Wouldn't it be great if Michael could some how get MOI's toolset to be optimized for that kinda modeling?!!

It would certainly pull MOI out of conversations that always somehow seem to include Rhino and blast it way out in front (and would put it well ahead some poly modelers as well!)

I've always loved NURBS over polys but getting clean (low poly) export topologies is the only consistent thorn for me and what I'm trying to do.

Sans using MOI for game models, it can't be beat for quickly getting your concepts out and rendered looking quite lovely!

-Will

These are exactly the types of things that work a lot better in a SubD modeler.

MoI's toolset is just not currently oriented towards this kind of stuff.

I just generally expect that if you want to do this style of stuff you can currently do it using one of many currently existing subd modeling tools.

Because there are other tools out there that will do this already, it actually influenced me a lot to not really develop the toolset for this style of stuff especially early on in MoI's lifetime. Instead my strategy has been to develop a toolset (at least initially) that does the kinds of things that are really difficult to do in a subd modeling tool, like do a boolean cutting an object with a curve, stuff like that.

There are only 24 hours in the day, so it just isn't possible for me to develop all styles of toolsets, for all styles of modeling, all at a high level, all at the same time....

I think it may get there eventually, there is kind of a general trend towards having a unification between NURBS modeling and subd modeling. However they have a pretty different toolset between them, I'm still not sure how feasible it will be to combine both toolsets together in one place and still maintain a streamlined, easy to use tool overall, but it may be possible. I'll probably give it a try at some point later on, but for the more immediate future there is still a lot of stuff to be added to MoI's current industrial-oriented toolset.

- Michael

> I just generally expect that if you want to do this style of stuff you can currently do it using one of many currently existing subd modeling tools.

Well if it's about modeling a velociraptor, sure I will go for a sub-d package ... but if I want to create a bio-mechanical one, I would prefer to stay in MoI.

As I said in the other thread, it's sometimes hard to choose between nurbs of polys, where models require organic freedom but also industrial feeling/details.
I remember a thread about creating a female robot head, this is exaclty the kind of mix I will love to do :)

But I understand that for the moment it's far to be a priority.

Hi PaQ, in the other thread (over here: http://moi3d.com/forum/index.php?webtag=MOI&msg=1591.5) you wrote:
> I'm not talking here about artisan to create high density details
> and alll this stuff, but maybe just a way to build patch
> (network ?) and somehow nicely blend them together :o)

You can create the initial patches using Network in MoI, that initial creation is not really a problem.

But in the refinement stages you'll need some tools like Match, Rebuild, inserting points, merging surfaces, ...

The problem is that even with all this stuff it doesn't really pay off in an easy to use methodology to create a smooth final surface, even with those additional tools, it is very easy to have creasing happen between different patches. Sometimes it is not technically a crease, it can be technically smooth in an area but if the surface curavture is not very evenly distributed and is kind of bunched up right along the edge, that can create a kind of disturbing looking lump that is just about as bad as a crease anyway.

For instance if you follow that lizard head patch tutorial for Maya (http://www.highend3d.com/maya/tutorials/modeling/nurbs/158-2.html), you will see stuff like this stated in it:




There is quite a lot of fiddling around there.


This all just fits together so much easier with so much less hassle for this kind of a thing using a Subd approach instead of this.


MoI should get these additional tools in it to enable this kind of patch thing (probably several will be coming in v2), but that won't solve the problem that this method is a pretty big hassle overall.

Why not use a tool that is completely designed around that type of thing instead?

You're better off using the right tools for the job at hand. I mean if you have a screwdriver, you can still probably hammer in a nail with the bottom of it, but wouldn't you rather use a hammer for hammering nails instead of a screwdriver for hammering nails?

- Michael

Hi PaQ,

> Well if it's about modeling a velociraptor, sure I will go for a
> sub-d package ... but if I want to create a bio-mechanical one,
> I would prefer to stay in MoI.

Well, you don't have to stay all in one or all in the other. For some models you may want to combine together different elements created in different tools.


> As I said in the other thread, it's sometimes hard to choose
> between nurbs of polys, where models require organic freedom
> but also industrial feeling/details.
> I remember a thread about creating a female robot head, this is
> exaclty the kind of mix I will love to do :)

I guess industrial is not quite the exact measure...

More specifically it is if the model has forms in it which can be defined very well by profile curves. That is the area where MoI's toolset will tend to make much quicker and more accurate work of the model than subd.

A lot of industrial / mechanical type shapes do tend to fall into that category though.

A "female robot head" could have many different styles I suppose - some of which may be more like a human face (and be better for subd), and some of which may be more primitive elements booleaned together which would work better in MoI.

Or if you had a combination of both, then probably a combination of both tools together would be best.

- Michael

Hi PaQ, your ghost mechanical horse there looks like a good example of a combination of different styled elements.

Like I could imagine doing all the legs in MoI and the skull in a subd modeler.


I can understand that it would be cool to have just one environment that had every style of tool available in it so you wouldn't have to do any switching at all. Maybe look for that in MoI v4 or something... :)

- Michael

For exemple here are some models I made, they are not completely fit what I want to show, but it's just to give an idea ... and I have nothing better here :




Here's an helmet I did ... It's all sub-d. 90% of the model would be so easy to build in Moi (or any other nurbs software I suppose) ... but there is a detail (not very clear
in the image sorry), there is a face behind all this tubes, not very detailled, but still enough that I have no idea about how to build it in Moi.



Same here, all the body is mechanic and it was really time consuming in sub-d ... the skull was of course more funny, but really I would prefer to have
less details in the skull and be able to get a nice blending with the mechanic part for this model (I didn't have the energy to complete it).

http://img5.allocine.fr/acmedia/medias/nmedia/18/35/23/49/18376010.jpg

An other exemple (not mine haha), I-robot ... you see what I mean about mixing organic and mechanic ?

But as you describe, it seems to be quite hard to blend patches even with all the tools available, and it requires a lot of work that probably I don't really evaluate.

> Maybe look for that in MoI v4 or something... :)

Believe me, I will wait :o)

Hi PaQ,

> Here's an helmet I did ... It's all sub-d. 90% of the model would
> be so easy to build in Moi (or any other nurbs software I suppose) ...

Yup, definitely looks like all the main helmet pieces would work well in MoI.


> but there is a detail (not very clear in the image sorry), there is a
> face behind all this tubes, not very detailled, but still enough that
> I have no idea about how to build it in Moi.

But the solution is really straightforward - don't build that one particular piece inside of MoI.

Build the pieces that fit well in MoI inside of MoI and build the pieces that fit better in a subd modeler in a subd modeler...

There is no law against using more than one modeler to finish a project! :)

- Michael

It's okay Michael, I think we're all just marveling at how Jinn was able to model so wonderfully using NURBS.

Even though I've always considered you the Miracle Programmer because you program so quickly and with few if any bugs in your programs, I don't think we're expecting you to make make MOI into a crazy do everything modeler.

I was just voicing that it would be nice for MOI to have something that really separates it from Rhino but I guess being that you also created Rhino, trying to seperate the two may be impossible since they're both your work! :)

-Will

Wow!! Just logged on.
I started this thread 5 mins before I went to bed, logged on and it's full on in here.
Thanks guys, you've given me what I needed to know, great discussion.

Don't worry I come from an 'industrial' background in design and when I saw Jin's models I got excited. Now after my sleep, I've come back down to earth and realized that for me to achieve something like this I would need time, and a lot of it, I would have to leave the wife and sell the kids.

>>Even though I've always considered you the Miracle Programmer because you program so quickly and with few if any bugs in your programs, I don't think we're expecting you to make make MOI into a crazy do everything modeler.

I agree with WillBellJr I love the way MoI is now and any improvements will be icing on an already great product.

Cheers
Danny

Hi there,
My last model I created was first done here all in patch modeling and yes it is a lot of work to re-combine the objects when bringing it into another program, but it really keeps a very smooth looking curvature as detail which I notice lacks in a lot of other Sub-D programs. I think my way of modeling has changed for the better at this point with Moi as the first building blocks. I would request a few thing if possible in the next upgrade as a time saver if possible can you make the exporter give an option to either separate each of the patches or be able to say combine each patch this way you don't have to cut a 100 objects into 1 layer such as in Lightwave or Modo. Last exporter thing would be nice would be to make the exporter also only export 4 point polys, I am sure this is a much harder thing to program but it would save a lot of time when trying to recombine the objects back together. Thanks for such a wonderful program though, the Boolean operation is out of this world in how it works! :)

Hi Moe,

> I would request a few thing if possible in the next upgrade
> as a time saver if possible can you make the exporter give an
> option to either separate each of the patches or be able to
> say combine each patch this way you don't have to cut a 100
> objects into 1 layer such as in Lightwave or Modo.

I would like to add some more options to the exporter, but there is also a way you should be able to get this type of separation more quickly right now.

Start by exporting to the .obj format (instead of .lwo for this particular task), and make sure you have "Weld vertices along edges" turned off (expand the dialog by the little arrow to see this option).

Then after you export the .obj file, run the SeparateOBJ utility on it, which you can find here.

That will edit the OBJ file to mark each smoothing group section to be a different object, if you export with welding turned off each surface should form its own smoothing group so that will have the effect of breaking each surface into its own individual object and end up on its own layer inside of Modo.

If I understand what you want correctly, that should get the job done with just a couple of actions.


For combining instead of separating, you can use the MergeOBJ editor instead, which will combine everything in one obj file into just one single object.


> Last exporter thing would be nice would be to make the exporter
> also only export 4 point polys, I am sure this is a much harder
> thing to program but it would save a lot of time when trying
> to recombine the objects back together.

Yes, I have definitely heard from a lot of people who would like to have this. Unfortunately it is a quite difficult thing to program, it is going to be a while before I can attempt it.

- Michael

Thank you for the feedback Michael, I really like the timely answers. I will try the suggestions you gave and it should make my cleanup much easier thanks again.

Hi Will,

> It's okay Michael, I think we're all just marveling at how
> Jinn was able to model so wonderfully using NURBS.

It's definitely very impressive!

But you have to be careful of a pretty big trap - just seeing someone's impressive result may prove that it is technically possible to achieve something, but it doesn't prove that it is practical to achieve it.

By which I mean if it takes you 3 years of training your skills and then a week of full time work for each model, that is just not going to be very practical for many other people even though it will get great results.


> I don't think we're expecting you to make make MOI into a
> crazy do everything modeler.

:) But that is a pretty natural thing to want. I just have to kind of try and reign in expectations a bit because it's just not practical for that to happen all of a sudden, it will take a fair amount of time to get stuff like new toolsets for different modeling styles implemented.


> I was just voicing that it would be nice for MOI to have
> something that really separates it from Rhino but I guess
> being that you also created Rhino, trying to seperate the two
> may be impossible since they're both your work! :)

Well, not only that but they are both NURBS modelers so certainly that will make for some similarities.

But MoI's interface is different than Rhino's by quite a bit. Things like selection, the display, how you activate tools and set options, all that stuff is different. That's not like a small amount of stuff, those are things that come into play for most every thing that you do...

I guess all that interface stuff seems like a big difference to me.

- Michael

And what about this t-spline techno ?
http://www.tsplines.com/rhino/video.php

Is it as promising as it looks ? 3*times the price of MoI Oo (+ a rhino licence) ... The obj cage conversion to nurbs looks sweet
to quickly create advanced organic shape ... just wondering how far you can go after that (booleans, fillet, holes, etc ...)

Hi Michael,

>>I guess all that interface stuff seems like a big difference to me.

Be sure it is a big difference, I've been using 3d cad for the past 10 years, I've used at least 4 and tried another half a dozen and the learning curve is always where to find the commands and once found what are they capable of.
Finding MoI was god sent. Seriously, the first time I launched MoI it took a matter of minutes to find where everything was and start modeling without looking at a single document and I have never achieved that with any other 3d software.

I watched a tutorial on modeling a car on NPower's 'Power NURBS' and as soon as the dude RMB a menu poppet up that looked like a frigging phonebook listing it scared me :o

It matters to me too, keep going the direction you're going.

Cheers
Danny

Thanks Danny!

Hi PaQ,

> And what about this t-spline techno ?

It is definitely very promising, it is the kind of SubD/NURBS combination type approach which I think will start to be seen more often in the next 5 years or so.

I don't think that Rhino is really the best environment for creating brand new subd models, it just is not focused on that kind of toolset either. Probably something like Silo or Modo is more likely to be where you would create the models originally.

But Tsplines lets you do some very interesting conversions from SubD to NURBS. Once you have all NURBS surfaces, you can do regular NURBS operations like booleans, fillets, etc... and you could bring those NURBS models into MoI as well.

- Michael

With all this "options" stuff around!!??

Really, if you do all you can basically in MoI, then take the say .obj file version, to finness, into the, say, Carrara6Pro Vertex Room "Displacement Painting" option----or, maybe even better, doing similarly in the brilliant 3D Coat app---does one really need more?