Hi Felix, well it was worth a try!

Polygons and NURBS files are fairly different in the way that they are set up to work, so it's not very common to go back and forth both directions between them all the time.

Starting with NURBS and going to polygons works well, but starting with polygons and then going to NURBS is not a very natural thing.

The comparison I usually make is like apples and applesauce. If you start with apples you can go to applesauce no problem by smashing up the apples. However, if you start with applesauce it is difficult to reconstruct apples back from that.

For the most part you should usually plan that if you need to work with polygon type data that you will be working with that in a polygon-focused modeling program and not in MoI.

- Michael

Michael,

I think I'll try to become a "chef" and specialize in making applesauce!

On another subject but closely related, I've found an add-on to Blender called BSurfaces http://www.bsurfaces.info/ . The reason I mention this is because for the sort of thing I'd like to (be able to) do in Blender, I thought of creating the building block I would need in Moi, then export to Blender and do the rest there using most likely the sculpting mode but it seems I can't do much if anything in Moi that as a curve in it because the exported mesh is inapropriate for use in sculpt mode. Blender needs a nice quad only topology to begin with, otherwise it create all sorts of problem later on. Though I haven't tried it myself yet, I've whatch the video and for ounce it makes sence to me and it seems to be fairly easy to use both as a modeling tool and for retopology. Add to this the latest Blender build that as the latest addition for the sculpt mode, a kind of automatic mesh addition or creation and you have the baby brother of ZBrush for free. Since at this time I don't have a clue if I'll ever be able to do something worth while in Blender or any other programs for that matter, I might as well stick with free one and see if I can learn a few thing. Maybe then I'll consider ZBrush.

All this to say it would be nice to be able to export quads only kind of mesh from Moi but as a last resort I could try BSurfaces to retopo Moi exports and save myself a lot of pain while in Blender.

Thanks again,
Felix

Hi Felix,

> All this to say it would be nice to be able to export quads
> only kind of mesh from Moi but as a last resort I could try
> BSurfaces to retopo Moi exports and save myself a lot of
> pain while in Blender.

Generally if you need an all quad mesh, that's something that you would create directly in a polygon mesh program - usually if you need "all quads", you actually also need a nice well structured topology to them as well, not simply literally just any arrangement of quads.

Usually that kind of specific topology requires judgment for how to arrange it, it's not really something that is automatically generated. A retopology tool can be useful for helping to restructure an existing mesh though.

But really if that's what you need, you should not expect the output from MoI to be a good match for that - you'll need to focus more on using a polygon modeling tool to create that kind of structure.

See this previous thread for some more discussion on "all quads":
http://moi3d.com/forum/index.php?webtag=MOI&msg=4600.1

- Michael

Felix,

I am maybe a hair further along than you..but not much. Same deal I want to make carving patterns. Here are some screen shots of a model I made a while back for a carving. I also love Moi and had the same idea you have of creating the base in Moi and then sculpting. Issue is just like you said..all quads. Some things I have taken out of MOI into zbrush with very high poly count turn off smooth in zbrush when subdividing and have had minimal issues. I bought 3d coat soley for the retopo feature..added bonus it has some very cool tools zbrush doesnt...so between the two programs it has everything..the rest is up to me.

When I bought Moi I couldn't tell you the difference between poly's and nurbs..had a lot to learn. All I knew was I could "draw" my shapes which seemed a hell of a lot easier than than all the modelling programs for polys..it looked really hard just to set an image up for a reference. Just like the depth map road I tried everything..even bought vector majic for auto trace then bring into moi as pdf and extrude. Finally the light bulbs went off I was trying to make Moi do something it's not intended to do. Man did I spend a lot of time trying..lol looking back I wish spent the time learning poly modelling. I tried everything I could to avoid it.

The screenshots below of the old man model are my moi to sculpt method..lol. I am sure the folks on here that understand poly modelling are damn thats a lot of work..why not just model in quads from the get go. But I know where your coming from...it seems like a way higher learning curve than Moi. I finanlly bit the bullet and started learning quads. I will always use moi for a lot of stuff. I made like 50 sign blank patterns that I sell and made them all in MOI...they were so fast to make..for me WAY faster than poly modelling. But they were sign shapes with decorative edges..ie router profiles. My advice find a package you like poly wise and start really simple..and at first forget the cnc pattern thing in the begining. Reason you will not find much info on making those kind of model tutorial wise and it does get to be a challenge to keep everything in 2.5d. I started making like really simple things like pumpkins soccer balls blocked-out human body mesh (very basic) and started grasping the concepts - edge flow, where to add rings etc. Then apply to pattern you want to make once you get the concepts. I know you don't like silo...that was the one I liked for the simplicity. I demo'd 3ds max and hated it..too much for me..I didn't care about rendering and even less about animation..just wanted cnc patterns. Other cheap and simple modellor to check out is ac3d..was 79 bucks..not sure now. It is very basic..I stopped in it and went on to silo for the added features but it was nice to start with.

To get to where you want to go with cnc patterns you can't really avoid quads. I attached a model I made of woody wood pecker...I couldn't begin to figure out how to make him in Moi..and trust me I tried. Once I got the basics down of poly's he was actually pretty fast to make. Other thing I am finding out as I go..the better I get with poly modelling the less sculpting I am doing..my new goal. Except to add texture etc for carviongs like hair fur etc. I attached the oldman 3dm so you can play around with exporting and sculpting.

Good Luck

Michael, just noticed something...

It's not a bug, but a request:

When running the Extrude command on a curve or a line (not a surface) it wants to default in the Z direction to make a surface from the curve.
Sometimes it throws me for a loop when nothing happens right away in a non-Z view port. "Why always Z?" (I exclaim).

This is when you would normally implement the [Set Dir] option.

I'd like to suggest a couple of tweaks to Extrude (curve).

Allow for automatic direction setting to correspond with the ortho view you are in. Or at least in vertical and/or horizontal direction, so that something happens right away.
Or better yet, no matter in which view, allow for an automatic direction set according to which 90 degree axis direction you carry the mouse pick in from the origin of the extrude of the curve.

Nine times out of ten, this is usually what you want to do when extruding a curve. When you need a special direction, then the [set dir] button is where to go.

Hi Mike,

> When running the Extrude command on a curve or a
> line (not a surface) it wants to default in the Z direction
> to make a surface from the curve.

Actually it doesn't work like that - if the curve is planar it will extrude along that plane's normal, see the attached file for an example, note that extruding either of these curves does not result in going in the Z direction by default.

If you have a curve that is not planar, it will try to do a best fit plane to it, and then find which of the x, y, z axis directions has the closest angle to that and then use that axis direction. That makes things that are nearly planar but not quite have a reasonable default direction.

If you are only extruding just a single line and nothing else with it, then that's the particular case that will default to z, that's kind of a special case because there is no "best fit" plane to a line segment, there's basically an infinite number of planes that can contain a particular line (with the planes all pivoting around the line at different rotations).

Is it that case of extruding a single line segment the one that is getting you?

- Michael

Hi Mike,

> Allow for automatic direction setting to correspond with
> the ortho view you are in.

Doing this for all cases would have some pretty bad side effects.

Take a look at the extrude demo file that I posted above - if it worked the way you're saying here, then going to the top view and extruding the bendy curve to the left would result in an extrusion like this:



Are you really sure that you'd want that kind of extrusion to be the default?


Currently the default generates an extrusion along the curve's plane normal, it doesn't matter which view you are in. So you get an extrusion like this:





That certainly seems like a lot better default direction for that curve rather than doing a view-dependent one - a view dependent direction for a curve like that will make a weird self-intersecting pancake flattened type result.

- Michael

jpaluck,

thanks for your advice and those pretty good images of your work.

I think I mentionned I was going to give Blender a good run and I think I've potentially found the ideal tool for me. There's an add-on called BSurfaces and this thing basically those magic for both modeling and retopo in combination with either Curves or sketched strokes (grease).

I seriously think, especially for retopo, I wont find something easier to use then this. see this link http://vimeo.com/26339130 Though I still have quite a bit of learning to do, I think the worst part will be "training" myself to become somewhat more productive. Basically, say I did something in Moi, my prefered program, export it in Blender, now I couldn't care less of quads and or triangle anymore, use BSurface in combination with the grease tool to obtain a nice topology to work with and go on from there with the various tools Blender as to offer like sculpting, proportional editing and the works.

When I become more verse with the retopology route, I'll try to do some modelling directly in Blender using the same basic tools. I was a teacher in another life and I know very well the route one as to take to acquire the required skills to do this kind of work. I also know that having good skills at whatever doesn't make you an "artist" but with every artist you will find, you can be pretty sure he/she as pretty good skill at what he/she does.

This is the main reason I don't want to spent money in software at this time, I need first to learn a lot of things say at the theorical level, then I'll have to acquire the skills to do what I want. If I realise that I can't then so be it but if I can, the next step is, can I be an "artist" at this? If no then again it will probably be the end of this for me and I'll either do something else or maybe I'll try to find someone willing to sell me is work with exclusive rights on then.

Currently, I do this kind of work here:





It's basically hand made including the coloring and finish, it's a real pleasure for me to do that kind of work but it takes forever. The worst case scenario for me is that I'll just keep doing similar work but I'll try to make more then 1 per year, I think I have an idea for doing this a little bit faster.

Maybe next year, I'll do something like this one below, I've already done the design except obviously for the carved details and all in Moi of course.



While writing this, I had kind of a flash and it all became very clear to me. I know exactly what I'll do from now on. In case you wonder, it will have nothing to do with carving, I'll stick with stuff I can do in Moi and that's all it's going to be.

Many thanks to you and other folks here,
Felix

Michael,

Well thanks for the detailed clarification!

This is something, I guess, happens so seamlessly that I never noticed it.
In fact, it was a planar line, and I was getting this bold, white colored guide line that was acting unwieldy. That's been a sign that the line was being extruded in a direction perpendicular to the current ortho view.

I definitely think that moving a non-planar curve according to it's "best-fit" normal direction is the way to do it. So very good then! :-)

And there is always the [Set Dir] button.

Felix..beatiful amoir

I am repeating myself ...
My top priority is dimensions and general text.
My work is mostly architectural and after the design work is done I would love to continue working in MoI through the working drawings.
cheers,
eric

I don't think Moi, even with dimensions is suitable for working drawings, particularly for buildings. Wouldn't it be better to do your design in MOI then export it to Revit for final detailing and drawing production?

Not just for architectural. It is suitable for all manufacture related designs. As well as exporting something into Revit for 6000$ to put dimensions ? No way :O ??? Not to mention that Revit is a useless product I hate, hate, hate. The company where I used to worked they modelled the Apple Centre some weeks ago by Revit. They couldnt rotate the model at all ! I love Moi ! Dimesions are important even If it is basic. So useful for every documentations when we provide plans to manufacturer. Particularly I mean product design. But. Hatches would be useful too.

Drawings need to be to DIN standard. This would be a lot of work to put in to MoI.

I find Rhino's drafting abilities quite adequate for smaller architectural projects and presently just switch to it when I am ready to go with 2d working drawings ... but I would rather stay in MoI if I could. A dxf export would also help as there are a number of inexpensive drafting programs available that will do very adequate 2d drafting. I used AutoCAD for twenty years but now it is too expensive for the relatively small projects I prefer and when I have to produce .dwg files many low priced clones are just fine.
But ... I would love to just work in MoI if it were possible. On the other hand ... if it is really too much to expect from MoI I will happily export as needed.
cheers,
eric

I second the request of basic drafting tools. There are three basic things i would like to see in MoI 3: dimensions and text, line type and thickness and hatches.

How about a 2 distance fillet as in the chamfer command
cheers
shayne

Hi shayne,

> How about a 2 distance fillet as in the chamfer command

How would you want the fillet to be formed? I don't think it is possible to put in a circular cross-section in between 2 different radius values.

See here for some previous discussion on this:
http://moi3d.com/forum/index.php?webtag=MOI&msg=3713.3
http://moi3d.com/forum/index.php?webtag=MOI&msg=3287.15
http://moi3d.com/forum/index.php?webtag=MOI&msg=2259.12

- Michael

What I mean is apply a fillet to an edge but have 2 measurement distances available
Then I guess you would need a way to control the bulge of the curce also




To cut the above variable distance fillet to a curved object gets very difficult

thanks
shayne

Hi shayne - it looks like in your example there you've got an ellipse for the rounded shape?

That works great for something that meets at a 90 degree angle like that particular case you are showing there, but I'm not sure how it would work in the more general case of surfaces that meet at other angles to each other.

See here for a description of that problem:
http://moi3d.com/forum/index.php?webtag=MOI&msg=2259.12

Also since it's kind of unusual as far as these things go, as far as I know the geometry library that I use to calculate the fillets does not support that style of fillet creation - another thing that's a lot more difficult than just the simple case you are showing there is when multiple fillets collide into each other and corner patch pieces need to be calculated to glue them together smoothly.

So I mean I guess it could be possible to make a special fillet that only worked when filleting just one edge of a box like you are showing there, because that special case happens to avoid these various issues, but then that would probably confuse a lot of people when they tried to use it in a whole bunch of other non-box situations and it didn't work properly on anything else other than a box...

- Michael