-and-Loops What I remember from this post have similarities with the patches: Facesloop and loops are very similar to splines. The Npoles are inside the 3-sided patches. The Epoles are inside the 5-sided patches. The triangles are banished (the patches contain only 4gones). There is a preference for vertices that are connected to four edges, which is also reflected in the crossing of splines. To return to the starting problem. Old tutorials use the CP by Cp method (patch by patch) which has the désaventage to get errors such as those in this post. I prefer the method "box modeling" (starting from a closed volum) ... or even better a mix between the two. Or to use polygonal modeler and Doosabin subdivision ... Clearly there is no one way to treat a model in AM. What could have been informative and helpful to the forum, it would be to create posts with a very simple model of rotoscope (organic, props or Mechanical) in early post, where every persons, it deposits its tutorials to treat the rotoscope model.

the download link on the site history does not work. I also think that this is not a problem, here is a link to download: CM_Cap htx plugin (Brian Levine) If it ever ask a problem, I will destroy the link. Anyway thank you to Brian Levine, for this plugin.

Hello, It is possible to draw forms directly into AM and extrude them and cap them in AM through free plugin "CAP wizard" of CircusMedia. The address was in: http://circusmedia.net/cap2/instructions.html But the site has disappeared, and I do not know what happened to the creator of this plugin. Maybe is there another link? If this is not the case. What is the legality of transmitting this plugin? Is it possible to transmit it to the forum to allow it to download?

You are right Rodney, the "boolean cutter" is very useful. For example in architecture, insert, move and scale a door or a window in a wall is very easy and fast with this tool. It allows to create kits.

Hi, It is possible to use Boolean Cutter too. To close a surface hole directly in AM, there is an old plugin called "Cap" of "Media Circus". It does the same job as the plugin called "AI", but do not close the back of the model.

Thank you to show us the new retopology tool.

Good news , thanks Fuchur for the informations .Thanks very much to Stephen Gross to still alive AM.

Hi everybody, To me your first model is good if you use the material "Porcelain". Plus you use less patches and CPs :

Thank you Furchur and Robcat, for your reponses. Change the direction of the normals don't change nothing. I'm doubtful but can you show an example of a decal reacting to this? The trouble come only if you rescale or move the UV. I was thinking it was possible to mixed stamps Plane UV with stamp cylindrical UV, to paint the map in a 2D programm, but it was a mistake, the UV cylindrical Map become the master so the map is three. So it is better to create one map (cylindrical Map) for one decals.

Is there a way to know the direction of a spline? And to change it? Because it seems there is an impact on the decal : What is the logic about the choice of the spline where that cut the cylindrical decal? The direction of a spline has an effect on the render?

Yes this is. The idea is to take advantage that it is possible to move CPs in Bone's window too, with Crtl key. From the spline you draw, the first plug-in would create a shape (bones and geometry, pre-weighted) (the spine of your character), to be fit to the rotoscope. From patches/splines or CPs you selected, the second plug-in would create shapes (bones and geometry, pre-weighted). (the members that could be defined by the number of joints), to be fit to the rotoscope. And the third plug-in, would help to insert splines between two splines, for add details.

Hi, I don't know if it can interest somebody, but just in case, I post anyway. It is just some ideas and reflections about imagination's tools to help to model and rigg more quickly in AM. The idea, is to regroups modeling, armature, weigts and fan bones in a few clicks. I write the ideas in a PDF with pictures. PDF

Hi Robcat, Thank for your answer. It is a possible solution No problem for the documentation, I know how they work.

Thank mtpeak2 for your answer! It is a solution for the first question.

Hello, In bone mode, the Ctrl key help to move the bone with his CPs. But this short keys don't work with weight. So when a CP is 50% assigned to "bone1" 50% with "bone2", it do as there are 100% with "bone1" and 0% with "bone2" It is there a short keys that takes into account the weights in bone mode? In the same idea. When I move a CP, it is there a short keys that CP does not change the distribution of weights? When I add a CP on a segment of a spline, it is there a short keys that it takes the value of places where it is located between the other two CP?

Hi, thanks for your answers. wedgeeguy, I can't do as you say, because I don't use a polygon modeler, but a free scult modeler (Sculptris). The result, is an OBJ model, that comport 550 000 triangles. And I think, It is better to rethinking the topology of a polygon model, so for me it is faster and better to remodeling it, in AM. jakerupert, "...that you could redraw splines ontop of a polybased 3D rotoscopes with the help of a "snap to surface" function similar to the "snap to grid" button...." yes, this is! "I don`t know anything of programming, but maybe it`s doable with a reasonable amount of work?" I don't know too... That idea come to me, when I used the props as 2D rotoscopes, and see the video of resurface plugin. It is just an idea "On the other hand, I think it would be more important/usefull to make the AM displacement "animationsafe", so that one could use the polygon sculpting tools with AM for animatable characters as well.... " All right this animation diplacement problem is more important and usefull.

"Unfortunately, no. You have to judge it manually... but possibly useful" Yes It could be useful. Thank again Hi, Nancy Yes this plugin, I have not try it yet (because I am on v13). But I think that don't work in choregraphy between a prop and a model.