Is Moi geometry better than Rhino? 1-4  5-24  25-26

 From: BurrMan 14 Oct 2009  (5 of 26)
 2991.5 In reply to 2991.4 One representation: each edge should be used by exactly two faces (not more, not less). Non: Non: Manifold: I'll look for other examples. It is a mathematical concept. EDITED: 19 Jun 2012 by BURRMAN

 From: Michael Gibson 14 Oct 2009  (6 of 26)
 2991.6 In reply to 2991.5 Hi Burr, normally the case where the edge is solitary and only on one face is not considered non-manifold (like in your second image). But yes the first example you have there is a good one, where having those 2 boxes combined together into one structure would require that one edge to be shared between 4 faces instead of only 2 faces. Internally the geometry library that MoI uses allows for such things and it tends to help to make booleans work better since things can be combined all together into one unified structure before it focuses on eliminating different parts of it. There is a kind of normalization process that MoI does to any non-manifold results after the calculations are done, to make sure they are split up into different manifold chunks. The equivalent for faces is having it possible to have one structure that has a face in common between 2 different solid regions, like this: - Michael Attachments:

 From: Michael Gibson 14 Oct 2009  (7 of 26)
 2991.7 In reply to 2991.3 Hi Anna, > This is definately something you have to elaborate on:)????? > would it be some kind of a new mix of nurbs and subd...box > modeling techniques??? Well, it is hard to elaborate on it when it does not exist yet! :) I just won't know a lot of particular details until I get a chunk of time to work on it in the future at some point. But I think ideally it would be great to have a sub-d method of creating a base surface, as just another option to construct surfaces. Like in addition to sweep, network, extrude, etc... it would be good to be able to have a "sub-d" cage surface that generated a NURBS surface. One of the difficulties though is that sub-d / box modeling has a fairly different kind of toolset than NURBS modeling, so it would mean introducing quite a number of brand new tools to work on the polygon cage. That means it will take quite a bit of work and that's why I don't know when it will happen. It still has yet to be determined if it is even possible to introduce all those additional specialized tools into MoI without making MoI become overly bloated. - Michael

 From: Kurt (KURTF) 14 Oct 2009  (8 of 26)
 2991.8 In reply to 2991.7 This technology was explored in another software called EIM, the ElectricImage Modeler. It was quite popular, though the company ended up canceling the software due to licensing problems with Spatial. They're currently planning to resurrect it. What's nice about subD's within a NURBS framework is that you can sculpt using your familiar Polygon subD cage techniques, but also make use of NURBS boolean and trim functions (depending on how it's implemented). Also the final polygon mesh can be exceptionally clean, with density set by the meshing function. Malcolm Thain was the acknowledged master of this 'sculpting' tool when using EIM. http://transputer.org/3dgallery/main.php?g2_itemId=964 If this can make it into MoI it will really set the software head and shoulders above the crowd.

 From: Micha 14 Oct 2009  (9 of 26)
 2991.9 In reply to 2991.8 Anna wrote: "I was watching a tutorial on youtube for Rhino, and the teacher there said something like this when he was making a surface "don't worry about the strange surface, it's Rhino it's always going to be bad". " Or he mean that bad look caused by the antique Rhino mesher. Here I'm sure - the MoI mesher is much more better and faster. :)

 From: Frenchy Pilou (PILOU) 15 Oct 2009  (10 of 26)
 @Bur and other thx for the Manifold precision

 From: neo 15 Oct 2009  (11 of 26)
 2991.11 In reply to 2991.8 Kurt that sounds very promising BUT that tech meant to be released years ago... no wonder why Dassault/Spatial gives them trouble...They want to sell Imagine and Shape after all :) I also like the Autocad 2010 approach, The Maya & Autocad Team have been working together to combine Sub & solid modeling operations... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy9ZIqVE-jQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rK58M_y43jY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hlLIkXxIxk EDITED: 22 Oct 2010 by NEO

 From: Anis 15 Oct 2009  (12 of 26)
 2991.12 In reply to 2991.11 Hi Neo... What is the result from the model in Autocad 2010, mesh or nurbs ?

 From: neo 15 Oct 2009  (13 of 26)
 2991.13 In reply to 2991.12 you can save as .sat then import to the app of your choice...autodesk makes a big time move on .sat...it works well with Rhino, spaceclaim... (not always with moi (?) still in search for the magic bullet :) EDITED: 15 Oct 2009 by NEO

 From: Kurt (KURTF) 15 Oct 2009  (14 of 26)
 2991.14 In reply to 2991.11 Nice. Looks like others have moved ahead and the technology is now fairly common. At least in AutoCAD land.

 From: neo 16 Oct 2009  (15 of 26)
 2991.15 In reply to 2991.14 yep Is very promising BUT is nothing new as I said the code comes from Maya and is been there for years. One of the reasons why the T-Splines connection to Maya was not a success IMO. here is an example from maya, modify>convert>subdiv to NURBS. EDITED: 22 Oct 2010 by NEO

 From: BurrMan 16 Oct 2009  (16 of 26)
 2991.16 In reply to 2991.15 >>>here is an example from maya, modify>convert>subdiv to NURBS.>>>> And hows the resulting NURBS model from that conversion??

 From: jbshorty 16 Oct 2009  (17 of 26)
 2991.17 In reply to 2991.16 Burr wrote : "And hows the resulting NURBS model from that conversion??" Now that's the real question, isn't it? Amapi also had a sub-Nurbs converter but the result was not on par with T-Splines...

 From: PaQ 17 Oct 2009  (18 of 26)
 Hi Michael, << One of the difficulties though is that sub-d / box modeling has a fairly different kind of toolset than NURBS modeling, so it would mean introducing quite a number of brand new tools to work on the polygon cage. That means it will take quite a bit of work and that's why I don't know when it will happen.>> Maybe a way to import the sds cage would be a great start :) there are allready so many poly modeler around. Now, if you come with a new poly modeler, with the same 'MoI Touch', it would be amazing !

 From: Anna Pheiffenberger (ANNA) 17 Oct 2009  (19 of 26)
 2991.19 In reply to 2991.18 "Maybe a way to import the sds cage would be a great start" WOW, would that be possible?

 From: Keris 18 Oct 2009  (20 of 26)
 2991.20 In reply to 2991.7 > One of the difficulties though is that sub-d / box modeling has a fairly > different kind of toolset than NURBS modeling, so it would mean introducing > quite a number of brand new tools to work on the polygon cage. That means > it will take quite a bit of work and that's why I don't know when it will happen. Well, you could just make it more generalized then. MoI already has the ability to push and pull points, curves, and surfaces, with and without the precise transform tools. Thus editing a sub-d cage would be very much like editing the hull cage of a surface now. If the purpose is to use this cage to generate NURBS surfaces, then the only real additional tools I could see as being needed would be a fast way to add edge loops and some loop and ring selection. And even these tools would be of use for NURBS work; adding a loop to a surface would just be a very fast trim and such. The workflow I envision would be two ways of entering into this sort of cage edit. One would be to create a box (that would be making a sphere). The next would be to do something akin to the Network tool, only you end up with a cage controlling the surface instead of the surface directly. From there you could pull the points and edges around, use the new tool to add loops, and box model your way around. Tools like Extrude or Chamfer would work off a face or an edge much the same as it does on NURBS surfaces. The tools that can't work on a surface or solid would likewise not work on a cage. And I don't really think it'd be safe or wise to let Booleans work on them (way too messy to make it work consistently). Once you like it, you could then drop the cage down to a surface and have a nice, smooth NURBS surface made from the more gooey and sculpture sub-d methodology. It wouldn't really be a full-fledged subdivision modeling solution, but that isn't a big deal I don't think. Ideally, one could also take a surface and push the same Cage Create button and get a lower-res cage around that surface (or even solid). One of the main issues I have with trying to push or pull surfaces generated in MoI from lofts, sweeps, or networks is that the control point density is often huge. Without a soft-selection or free-form deformation cage, modifying these surfaces naturally is a pain. There's also no way to deform things (like a bend or twist) without doing it the very tedious and unnatural way (moving point by point). If I could just toss on a cage, such things would be cake; add in a soft-selection falloff and I think I'd be in heaven.

 From: Michael Gibson 18 Oct 2009  (21 of 26)
 2991.21 In reply to 2991.20 Hi Keris, yup what you are talking about there definitely make a lot of sense! The only thing this is this part: > Well, you could just make it more generalized then. does not necessarily make things "less work" or less time to develop, it actually tends to take more design time work to try and make existing commands that work on NURBS to also be multi-targeted and apply to a polygon cage as well. And I also worry about it possibly being an unpredictable mixture, like if Chamfer worked on a polygon cage but Booleans did not that tends to make for a rather inconsistent overall flow to things, I'm not really sure if that would be the best way to handle things. Typically existing functions in MoI are very oriented towards precision and using the mouse to be able to do object snaps and stuff like that, but usually a sub-d modeling tool's functions like extrude are wired up to be less precise and more just give you some quick sculpting like feedback as you wave the mouse up or down instead of being a "snap to objects" kind of thing. So to make the same kind of sub-d modeling feel I'm not sure that you would get that by using the same existing extrude command. Anyway what you are talking about there are definitely some great ideas, but still are very much in the realm of requiring quite a lot of work, so that part that I mentioned about it taking a lot of effort and not knowing when it will be possible to happen still applies. - Michael