Is Moi geometry better than Rhino?  1-5  6-25  26

Previous
Next
 From:  Michael Gibson
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:

  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Michael Gibson
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
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Kurt (KURTF)
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.
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Micha
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. :)
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Frenchy Pilou (PILOU)
2991.10 
@Bur and other thx for the Manifold precision

<Malcolm Thain was the acknowledged master of this 'sculpting' tool when using EIM.
indeed!
---
Pilou
Is beautiful that please without concept!
My Gallery
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  neo
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

  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Anis
2991.12 In reply to 2991.11 
Hi Neo...

What is the result from the model in Autocad 2010, mesh or nurbs ?
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  neo
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

  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Kurt (KURTF)
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.
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  neo
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

  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  BurrMan
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??
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  jbshorty
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...
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  PaQ
2991.18 
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 !
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Anna Pheiffenberger (ANNA)
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?
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Keris
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.
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Michael Gibson
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
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  PaQ
2991.22 In reply to 2991.20 
Hi Keris,

<<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.>>

I really don't think moi tools allow any freeform point pushing for the moment. Using the precise transform tool is way to slow, and the selection/drag system is not accurate enough for this kind of job îmho.

I do like the idea to have a unique toolset between poly and nurbs too, but that would be a hell job I guess.
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  WillBellJr
2991.23 
I just like the idea of a Michael Gibson brand or spin on an SDS modeler.

It doesn't have to be within MoI, it can be a seperate program all together.

Hopefully using the same GUI setup (IExplorer / HTML/Javascript) etc.


Now that Silo has fell off, I'd love to see something step up to the plate and fill the void, Michael has proven being able to develop similar GUI elegance in MoI, I'd certainly be interested to see his spin on SDS modeling.

That's a lot to ask of one person however, 2 totally seperate products, both demanding attention and updates by their devoted user base - so I guess that toolset would have to be within MoI if there is to be any chance of fruition...


With the tools I have, the NURBS and SDS toolsets are always compartmentalized; you can create objects using NURBS methods OR SDS, rarely can you create a NURBS object from an SDS input.

You choose the methodology based on the type of model you're creating, mechanical or character for example. I don't see a problem with the separation.

However being able to create NURBS from SDS would be interesting, something I imagine the TSpline users already enjoy I certainly wouldn't turn down the ability of being able to do that.


Anyway, again, I'd love to see Michael's spin on SDS...

-Will
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Keris
2991.24 In reply to 2991.21 
> 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.

Oh, most definitely it will take a lot of work! I didn't mean to sound like it wouldn't. My comment about "make it more generalized" was intended to be about weighing down the interface and workflow with specialized tools. All this would require a boatload of new under the hood work to make happen. Most, if not all, the commands would have different actions to get the same interface results as the NURBS tools. But I was seeing more of the interface being much the same (just maybe some more options for the cage tools if needed) so that the much of the same workflow can happen and you don't end up with that compartmentalized feeling a lot of other programs have; it's rather annoying to find that you can do this or that command on one type of object but not another. The ones that raise my ire are usually a generalized concept like an lattice deformation.

> 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.

Well, you can already just click and drag the extrude tool. ^_^ And having the precision is also a good thing when doing hard surface models (that you want to have as sub-d meshes for import into something like ZBrush). Personally, I think the tools are a good 90% there for adapting, interface and workflow-wise, to a typical poly/sub-d modeler. The only times I feel like I want a more gooey feel is on fillet/chamfer (something like being able to click and slide the mouse while the fillet updates in real time).

Plus holding Alt turns off snapping temporarily; although that turns off ALL snapping, including things like the auto-construction lines with tend to be the only way to get things to extrude in the 3D view without flying off to be on the ground grid. I think a good way to avoid that would be some sort of fast way to temporarily pin the construction plane. Like little squares running in the XYZ directions off the selection. Click the square and the CPlane would snap to that until you start another tool or select another square to change things.

As for the lack of Booleans, I only say that because Booleans are kind of the bane of poly modeling; if you don't have overly dense meshes (that are rather impossible to deal with), you end up with a lot of odd N-Gon shapes that just get more and more painful to deal with and clean up (and which subdivide like utter garbage). Now, if you had it so that the Boolean would intelligently snap the mesh cage vertexes to avoid adding any extra vertexes, I'd say you'd have something worthwhile. Something where you could control a slider to see which shape has the more bias to it's original vertex position. Of course, if you don't prepare the two meshes well, then such a system would likely be useless (one has more edge density than the other, etc). In that case, the only option is to toss out edge loops or add in new ones, both of which will change a sub-d surface. I guess the only best way is a compromise. (Booleans are sooooo much nicer in NURBS.)
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Keris
2991.25 In reply to 2991.22 
> I really don't think moi tools allow any freeform point pushing for the
> moment. Using the precise transform tool is way to slow, and the
> selection/drag system is not accurate enough for this kind of job îmho.

Oh, it's there. If you separate a solid into it's surfaces, clicking the Show Points button will happily show the points. Which you can click and move just like points on a curve. It's just that doing so is tedious beyond belief due to the density of the isoparams. And I agree with you about the selection issue; MoI really needs a nice lasso select tool. ^_^
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged
 

Reply to All Reply to All

 

 
Show messages:  1-5  6-25  26