Malo
-
Posts
314 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Malo
-
-
Just for information, these problem is not specific to baking.
My tests were only used as projection map in AM.
I have not managed to reproduce the bug in version 8.5
When importing a model(v8.5) in V.13, the "bump" map is converted to "bump legacy". What is the differences between this two "bump"?
the problem is also in the hooks.
-
Robcat, I modified the rapidity ... do not hesitate to say if it is too fast.
Ludo, je ne sais pas à quoi c'est du. C'est une piste à creuser.
-
Hi everyone.
By doing some testing I realized that the phenomenon seems to be found on other patches :
-
You're right Robcat is probably the better solution staying in AM.
-
It's the same thing for me.
-
Thank you for the answers.
It seems that this function does not exist in AM.
From what I understood from the video "Resurface" it does not work. Resurface plans CPs on a surface without putting them at equal distances.
The only solution I've found is to export the model to Wings3D, which has this feature, and import it into the AM. Then change the bias. But it is not very practical solution :
-
Hello,
There is there a plugin or a function that transforms a closed spline in a circle?
-
Hi Mouseman,
Version 8.5 AM, had different rendering options, which allows you to see the triangulation of the patches :
-
Fuchur you understood what I wanted to show.
Robcat, sorry, The Npatches are another problem that was far from my mind.
I just add a CP to the triangle to keep the shape of thetriangle, and change the topology of the top of the triangle.
Here is another example that avoids misunderstanding:
and this is what I suppose might have happened if the topology of the triangular patches will be changed.
Jake, I think it is possible to use the same principle to create Npatches ... but I don't know if these patches will be stable in animation and rendering.
-
To complete the problem of topology triangles, here is a simple experiment:
-
although I suspect this hasn't gone unnoticed.
I think so. I guess also when creating the patch to 5 CPs the problem is posed. It was possible to integrate the quad in the 5-sided patches like this:
But this is not what has been done, there are probably good reasons.
Patient: Doctor, my arm hurts when i do this.
Doctor: Don't do that!
-
-
"The subdivision you see in real time is a convenient approximation only.
That final renders do not use subdivision process... "
I am surprised by this ... I can not find the differences in the following images (made in version 8.5):
The shape of the splines and patches are identical in all three cases.
The only difference is the topology of the polygonal subdivision to form the patch. The problems in the realtime rendering of polygonal topology that are the same in the final rendering. We guess even little polygons in the final rendering in critical areas.
-
Jake, you're not a troll!
... You express your opinion and that of many people. Each opinion is constructive even if it seems negative.It was during a review such as this one on the inability to properly import a polygonal model textured as a splines model in AM, "TROER" that is born, or the PHP script to convert into Ngones patches.
I wanted to show there, it was possible to move on polygonal programmer to create programs that handles Ngones as patches.
Of course I would prefer that this be included in AM directly ... But it is a lot of work for Steffen in a short time.
Personally, if I had to choose priority in the AM programming, it would simplify the process of the creation of patches. And for the bridge betwenn the polygons, change the subdivision of the patches with 3 sides. But that's another debate
Another idea that I come to mind when reading the article by Pixar:
This can be positive for the props. And import a new function , in props, to give the possibility to import low-poly, that AM subdivide at various levels, depending on its size to screens, as it does for patches.
-
It is true that the user does not handle polygons. It is the interest of AM for the artist (say no to polygons).
But they are there (in patches) to display on the screen in realtime. these are what we see when we interact with AM in directx or opengl.
If this technology is best for calculating the display of these polygons, then it is beneficial for AM. This is to check, maybe opensub algorithms are slower than AM or even unusable. The programmers who will study the problem, will know.
-
Hi Ludo!
Nice work!
-
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.)
Problem With Bump Mapping (Decal Baking)
in Work In Progress / Sweatbox
Posted
Robcat thank you for the explanation.