Here frenchy....

http://moi3d.com/forum/index.php?webtag=MOI&msg=1978.65

thx I had refound in the interval :)

Hi Michael, you raise some interesting points here...

**Probably just that some people are more resistant to change or to trying things outside their current zone of experience... And that can be understandable, I mean it is a pretty different style of modeling that does need new skills to be developed**

But strange how 3D packages try to mimic the process with spline cages - But yes the fear of loosing business because you don't use specific tools is a real downer, as a lowly garden designer, first starting out I was frequently told I needed to use AutoCAD to remain within the industry standard. This is not the standard for my business just the standard used by architects. Back in those days DXF was the norm and DWG was struggling to get a foothold, showing exactly what you were saying .... An industry that is slow to adapt, they would rather stick with what they know works, and don't like to gamble on new technologies or methodologies until they are truly tested and main-stream, and even then, if it's going to cost to retrain staff the whole balancing of the spreadsheet and having a smiling accountant comes into play.

**Also NURBS kind of has a "bad reputation" in CGI circles just in general because of several reasons - a long time ago it used to be the standard method for doing any kind of smooth surfaces at all, including faces and characters but sub-d modeling has replaced it for those kinds of tasks, and when that happened a lot of people in that particular industry seemed to take that to mean that "NURBS are obsolete" when in other industries like stuff involving manufacturing they were never obsolete. Also the NURBS toolsets in many of the long existing animation packages like 3DS Max, Softimage, etc... are very old and don't really give a very good example the strong points of NURBS, so that helps to perpetuate that obsolete idea. **

What a beautiful paragraph that is. I am not sure about this, but I have been involved with CAD packages for nearly 20 years, and about 10 of which with NURBS, and as far as I am aware of, Spiderman is still the only character that was NURBS modelled in Rhino. The sad thing is, there are very few real "Sub-Divisional surface modellers" out there. The vast majority of the Sub-D work being actually left by tools like Modo and 3DSMax etc. One of the problems here is that when NURBS are translated to polygons, most people, myself included at times, will try and keep the resultant file small, this in return means a poly model that is not well defined and needs the assistance of Sub-D to look good. That's where the next problem arises, some parts will need more division than others, and then it makes for extra work by the rendering team. MoI mesh export is good and is very close to a "natural" hand crafted mesh, but those early exports by packages of old had done the damage and created tight edges and loops which were a nightmare to work through. N-Gons have helped a lot in these cases, but again, they are not well supported by many rendering packages. Those same rendering packages that have such primitive NURBS support and tool-sets that they are laughable. In reality NURBS is still progressing - MoI for example still has many features in the pipeline for being implemented, those polygon modelling packages don't seem to be introducing anything really new to the modelling aspect, more changes are in the render engines used and UI changes as they try to struggle more and more features into their packages to remain at the top of their tree, but the little part that does the modelling remains pretty much the same, so I guess it's the polygon modelling packages that are in reality antiquated.

** It can be amazing for me to see the amount of struggling people will go through trying to model something with circular holes in it using sub-d modeling... I think I remember one thread over on the Modo forum where you told someone that the thing they were struggling with would only take 20 seconds to do in MoI and they didn't seem to totally believe you and asked you to post a video and I think it was literally 20 seconds in your video, not "time lapse" or sped up like those zbrush demo videos always are... **

And this paragraph says why I use NURBS, as much fun as it is to rotate arcs and bezier curves and to play with end snaps etc, those free flowing curves that NURBS modelling offers is just not do able in poly line and polygon modelling packages, MoI gives the best of both worlds, speedy 2D for my design work, with 3D tools for my hobby side of things. But the transfer from 2D drafting to 3D still seems alien to me, now if MoI can fix that, I will truly have it all.

Sorry to ramble so much, but i had a sudden rush of emotions that needed to be expressed, Michael, thank you so much for producing a wonderfully efficient package with a price that's realistic too!!

Martin Spencer-Ford

Hi Martin, yeah in some ways that does seem to be the case that there's not a whole lot of new things (like fresh new approaches, new kinds of UI or things like that) generally happening in the area of sub-d modeling, for organic modeling it seems that brush-based sculpting methods (like ZBrush, 3D-Coat, etc...) has a lot more new stuff happening around it.

At a certain level of detail the sheer amount of points to manage with sub-d modeling seems like it gets to be kind of overwhelming and requires more and more topology experience to deal with well.

It seems like more and more often sub-d gets created at a later stage through retopology instead.

But again it depends on the particular task at hand... If the level of fine detail is not really high then there isn't as much of a problem.

- Michael

Martin,
"""""""""But the transfer from 2D drafting to 3D still seems alien to me, now if MoI can fix that, I will truly have it all.""""""""""""""

I dont want to be insulting or overly simplistic with something you may already know, but had this input for this.

In poly modeling apps, the design is looked at more from a whole, and the model constructed as itself. For the NURBS construction, you'll want to visualize the piece in it's "underlying shapes" and stick those together. So, intersecting 2 sphere's and booling them together with a fillet at the join will produce a blobby metaball (The polymodeler would have made one object and manipulated it's center)

Envisioning those pieces "before" you model the part is the key to starting.

Hi BurrMan, not insulted at all. I can see how many objects are created, and I am learning more by following tutorials for other software like Inventor, but there are some areas that still cause me problems, but I will get eventually. It's very awkward for me to explain, I can visualise things in my head as 3D, terraced gardens, ponds and the like, but transferring them to CAD is just alien to me, I think some peoples brains are just more efficient at creating things 3 dimensionally than others, or at least that's the excuse I use :P

Martin

> I think some peoples brains are just more efficient at creating things 3 dimensionally than others, or at least that's the excuse I use :P

Martin! :-/


What most people that struggle with 3D have is a lack of the ability to visualize 3D in their heads.
Since you say you can, you have the upper hand.


I said the same thing for nearly two decades, but programs like SketchUp and MoI made the process easier enough for me to discover that I could.


For you, and naturally - the lot of us, your path to success will be ultimately be paved with the stones of 'procedure' and 'persistence'.


The personal motivating factor behind the tutorials I make is the discovery of the steps and procedures required to make an object I see in my head come to life, but don't necessarily know how to make. And you guys don't often see the many iterations and failed attempts it takes me before I'm able to figure out the in between parts to build the tutorial.

You may have noticed that you haven't seen me produce any videos... there's no way I'd be able to produce a model without spending way more time editing and back-tracking. I actually have bad hand-eye coordination!

Give yourself enough time to repeat practice solutions over and over again (in any application you work in), until you can't help but to consider that particular solution when it arises in a model's creation process.

You notice how I use those crazy blends for everything? Yup, one of the solutions I got practiced at.


I was the "art director" a couple of years for the first company I did graphics for... through attrition of course. Believe it or not, each of the six artists that followed my lead was way better at something than the next guy, and stunk at something else.
I had two veteran sign painters with around 15 years of experience each - but they would not and could not use a computer! (this was the early '90's).
However, one guy in particular, was trained at an exclusive studio in Manhattan where the instructor would strike their hands with a wooden ruler if their technique wasn't up to par! And continued to abuse them until they got it right! They needed the credentials, by the way... the sign guy had an extreme wealth of 'old-school' knowledge in composition and layout, and he made sure to drill me on a different aspect each day!

I didn't know PhotoShop when I started there, but after all the procedural practice, by the time I left, you bet, I could do anything from hand-scribe serif fonts with a SpeedBall to show you the intended infusion of early century Russian Constructivism in modern-day soap packaging! ;-o


I have one suggestion of advice for you... please excuse me if this is 'old hat' to you:
Thumbnails!
Yes. No matter how advance the computers get you rely on. There's some kind of strange visceral connection between the eye and the hand.
You may notice how some of the most renown industrial designers of the world still make tons of sketches. Why? Computer apps do it all now! They let you sketch stuff right on the screen now and there's the one app that turns you sketches into curves!

Whenever one of my artists had a problem getting a concept to the screen, I reminded them to work it out with thumbnail sketches - the one guy I talked about taught me first. ;-)

Burr got it right > Envisioning those pieces "before" you model the part is the key to starting.


Carry a sketch pad around, and work those crazy geometric conundrums out first, then break it down to those practiced steps you're familiar with.

If there's one thing that keeps eluding you - sketch it to death! Demand that that problem will be solved, and take note when you figure it.


Again, you'll have to excuse me for my lecture. It's the teacher in me. ;-)



I got faith in you, Martin! Stay positive. Just follow the tuts and you'll do fine!

<< I can visualise things in my head as 3D, terraced gardens, ponds and the like, but transferring them to CAD is just alien to me

You are not obliged!
Just draw or paint them on paper with pencils or brushes!

By Calatrava (a cool guy ! )
http://darani-blog.blogspot.fr/2011/09/santiago-calatrava.html
first drawings

in reality


Preparatory sketch for Wave, 2001. Watercolor and graphite on paper.

Look at that... the finals look very close to the 'thumbnail' sketches! ;-)

I used to love sketching too, still do do sketches when conceptualising garden designs. I wonder if I have bad hand eye co-ordination, i know I cant use an X-Box controller for toffee. I have slight brain damage too from meningitis as a kid, and I have a touch like a baby elephant, so i am great at whacking things but useless with fineness, but at nearly 50 years old I have come to terms with those things, and you're both right I should sketch things first on personal projects but I tend to just jump straight in, some days it works too!!

The wave is cool, and the process of hitting undo is probably my most practised manoeuvre in MoI too, and there have been numerous projects that have hit the recycle bin never to be seen again. I think my lack of an engineering background is a mental block too, and i find myself having to translate things into "how would i implement this" if it was a garden design requirement. I will stick with it, but i get even more less time to play now. Sad, but it's just a hobby at the end of the day.

Michael - sorry for the thread dragging away from your OP, feel free to move these last few posts of our ramblings to another thread, say ... the benefits of MoI, or mastering the art of 3D, that is of course if Mike and P don't mind ?

All the best guys, and many thanks for the guiders and suggestions - It's appreciated

Martin Spencer-Ford

don't be sad Martin...you did LAMBORGHINI REVENTON in Moi..a good modeling job!
that's an easy model to replicate in 3d:sharp edges and corners,flat surfaces,lot of patches etc..
i remember your post,you choose that model just for easy workflow,and you did good..stay up !



My opinion about Reventon(the real one)...it look like a sardine's can squeezed...it's not a dream car at all(for me)
I think at some of best pieces of Italian design in the past 50 years:

Ferrari 250 GTO



Riva Aquarama



Vespa scooter



Alfa GT junior 1300



all those "pieces of art" were built without Catia or Pro-engineer !

i mean:you can be a master of 3D-modeling,know the software better than yourself
but if you draw a piece of s--t..OK..it's perfect,it's real..but will remain a piece of s--t..ever !

M

Lol M - now aint that the truth !!

Martin Spencer-Ford

Seems CAD did't exist at this date! ;)



and also before Mr Bezier!

..one of my favourites:Alpine Renault A110






...CAD what..??? i think that time Dassault did just Mirage jet....

>It can be amazing for me to see the amount of struggling people will go through trying to model something with circular holes in it using sub-d modeling... I think I remember one thread over on > the Modo forum where you told someone that the thing they were struggling with would only take 20 seconds to do in MoI and they didn't seem to totally believe you and asked you to post a > video and I think it was literally 20 seconds in your video, not "time lapse" or sped up like those zbrush demo videos always are...

Hi Michael,

Yes I remember this thread :

http://forums.luxology.com/topic.aspx?f=32&t=67986

I think every week there are 1 or 2 topics about 'how to model this kind shape', and I have to refrain myself to not say : use MoI :)
But sometimes it's so obvious that I cant resistt.

>I think every week there are 1 or 2 topics about 'how to model this kind shape', and I have to refrain myself to not say : use MoI :)
>But sometimes it's so obvious that I cant resistt.

1+

Yes, it's unbelievable how lot's of modo users often struggle with shapes in subd and how long it takes them to solve those issues with modo, in the forums, instead of adding a copy of MoI to their existing toolset ... :)

Regards
Stefan

>I hope that hard surface modeler guy in the game industy will one day understand the power of your wonderfull software.
>I hardly try to understand why they dont make the jump, but it seems that something scares them, I cant explain.

>In the other hand they are amazed by zbrush hard surfacing tools ... go figure :(

Right on, Pak. I work in the game industry too and I've had limited success in getting my peers to jump to MoI, despite repeated demonstrations of just how powerful and easy it is to use. I have a friend who did pick it up, but he's an FX artist and uses it for personal work. I'm somewhat mystified by why people want to do hard surface work in zbrush, as well. I find the randomness and lack of actual repeatable precision to make it unsuitable for most of my needs, but I've seen some pretty cool stuff made with it . I guess whatever works...

I think Michael has hit the nail on the head -- people don't like to change. From a corporate perspective, I've also found that if a company has invested X amount of dollars into one particular application, then that is what everyone is using. Even if most people hate using that package for a variety of reasons -and even if you can show managers how it will speed things up, increase quality, etc. - sunk costs and a host of other psychological factors usually equate to the status quo being maintained. I understand the hesitancy to introduce too many variables into a pipeline, especially if the team is large, but it is frustrating. I've been lucky enough to be on teams where they've tolerated me using outside software, but only after I've had to campaign for it like a politician.

Hi Michael,

I just listened to your interview and have to tell you I really enjoyed it. Your Q&A handling is really top drawer.

My only thought was that since I got a Nexus 7 tablet a MoI android version would be pretty cool, I would probably have a hard time putting it down lol...

BTW now I know how to say the name, yup I was saying wrong all this time!

David W.

Thanks David! Unfortunately an Android version would be an enormous undertaking - Android is a really different operating system from either Windows or OSX, even down to CPU that is used at the heart of it, and also Android apps are usually built using a completely different programming language than what MoI currently uses.

So since it would take some huge multi year spanning effort to do that, it's not likely to happen anytime soon.

- Michael

I understand Michael, have a great holiday!
David