About an hour. I made a bunch of mistakes with MeshFusion and had to correct them and I bungled a few other things ... still learning. It's easily doable in 20 minutes I'd wager if you were slick with MeshFusion.
Hey Warren, is it possible to post a .obj of a file so I can take a look at the mesh in another app?
Also, how is the performance. Could a full blown complex model, say a mech, be created in 1 file, or will there be some much happening that the plugin stops working?
I WILL say that if you try to use a mesh piece that is dense - like, thousands of polygons, the plugin bogs down to a standstill. Which I understand.
So the trick to performance is lightweight cutter meshes using basic sub-d edge loops. Minimal geo on the front end for a dense-ish mesh on the back end.
P.S. I didn't include the bolts in that OBJ file because they were stupidly high poly and built in a dumb way. I didn't want to add hundreds of thousands of triangles for no reason. :P
AWESOME, thanks Warren. I was concerned that the renders of these pieces were hiding bad topo flow and that they wouldn't bake well. So I baked part of yours down and it looks perfect.
This is the first step to a true next-gen pipeline for hardsurface (organic stuff has had it for years). Now some sort of smart, easy retopo tool would be next. I don't know much about the existing solutions for organics (like Z-remesher), but how well do they work for hard-surface ?
That's a good point. ZRemesher LOVES the meshes that MeshFusion generates. The strips created at the intersection points are effectively built in guides so ZRemesher just does the right thing with no tweaking. That might be the path to super fast low poly models...
Just run ZRemesher at half res and then punt the model back to Modo for some quick loop removal. I'll give that a shot next time I need to bake something.
Ah yeah i've seen those, in the briad video he shows an assembly, but I dont think he mentions where he got the assembly. I'm guessing assemblies are like functions, turning a bunch of nodes into 1.
Hi Jordan, first post here. I was on the beta but I'm not sure exactly where the bisector assembly is. I would try the Asset directory (you can use the one in the Fusion layout with the little q-bits starter geometry or press F6 to bring up an asset palette. I'm not sure where it is off the top of my head but the Fusion asset paths should have been added when you installed, so poke around there. It will be an .lxp file. Just drag it into the schematic. An assembly in the schematic is just a collection of nodes with user defined inputs and outputs...if you're familiar with Houdini or ICE it's similar.
You don't need an assembly though , you can do it manually - I think Proton may have put up a tutorial. Darrel has mentioned an easier/better bi-sector workflow in the future since they're so important. This little usb key uses a bisector to get the groove in the metal connector part...so they're really useful. Good luck : )
Mesh Fusion specific forum...probably some good stuff here.
there is falloffs, which in my opinion are way better then ffds :P
I don't think falloff is the same as an FFD cage. Falloff is usually spherical shaped. Also, working with FFDs is very fast compared to soft selection/falloff in Max as you don't have to try and select the exact verts for the shape you want. At least with the way falloff works in Max there's no way it could replace (never mind be better) than FFDs.
Is falloff in Modo significantly different and more powerful than in Max?
Not sure what max falloffs look like but here's what a falloff is in modo. They're quite useful. In that image there is the falloff applied and then just the regular scale tool.
Bisector stuff is definitely going to be imperative going forward. Getting those separation lines in there by just connecting a curve or a plane mesh would just be killer.
So, in closing, here's the sum total of the MeshFusion stuff I did yesterday afternoon. Killer plugin, my god...
I am just getting started on modo, so far just loving how clean the UI is, I haven't seen a more perfect GUI in a cg app max and even maya seem cluttered and antiquated by comparison.
Not sure what max falloffs look like but here's what a falloff is in modo. They're quite useful. In that image there is the falloff applied and then just the regular scale tool.
Thanks. Looks different to Max's soft selection/falloff.
Going to have to take a proper look at it.
Bisector stuff is definitely going to be imperative going forward. Getting those separation lines in there by just connecting a curve or a plane mesh would just be killer.
So, in closing, here's the sum total of the MeshFusion stuff I did yesterday afternoon. Killer plugin, my god...
I hope they make the bisector stuff more automated in the future. Saw a tutorial on how to set it up and I have to say it's pretty cumbersome. There should be an option in the drop down to make a bisector operation.
Man I need this plug in but I'm not 100% convinced it'll work for my needs. I hope they come out with a trial version asap so I can test it out.
Funnily enough, that was what first got me to try Modo - screen shots of the interface. I love how it looks.
thats why im such a big fan of cinema 4D. It seems modo and C4D are the only
programs meant to be used by artists, where actual artists helped developing them ; ) Strangely both kinda look similar. Similar palette, rounded flat buttons, colors and style for icons.
I just hope 3DS is kicked from the throne soon enough. UX and visuals in 3DS are a freaking crime, we are 2014 now, I mean come on.
/rant end
That plugin looks fantastic, wow. Downloading the modo demo right now haha
What about sculpting over these shapes using the built-in Modo sculpting tools ? Anyone tried that ?
No; I can't see any technical reason why it wouldn't work, but you can see from the topology you'd most likely have to retopo anyway. I've heard good things about modo's topology tools but haven't tried them myselfI imagine some automatic solutions like zremesher would be awesome to use with MF (Since you can GoZ bac and forth quickly).
Yes, the topo tools are good in Modo although I prefer 3DS Max to be honest. The Graphite topo tools work better for me.
And sure, the end result is just a mesh like any other mesh. Sculpt away!
The problem is that you'll lose the vertex normals that MeshFusion computed for you if you edit the resulting mesh. But if you don't care about that, there's no reason it wouldn't work.
Bisector stuff is definitely going to be imperative going forward. Getting those separation lines in there by just connecting a curve or a plane mesh would just be killer.
So, in closing, here's the sum total of the MeshFusion stuff I did yesterday afternoon. Killer plugin, my god...
That's pretty awesome. Do you have any wireframe shots of these models?
You can do whatever you want to the cutters, yeah. They are regular meshes and can be any shape you want - although, it doesn't accept meshes with n-gons in them.
You can't sculpt on the resulting boolean shape unless you freeze it first.
Yeah I would actually be interested in sculpting at either stage - on the operands, and on the frozen en result. I had high hopes in Blender for that kind of workflow but it turned out to be extremely slow ; so now I am thinking that Modo might be better ...
I want to see more videos of this thing making practical pieces
Like what? I mean, it's boolean meshes. You can make whatever you want.
I've started gallery where I'm showing the various things I noodle with. I'd consider a number of those "practical" - as in, they COULD be used as part of a high poly model.
I want to see more videos of this thing making practical pieces
Not sure what your definition of "practical" is but on the WIP section of the Modo Forums many users are posting experiments and doodles that show many intriguing results.
Well, "practical" could mean many different things. I am with Computron - it seems extremely promising so far and the various (small scale) tests being posted look great but who knows if it will turn out to be useable on full pieces. Maybe scenes will slow down to a crawl and require a lot of freezing of the MF meshes ; maybe there are some limitations that we do not know about just yet ; and so on.
I think this will depend on how flexible this tool turns out to be *within* a regular subdivision-based workflow. Will MF pieces allow themselves to be stitched easily onto regular subdivision models ? How many hoops will the user have to jump through to do that ? That sort of stuff.
I think people will be convinced once MF models equivalent to these traditionally built models start to appear : that is to say, not models put together as random tests, but more like, models following a precisely established design not to be fiddled with.
Don't get me wrong, it is not all about putting a million little details ; but besides their high level of detail, the 3 models above have a very controlled look to them, with sharp edges showing a perfectly maintained quality. So far MF models seem to look a little loose in that regard, with edges not fully consistent and an overall soft, rounded toy look, even on small tests.
Now of course maybe these characteristics will slowly become the mark of a new modeling "style" ; who knows !
I think the real power of MeshFusion isn't going to be in creating huge meshes with it but rather in alleviating annoying shapes from your workflow.
I can easily see doing standard subd modeling for a lot of a model but then when you come across a shape that's really hard to get done without pinching or artifacts, you'll break out MeshFusion for that. That, IMO, is more realistic than people creating entire mechs out of booleans or whatever.
I think the real power of MeshFusion isn't going to be in creating huge meshes with it but rather in alleviating annoying shapes from your workflow.
I can easily see doing standard subd modeling for a lot of a model but then when you come across a shape that's really hard to get done without pinching or artifacts, you'll break out MeshFusion for that. That, IMO, is more realistic than people creating entire mechs out of booleans or whatever.
It's a tool, not a replacement.
Spot on. This also helps in situations like your art director wanting a detail/intersection bigger/smaller or in another place. It cuts a lot of time from having to rebuild stuff.
Well, "practical" could mean many different things. I am with Computron - it seems extremely promising so far and the various (small scale) tests being posted look great but who knows if it will turn out to be useable on full pieces. Maybe scenes will slow down to a crawl and require a lot of freezing of the MF meshes ; maybe there are some limitations that we do not know about just yet ; and so on.
I think this will depend on how flexible this tool turns out to be *within* a regular subdivision-based workflow. Will MF pieces allow themselves to be stitched easily onto regular subdivision models ? How many hoops will the user have to jump through to do that ? That sort of stuff.
I think people will be convinced once MF models equivalent to these traditionally built models start to appear : that is to say, not models put together as random tests, but more like, models following a precisely established design not to be fiddled with.
Don't get me wrong, it is not all about putting a million little details ; but besides their high level of detail, the 3 models above have a very controlled look to them, with sharp edges showing a perfectly maintained quality. So far MF models seem to look a little loose in that regard, with edges not fully consistent and an overall soft, rounded toy look, even on small tests.
Now of course maybe these characteristics will slowly become the mark of a new modeling "style" ; who knows !
I too have these reservations Pior, so I'm watching these threads like a hawk. They seem to have promising starts.
I truly believe that this is the future of modeling and I'm hoping that every software package will move in this direction. If they can improve the boolean tech to produce models more inline with what zremesher does then I can see adding this to my workflow easily. I'd probably just work in mesh fusion to get a shape and then freeze it and continue working in polygons/sub-d mode and jump back and forth between the two to finish the model.
Currently mesh fusion seems like a perfect tool to create a library of highly detailed models with complex shapes that are normally a pain to model and use for them kit-bashing. Just make something like this quickly and then re-topoligize it and stick it in your library for future use.
Replies
I want MeshFusion to have my babies.
Also, how is the performance. Could a full blown complex model, say a mech, be created in 1 file, or will there be some much happening that the plugin stops working?
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/161473/Misc/TestObject.obj
The little middle ring thing will need to be turbosmooth'd (I didn't MeshFusion that), but the rest should come in correctly.
Performance seemed good. It's all about how much resolution you use on the meshes, smart use of instancing, etc.
I can't see why you couldn't do a mech if you were experienced.
So the trick to performance is lightweight cutter meshes using basic sub-d edge loops. Minimal geo on the front end for a dense-ish mesh on the back end.
P.S. I didn't include the bolts in that OBJ file because they were stupidly high poly and built in a dumb way. I didn't want to add hundreds of thousands of triangles for no reason. :P
Time to start saving up 2 grand...
What's the advantage of this compared to 3dcoats voxel?
They both produce high density meshes that need retopo.
these booleans are live modo p-sub meshes in a nonlinear boolean tree? IDK much about 3D Coat...
This is a fact, but the time saved from using Mesh Fusion, instead of the standard modelling methods, more then makes up for it.
Just run ZRemesher at half res and then punt the model back to Modo for some quick loop removal. I'll give that a shot next time I need to bake something.
If any of you polycounters come across some, embed them here please!
Use bisectors? (cutting seams) In the video he references an assembly but I have no idea where to find it.
Apply separate materials to the different areas.
I haven't looked at it much yet myself so I don't know if this is what you need or not.
http://www.braid.com/fusion/help/videot/videot-Sa/index.html
You don't need an assembly though , you can do it manually - I think Proton may have put up a tutorial. Darrel has mentioned an easier/better bi-sector workflow in the future since they're so important. This little usb key uses a bisector to get the groove in the metal connector part...so they're really useful. Good luck : )
Mesh Fusion specific forum...probably some good stuff here.
http://community.thefoundry.co.uk/discussion/forum.aspx?f=149
-Greg
I couldn't. That's one manifold mesh down there.
Is it dense? Obviously. But this would be my high poly that I would bake down so why would I care? :P
I don't think falloff is the same as an FFD cage. Falloff is usually spherical shaped. Also, working with FFDs is very fast compared to soft selection/falloff in Max as you don't have to try and select the exact verts for the shape you want. At least with the way falloff works in Max there's no way it could replace (never mind be better) than FFDs.
Is falloff in Modo significantly different and more powerful than in Max?
So, in closing, here's the sum total of the MeshFusion stuff I did yesterday afternoon. Killer plugin, my god...
Thanks. Looks different to Max's soft selection/falloff.
Going to have to take a proper look at it.
I hope they make the bisector stuff more automated in the future. Saw a tutorial on how to set it up and I have to say it's pretty cumbersome. There should be an option in the drop down to make a bisector operation.
Man I need this plug in but I'm not 100% convinced it'll work for my needs. I hope they come out with a trial version asap so I can test it out.
thats why im such a big fan of cinema 4D. It seems modo and C4D are the only
programs meant to be used by artists, where actual artists helped developing them ; ) Strangely both kinda look similar. Similar palette, rounded flat buttons, colors and style for icons.
I just hope 3DS is kicked from the throne soon enough. UX and visuals in 3DS are a freaking crime, we are 2014 now, I mean come on.
/rant end
That plugin looks fantastic, wow. Downloading the modo demo right now haha
And sure, the end result is just a mesh like any other mesh. Sculpt away!
The problem is that you'll lose the vertex normals that MeshFusion computed for you if you edit the resulting mesh. But if you don't care about that, there's no reason it wouldn't work.
I think it's doable. I haven't seen videos of sculpt transforms but I've seen ones where cutters are deformed by usual tools.
[Don't have MF yet, I can wait for v.2 or 3 since it won't be integrated into 801 anyway. That's at least a 2 yr window before 901.]
You can't sculpt on the resulting boolean shape unless you freeze it first.
I've started gallery where I'm showing the various things I noodle with. I'd consider a number of those "practical" - as in, they COULD be used as part of a high poly model.
http://community.thefoundry.co.uk/discussion/topic.aspx?f=9&t=84302
Not sure what your definition of "practical" is but on the WIP section of the Modo Forums many users are posting experiments and doodles that show many intriguing results.
http://community.thefoundry.co.uk/discussion/forum.aspx?f=9&page=0
I think this will depend on how flexible this tool turns out to be *within* a regular subdivision-based workflow. Will MF pieces allow themselves to be stitched easily onto regular subdivision models ? How many hoops will the user have to jump through to do that ? That sort of stuff.
I think people will be convinced once MF models equivalent to these traditionally built models start to appear : that is to say, not models put together as random tests, but more like, models following a precisely established design not to be fiddled with.
http://www.3pointstudios.com/imgpf/3ps_brink_hipoly_revolver02_02.jpg
http://www.3pointstudios.com/imgpf/3ps_brink_ingame_177.jpg
http://www.3dartistonline.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/eisfdd_door03.jpg
Don't get me wrong, it is not all about putting a million little details ; but besides their high level of detail, the 3 models above have a very controlled look to them, with sharp edges showing a perfectly maintained quality. So far MF models seem to look a little loose in that regard, with edges not fully consistent and an overall soft, rounded toy look, even on small tests.
Now of course maybe these characteristics will slowly become the mark of a new modeling "style" ; who knows !
I can easily see doing standard subd modeling for a lot of a model but then when you come across a shape that's really hard to get done without pinching or artifacts, you'll break out MeshFusion for that. That, IMO, is more realistic than people creating entire mechs out of booleans or whatever.
It's a tool, not a replacement.
Spot on. This also helps in situations like your art director wanting a detail/intersection bigger/smaller or in another place. It cuts a lot of time from having to rebuild stuff.
I too have these reservations Pior, so I'm watching these threads like a hawk. They seem to have promising starts.
https://www.luxology.com/discussion/topic.aspx?f=9&t=84432
https://www.luxology.com/discussion/topic.aspx?f=9&t=84345
https://www.luxology.com/discussion/topic.aspx?f=9&t=84251
I truly believe that this is the future of modeling and I'm hoping that every software package will move in this direction. If they can improve the boolean tech to produce models more inline with what zremesher does then I can see adding this to my workflow easily. I'd probably just work in mesh fusion to get a shape and then freeze it and continue working in polygons/sub-d mode and jump back and forth between the two to finish the model.
Currently mesh fusion seems like a perfect tool to create a library of highly detailed models with complex shapes that are normally a pain to model and use for them kit-bashing. Just make something like this quickly and then re-topoligize it and stick it in your library for future use.