If you are very customed to maya, or max, it's hard to change. With the first version of modo i was 5 horrible days (pressing space constantly is annoying), and i still need to use max for too many things that can't be done with modo. Anyways it is my main 3d app .
I would like to see wires of a final model. i was very hyped with Qremesher and at the end, it wasn't something great... It would be very nice to have nice and clean quad meshes.
i really don't understand what the problem everyone has with topology is?
i always thought the golden rule with highpoly stuff is "whatever looks good, do it". so this tool speeds up your workflow a LOT, the topology might not be perfect, but we've already seen that regardless of the topology it still looks good/renders fine.
you have to retopo for the final lowpoly anyway, so either zremesher or do it by hand... either way it has to be done. your final lowpoly isn't going to be subdivided anyway so just chill?
i dunno... maybe there's something to all this that i'm not seeing? i just don't understand why everyone is so hung up on that issue. most people have used dynamesh, right? that uses the shittiest of topology and is still considered a great tool.
all I know is, is that I would love to see something like this in Maya :P
I had a look at Modo 501 and it gave my head a good spin..
I guess I´m getting old and stuck in my ways hehe.
Once upon a time, trying ever package under the sun was no issue and in a few days I found them pretty fluid.. From Imagine, Real 3D and Lightwave 1.0 on the Amiga and then to 3D Studio, to Max, to oldschool Softimage to Maya 1.0 and up.
Even going into Max today makes me cringe at some of the tools layouts and methodology used in there in comparison to Maya, since that it what I am most used to today.
Also had a quick look on Digital tutors, and there seems to be a distinct lack of Modo specific material on there.
The latest "how to modo" type of vid is for 401 :P
i really don't understand what the problem everyone has with topology is?
i always thought the golden rule with highpoly stuff is "whatever looks good, do it". so this tool speeds up your workflow a LOT, the topology might not be perfect, but we've already seen that regardless of the topology it still looks good/renders fine.
you have to retopo for the final lowpoly anyway, so either zremesher or do it by hand... either way it has to be done. your final lowpoly isn't going to be subdivided anyway so just chill?
i dunno... maybe there's something to all this that i'm not seeing? i just don't understand why everyone is so hung up on that issue. most people have used dynamesh, right? that uses the shittiest of topology and is still considered a great tool.
You forget this: not all people do low poly models with normal maps.
For example, with characters, a good topology is needed for a proper deformation and for a proper uv mapping. 3D is not only game art . For rendering, we can't have in viewports each model part with millions of polygons. It's impossible to work well with meshes with a huge amount of polygons. For a good reason we have the subdivision modelling.
And if you don't care about topologies, as i said, there are better tools like solidworks and Catia, used also for 3d printing.
If you're an active Modo user, you can get into the Direct Connect forum there and Darrel has been posting about that issue in a few threads. Basically, he says it's going to be like Groboto but a few steps evolved. So I think it'll be alright...
Well, this is a boolean tool. Are you saying you'd rather use good ol' standard booleans to do organic modeling? How is that better? This is for quickly making complex shapes, there's nothing stopping you from retopologizing a high res mesh for animation and UV'ing. Also, this plugins work with SubD's, that's one of its main points. Personally I'm not that interested in this plugin, but I guess I don't see your point, would it be better to not have new technology?
You forget this: not all people do low poly models with normal maps.
For example, with characters, a good topology is needed for a proper deformation and for a proper uv mapping. 3D is not only game art . For rendering, we can't have in viewports each model part with millions of polygons. It's impossible to work well with meshes with a huge amount of polygons. For a good reason we have the subdivision modelling.
And if you don't care about topologies, as i said, there are better tools like solidworks and Catia, used also for 3d printing.
Well, this is a boolean tool. Are you saying you'd rather use good ol' standard booleans to do organic modeling? How is that better? This is for quickly making complex shapes, there's nothing stopping you from retopologizing a high res mesh for animation and UV'ing. Also, this plugins work with SubD's, that's one of its main points. Personally I'm not that interested in this plugin, but I guess I don't see your point, would it be better to not have new technology?
i am saying what? what i said was said very clear. I don't understand your answers nor why you make those assumptions :S
If this plugin really works with subdivs, then, as i already said, i want to see wires with a good result, and not what groboto offers (that is useless for me, btw).
I get your concern but at the same time, recognize that you're sort of in a minority as a user who wants to use a dynamic boolean system to generate low poly meshes. The most common use of this will be to create high poly meshes for normal map baking and for that - as long as it smooths correctly, it's golden!
and you're saying you couldn't make that with this tool? why would the topology of THAT mesh matter?
Are you serious? i don't say anything, i just posted an example for WarrenM. Since the beginning i'm asking for wires and wondering if i can achieve a clean and a good result.
BTW, it would be nice if this plugin can achieve a better topology/wireframe with the example i put.
Any clean mesh with a good topology and a good density of polygons matter a lot. I don't want to derail the thread, so the best you can do to understand me is to forget that thing of "game-art" and see more production models. 3D modelling is not only low poly models with normals map dude.
And i repeat myself again, for normal maps it may be ok... but not for our other needs.
to me, production simply has the meaning of "something used in production". high poly with normalmaps in mind fits that description.
i could absolutely understand why it wouldn't be okay for say... an organic character, where topology is paramount for animation requirements. but for hard surface stuff, not so much? it doesn't need to deform as strictly, particularly the things that this tool would be most useful for.
Can somebody explain what the difference is between groBoto V3 and the SubDFusion plugin (is it a plugin?) ? has anybody used groboto standalone? care to share some work?
this stuff looks amazing and what i've been dreaming of for years. If it really works that well i hope i can finally abandon Autodesk products.
From what I can tell, this is what we always wanted Groboto be.
This is brilliant, IMO. They can use the beautiful app that Luxology have built and focus purely on the tech implementation of their boolean and meshing algorithms.
I think so. They've said it's a plugin, so probably $100-$200 I would guess. Whatever it is, I'm in. This looks like it will become immediately indispensable for me.
they explain during their interview that they use Modo, and it would be handy if the studio would secure a license for them, or, would the studio mind if they used their own license at work?
as long as you can get a model from modo into whatever package they're using for their final files, there shouldn't be a problem right?
I mean, for the guys who can model like that without booleans, it's an amazing time saver, but I can't help thinking that this also provides a crutch for people who will end up relying on it without having a clue how to recreate similar results using conventional modeling.
I disagree. If you don't know how to it properly, you won't magically get better because of a good tool.
Knowing what proportions look right, what sort of deformations to look for and avoid, how to treat edge bevels, etc... all of that isn't solved by just using a better tool.
It's just like Substance Designer; if you don't know how to texture well, it won't suddenly help you make better textures.
What happens when a Modo user builds all manner of wonderful hard-surface models using these new Boolean tools, uses them in a portfolio to land a job, and is then tasked with doing all that awesome shit at a studio who don't use Modo at all?
Add moar geo.
But seriously, that's like asking "so what happens when you task someone who sculpts their characters to do the same thing but with SDS modelling?".
I understand the point of TeeJay, and i'm agree with him. In the past years i have seen people that actually can't be called "3d modellers", because they don't know the basics, nor anything. They are just good at sculpting a shitty base mesh (and in most cases, from other people), nothing more. You ask them to build a production model using subdivision modelling, and they are unable to do a decent retopo, it's incredible. You ask for UV sheets, and err... better not talk.
These kind of tools make the work faster, no doubt, but at the end, if right now it's very difficult to find a "professional" with a rich know-how, someone good for all the resposabilities of the job (and someone who adds value to the team), imagine later.
Young people avoid to learn the basic things, they are just going for the easy way, and later, they act with arrogance saying "i don't need this", "this does not matter". I have known some guys calling themselves "character artists" because the did some images with poser... and in these days of 3d scanning, you see some guys doing the same, when they are just retopo-operators.
Substance designer won't do all the job, ok, but makes all easier. With DDO you tweak almost in realtime, and that opens the gate for speed. Anyone can learn how to texture extremely fast. You learn in seconds which are the best grays for specular, which are the best color palettes, etc. I could not compare those "baking" tools with this plugin.
Back to the thread, in these last videos there are some minor geometry artifacts in some frames.
Back to the thread, in these last videos there are some minor geometry artifacts in some frames.
Yeah, it's not 100% perfect. However, fixing the artifact is a matter of nudging the boolean operator over a unit or two rather than re-modeling that entire section. :P Still a win.
What happens when a Modo user builds all manner of wonderful hard-surface models using these new Boolean tools, uses them in a portfolio to land a job, and is then tasked with doing all that awesome shit at a studio who don't use Modo at all?
QUOTE]
Luxology has a cool license policy - they allow you to have 2 copies of modo installed on seperate computers - so you can install your own copy at home and work.
I've owned and used modo for the last few years - I use it at whatever studio I go to for modeling and UVs. Then I export the model(s) to the studio's 3D app of choice to set up normals/shading groups etc and into the pipeline.
As for the new plug in - I'm hesitantly excited - seems software and tools that are too good to be true usually are - and Lux can be a little hit or miss when they are trying to innovate - but I'll probably upgrade to 701 now to find out for sure Either way, props to Luxology for trying to innovcate and improve on their product like this. This is why I can give them a pass if they sometimes miss the mark, and don't quite live up to expectations. Because they are genuinely trying to evolve, improve and innovate.
As I said, I think that's awesome for time saving and pushing the envelope, but I was literally just wondering if it could potentially land someone in hot water if they became reliant on the toolset.
I don't know, you can achieve very similar results with zbrush (which is an industry standard tool), or if you need a sub-d model, with zbrush and any decent retopo tool. This just allows you more flexibility and itteration.
Man I cannot wait for this new tech This month eh? May be time to buy modo
Something I wanted to bring up on the subject of tools and proper topology is...
During siggraph last year the guys from Sony Santa Monica said they already use Z-remesher to produce the models that they send out for rigging (with some minor adjustments.)
Good Topology is very important. But lets not forget that the at the end of the day the artists are still the ones in control. It's up to us to use whatever tools we can to produce a production ready asset. Automating the process doesn't change anything. If the tools allow us to get to the end result quicker then more power to it!
Any artist should be able to learn the pipeline of what ever studio hires him fairly quickly. So whatever tools he used to create his portfolio should be almost irrelevant. This is a technical job too, not just an artistic one. If an artist can't handle both sides then it hurts the entire pipeline.
So In conclusion... I don't think this tool will have much impact on that problem. If you're a beastly artist who can't deal with creating a production asset then they should be a 3d concept artist, which is a position that keeps poping up more and more these days.
Replies
FUCKING WIZARDS!!!
it will be painful! haha
Some fellow polycounters tried it, but they could not do it lol
There is a section on Luxology forums for license holders.
PS. Do want and will have the money ready.
I would like to see wires of a final model. i was very hyped with Qremesher and at the end, it wasn't something great... It would be very nice to have nice and clean quad meshes.
Zbrush with its Zremesher only creates quads, so we can use a plugin to reduce iterations and can be handy sometimes.
[ame="
i always thought the golden rule with highpoly stuff is "whatever looks good, do it". so this tool speeds up your workflow a LOT, the topology might not be perfect, but we've already seen that regardless of the topology it still looks good/renders fine.
you have to retopo for the final lowpoly anyway, so either zremesher or do it by hand... either way it has to be done. your final lowpoly isn't going to be subdivided anyway so just chill?
i dunno... maybe there's something to all this that i'm not seeing? i just don't understand why everyone is so hung up on that issue. most people have used dynamesh, right? that uses the shittiest of topology and is still considered a great tool.
I had a look at Modo 501 and it gave my head a good spin..
I guess I´m getting old and stuck in my ways hehe.
Once upon a time, trying ever package under the sun was no issue and in a few days I found them pretty fluid.. From Imagine, Real 3D and Lightwave 1.0 on the Amiga and then to 3D Studio, to Max, to oldschool Softimage to Maya 1.0 and up.
Even going into Max today makes me cringe at some of the tools layouts and methodology used in there in comparison to Maya, since that it what I am most used to today.
Also had a quick look on Digital tutors, and there seems to be a distinct lack of Modo specific material on there.
The latest "how to modo" type of vid is for 401 :P
You forget this: not all people do low poly models with normal maps.
For example, with characters, a good topology is needed for a proper deformation and for a proper uv mapping. 3D is not only game art
And if you don't care about topologies, as i said, there are better tools like solidworks and Catia, used also for 3d printing.
i am saying what? what i said was said very clear. I don't understand your answers nor why you make those assumptions :S
If this plugin really works with subdivs, then, as i already said, i want to see wires with a good result, and not what groboto offers (that is useless for me, btw).
I get your concern but at the same time, recognize that you're sort of in a minority as a user who wants to use a dynamic boolean system to generate low poly meshes.
Something like this in level of detail:
For normal map baking it may be useful, but i don't make game models all the days
Oh, oh OK ... yeah, me too!
Are you serious? i don't say anything, i just posted an example for WarrenM. Since the beginning i'm asking for wires and wondering if i can achieve a clean and a good result.
BTW, it would be nice if this plugin can achieve a better topology/wireframe with the example i put.
Any clean mesh with a good topology and a good density of polygons matter a lot. I don't want to derail the thread, so the best you can do to understand me is to forget that thing of "game-art" and see more production models. 3D modelling is not only low poly models with normals map dude.
And i repeat myself again, for normal maps it may be ok... but not for our other needs.
i could absolutely understand why it wouldn't be okay for say... an organic character, where topology is paramount for animation requirements. but for hard surface stuff, not so much? it doesn't need to deform as strictly, particularly the things that this tool would be most useful for.
this stuff looks amazing and what i've been dreaming of for years. If it really works that well i hope i can finally abandon Autodesk products.
This is brilliant, IMO. They can use the beautiful app that Luxology have built and focus purely on the tech implementation of their boolean and meshing algorithms.
[ame="
as long as you can get a model from modo into whatever package they're using for their final files, there shouldn't be a problem right?
I disagree. If you don't know how to it properly, you won't magically get better because of a good tool.
Knowing what proportions look right, what sort of deformations to look for and avoid, how to treat edge bevels, etc... all of that isn't solved by just using a better tool.
It's just like Substance Designer; if you don't know how to texture well, it won't suddenly help you make better textures.
But seriously, that's like asking "so what happens when you task someone who sculpts their characters to do the same thing but with SDS modelling?".
Yeah... That wont happen.
These kind of tools make the work faster, no doubt, but at the end, if right now it's very difficult to find a "professional" with a rich know-how, someone good for all the resposabilities of the job (and someone who adds value to the team), imagine later.
Young people avoid to learn the basic things, they are just going for the easy way, and later, they act with arrogance saying "i don't need this", "this does not matter". I have known some guys calling themselves "character artists" because the did some images with poser... and in these days of 3d scanning, you see some guys doing the same, when they are just retopo-operators.
Substance designer won't do all the job, ok, but makes all easier. With DDO you tweak almost in realtime, and that opens the gate for speed. Anyone can learn how to texture extremely fast. You learn in seconds which are the best grays for specular, which are the best color palettes, etc. I could not compare those "baking" tools with this plugin.
Back to the thread, in these last videos there are some minor geometry artifacts in some frames.
I imagine they're bugs that will be ironed out. As far as I know it's still very early days for the plugin.
Something I wanted to bring up on the subject of tools and proper topology is...
During siggraph last year the guys from Sony Santa Monica said they already use Z-remesher to produce the models that they send out for rigging (with some minor adjustments.)
Good Topology is very important. But lets not forget that the at the end of the day the artists are still the ones in control. It's up to us to use whatever tools we can to produce a production ready asset. Automating the process doesn't change anything. If the tools allow us to get to the end result quicker then more power to it!
Any artist should be able to learn the pipeline of what ever studio hires him fairly quickly. So whatever tools he used to create his portfolio should be almost irrelevant. This is a technical job too, not just an artistic one. If an artist can't handle both sides then it hurts the entire pipeline.
So In conclusion... I don't think this tool will have much impact on that problem. If you're a beastly artist who can't deal with creating a production asset then they should be a 3d concept artist, which is a position that keeps poping up more and more these days.