Hallo Pilou,

I know the history, and I like it´s behaviour because of it´s easyness very much.

RUdl

Hi Pilou,

just checked the Creo Elements Pro page and to my surprise the fully featured Home Vers. for non-commercial use is cheaper than MoI!

http://store.ptc.com/store?Action=DisplayProductDetailsPage&SiteID=ptc&Locale=de_DE&Env=BASE&productID=210631300

Regards
Stefan

I don't know if a Student version is different than a personal learning edition where you have some limitations!
Where you have just the "modeler" section and not the applications!
You can import Moi files inside as STL format ;)

Use is less fluent than Moi ;)

PS Moi has also a student version ;) http://www.studica.com/MOI3D/

Hi Pilou,

yes, but a student vers. is for students only and not for hobbyist, and the Creo Student vers. is even more cheaper than the home vers. which, as understood, are full vers...;-)

Anyways, thanks for the link!

Regards
Stefan

There's another program called Space Claim which apparently does similar after-development editing and accepts a miriad of file types. http://www.spaceclaim.com/en/default.aspx

I'd like to see these packages actually work on the sort of geometry we typically do before believing their claims. ;)

The simple truth is, when it comes to beautiful forms that can be built in MoI (or my workplace standard Solidworks) changes rarely involve the moving of a warts (this is the Industrial Designer Snob term for anything tacked onto the base form) but instead involve having to grow, shrink, stretch or otherwise readjust the initial beautiful form so that it fits the new requirements but remains both beautiful and tightly numerically controlled, and drafted etc etc. (Hence the reason that the tightly constrained Solidworks is not the best choice for the sort of free flowing surfaces MoI can handle with ease...)

I just have to look at MoI the way I do Artrage verses Illustrator. In the former you've got all the tools to accuracy too, but you just have to be willing to commit and live with it! (Fear of committment issues here.)

-Greg

And the other thing is that you must generally enable/disable many menus (pop up etc..) during the process ;)

Hello,

If he is looking for history in SpaceClaim he won't find it. I use MoI and SCE together, they make a pretty good duo.

Hello,

I would prefer a drag over selection, or maybe a lasso option before a circular one. My thinking is you would still have to be just as precise in your selection start point as with a box selection, it's not making things any faster.

I'm with you WSTexo.

A lasso, especially a multi-click (as apposed to click and drag) selection type would be terrific!

Hi Greg - SpaceClaim does have a lot of useful editing stuff in it - it's called a "direct modeler" or "history free" modeler which is a kind of different system than a history based one.

Basically instead of having a list of instructions on how the model was constructed like a history based modeler, it instead analyzes just the existing geometry and decides how to extend or rebuild pieces as needed when you pull faces around.

One thing that's really good about this system is that it works on any kind of imported file.

But it's also kind of more oriented towards editing more mechanical semi-blocky-ish type stuff - not so much for modifying swoopy flowing surfaces or things of that nature.

- Michael

I've been wondering about the symmetry thing. I've been wondering this whole time if I was missing something obvious.

top 5
symmetry, svg, collada, "lighting options/paintingbyuvmaps/indigo plugin", goz plugin (laughing... I know, I know, not a chance)

Southpaw,
If you use the Mirror option or flip a copy of an object with the handles, tweaking or moving the primary object will cause the mirrored effect to happen to the copy.

Symmetry as a d-sub modeler uses is really not feasible in MoI
unless 1) you were allowed to edit surface and curve points forever (there seems to be a point where an object doesn't let you see the points anymore), and also made larger concentration of points more manageable such as with a soft election or rubber band method.
..and 2) or MoI employs the use of Components or active clones where changing one changes all, including additions of objects within the component (even it those clones were "mirrored").

Mike,

I really don't understand all that well. I've run into about 4 types of modelers, nurbs, polygon, patch, and voxel, and I admit that as I write this, I don't know many of the limitations of each. MoI seems to be the only modeler built for a tablet and not "adjusted for use with a tablet" or "use tablet when sculpting & uv painting". MoI simply has a better user interface than most things out there.

Saying that, I still don't understand why in MoI can build a non-organic shape quicker than most places and yet can't seem to model a human to save my life. And when I pop into polygon modeling, I can have a human shape up quickly and keep carving it down to make it better and better. And I've yet to use patch, though I've never seen a human face made so fast in my life as with patch. And voxels seem to be the uber detailed organic type of modeling. I'm not sure why the tools work better for certain things, I'm really not. I'll keep reading the explanations, though I'm not sure when it will all just make sense to me.

Hi Mike,

> (there seems to be a point where an object doesn't let you
> see the points anymore)

You'll always be able to see them if you use Edit > Separate to break things into individual surfaces.

It's when you have 2 surfaces that are joined along a trim curve boundary that you won't be able to see the control points - that's to avoid you pulling some points of one surface and opening up a gap in what used to be a joined common edge.

See this FAQ entry for some more explanation:
http://moi3d.com/faq#Q:_Why_does_show_points_work_for_some_objects_but_not_others.3F

- Michael

Woo-yah! :-)
Thanks Michael! It's really nice to discover new things about MoI. That'll come in handy.

Southpaw...

I think Michael will have a more concise analogy of the differences in the technology.

But, from my knowledge, the differences between the types of modeling technologies are:

D-SUBS: Based on polygons, are "cages" defined by points that are subdivided until a smooth shape is produced.
You can add endless complexity to the cages at the expense of adding an exponential number of polygons.
Editing can be kept fast by working in "low subdivision" modes where all you care about are manipulating the cage control points.
D-SUBS allow for complex organic creation with ease of editing. But if you want smooth polygon surfaces, you'll have to up the subdivisions.

VOXELS: Based on arranging points that are filled in with "bubbles" or surface thickness. This is how Z-Brush works.
With these modelers you can create freakishly complex organic models - even down to goose bumps. Polygon meshes can be interpolated later for use in layout and rendering apps.
VOXELS allow you to create complex, life-like models, but not the type of models needed for manufacturing where tolerances are high.

NURBS: Which MoI is based on, uses spline based math to build liquid smooth curved surfaces from relatively few control points.
The trade off with NURBS surfaces is that you can create a nearly limitless number of polygons that conform to the desired surface with a high degree of accuracy, but you lose the ability to model high detail, convolutions and bumps as you can with D-SUBS.
So, MoI's simplicity and ease of use is based on that premise.
NURBS are geared towards manufacturing and product creation, where mechanical accuracy are required.

Hi southpaw,

> Saying that, I still don't understand why in MoI can build a
> non-organic shape quicker than most places and yet can't
> seem to model a human to save my life.

Well, humans are a much different kind of shape than a mechanical object.

Mechanical objects are full of cut out areas and things like exact circular holes.

If you look at a human body, you won't find anything similar to an exact circular hole on it anywhere - it's a more sculpted form that doesn't have any perfectly straight parts to it.

Because there are no perfectly straight parts on a human body form, that also means that it is not defined very well just by a profile curve - sure you can draw a profile curve like the side profile of a face with a nose etc... but that profile does not "drive" the shape of the face - for example the nose is a small feature and quickly goes away as soon as you move by a small angle away from the side profile.

That is again very different than a mechanical shape - a mechanical shape is very well defined by side profile curves.

MoI is generally focused on a method of drawing shapes where you create profile curves to generate surfaces and also to cut them - that method is a great match for mechanical shapes but not a great fit for a human body.

Something that works more like sculpting where you are manipulating a 3d point cage (like you'll find in a polygon modeler) tends to work better for human body shapes, but then does not fit mechanical shapes very well.


> I'm not sure why the tools work better for certain things, I'm really not.

Well, I'd say basically - if the object that you're working on is well defined by some profile curves (meaning a relatively small number of profile curves can generate the shape, some by creating extrusions or revolutions or things like that and others by cutting away material), then that's the kind of shape that will work really well with MoI.

If the object does not have any distinct driving profile curves to it (note just taking some random snapshot from one particular angle does not necessarily make for a profile that actually "drives" the shape) then you'll be more in sculpting and poly modeling (or voxel) territory.


Hope this helps!

- Michael

""""""""The trade off with NURBS surfaces is that you can create a nearly limitless number of polygons that conform to the desired surface with a high degree of accuracy""""""""""

NURBS are not polygons (Only on screen).. A NURBS surface is a mathematically difined surface, not polygons created from that.. A "MESH" is usually reserved for polygones... Usually, you wouldnt term anything in NURBS a mesh. But you can "mesh" your NURBS model, which would be converting it to some number of polygons, that try to conform to the pure NURBS surface.

Mike,

The new ZBrush 4 lets you send your ZBrush model to be physically created to your requirements(you have to pay for it) and then your physically manufactured model ships to the address you specify. That's definitely voxel manufacturing. (At least, I think it is. Maybe it's converted?)

I do appreciate you taking the time to write about d-subs, voxels, and nurbs. I have found it easier to create organic with polygons before, though I am most curious if patch creation to polygon conversion will produce better end results in less time. Nurbs do seem to rock with man made things.

Michael,

Thank you for taking the time to explain all that. Makes sense, maybe it's the same reason why a single person is so much harder to draw than detailed architecture. I definitely see MoI as awesome for man made objects. I want to create people also, so I think I'll be trying patch soon. (And nurbs from moi are converted to polygons on export, right? So, I could bring nurbs and patches to the same environment for lighting and such because they'd all be polygons at that point, right?)

This leads me to another question. What are the limitations on the student version?

(apologizes for the rabbit trail - I do support a collada format in ver3... just to keep it on track.. lol)

Hi southpaw - re: voxel manufacturing - that's certainly true that a voxel model can be produced as a physical object. But there's a lot more to the whole field of manufacturing than that - for example one big thing about part accuracy is making sure particular areas of the part are accurate enough so that they can be connected together with other parts. For things like that you can't just have something that looks generally circular for example - the geometry has to be accurate to a tight tolerance so you know pieces will fit together. In general both voxel and polygon sub-d modeling is more about smooshing stuff around so they have the kind of look you want, not about achieving a precise circular hole for mating parts and things like that.

So just in general polygon and voxel modeling are not widely used in manufacturing industries because of that, there are exceptions of course depending on what kind of thing is being manufactured.


> That's definitely voxel manufacturing. (At least, I think it is.
> Maybe it's converted?)

Actually it will typically get converted to a polygon mesh if it's being generated on a rapid prototyping machine - usually STL format is used for that which contains triangles in it.


> (And nurbs from moi are converted to polygons on export, right?

Yes, if you export to a polygon mesh format like OBJ, LWO, STL, FBX, or SKP.

There are other CAD export formats which contain the NURBS data, those are: 3DM, STEP, SAT, and IGES - these formats allow transfer of the NURBS data to other CAD programs.


> So, I could bring nurbs and patches to the same
> environment for lighting and such because they'd all be
> polygons at that point, right?)

Yup, sure you can combine together the outputs of various kinds of modeling programs within the same rendering program usually - most of the time for rendering output programs will output polygon mesh data.


> This leads me to another question. What are the limitations on
> the student version?

There are no limits in the software - it's the exact same software as the regular version. The only difference of any kind is that a student license is non-transferable.


- Michael

Michael,

Thank you. You answered a lot of questions. I was sure I could use MoI, it just was starting to look like I need to use other things too.

Voxel manufacturing... that makes sense. Less than millimeter accuracy probably isn't a sculpting priority. I don't suppose perfect geometry is either. conversion to STL... cool, thank you.

Student license... thank you so much on that... it's as nice as rhino's student license. You programmed Rhino too, I thought.

So now I have a question. What is houdini doing(or how?) when I take a sphere, sub-divide it 3 or 4 or 5 times and then just carve right into it. I mean really, it's like a piece of wood or something. Is this sculpting? I really haven't seen any other non-voxel program do anything like this kind of thing without any slow down like houdini does... so it seems rather magical to me. Is houdini converting it to something else to play with it, or what?