musashidan said: Apparently NM detail doesn't translate well to VR due to the nature of the viewing experience. Plus the ever-rising vert count limits factor.
I have the Oculus Rift and it isn't as big as a problem as I originally thought. I think NM work good enough as long as the silhouette is intact. So extruded forms should have real geometry. This can be solved with tessellation for organic models. But there should be a lot more topology for VR models, that is true.
I have the Oculus Rift and it isn't as big as a problem as I originally
thought. I think NM work good enough as long as the silhouette is
intact. So extruded forms should have real geometry. This can be solved
with tessellation for organic models. But there should be a lot more
topology for VR models, that is true.
Yes, it's more the silhouette edges I was referring to. Even NM internal detailing that was(and still is, I suppose) traditionally done using floaters can just be done in something like Substance Painter with a library of height/normal map stamps. So these are the main reasons why I could see a shift away from full-on baking as it has been for many years.
David Lesperance is a good example of an artist who exclusively models everything and doesn't use NMs at all. Citing the VR issues as a good reason not to.
And lastly, I'm jealous. I want a rift too...... Can't wait to get my hands on one.
A big question plz: How do you deal with UV's? Do you retopo from scratch? If yes, how do you uv the low poly and high one? Don't they need to have the same uv layout?
A big question plz: How do you deal with UV's? Do you retopo from scratch? If yes, how do you uv the low poly and high one? Don't they need to have the same uv layout?
If you read the workflow again you'll see that there's a cleanup stage of the original boolean to obtain the low poly mesh.
The high poly never needs to be unwrapped for baking purposes. Its sole purpose is to capture its high fidelity detail to the Normal map.
musashidan said: Apparently NM detail doesn't translate well to VR due to the nature of the viewing experience. Plus the ever-rising vert count limits factor.
I have the Oculus Rift and it isn't as big as a problem as I originally thought. I think NM work good enough as long as the silhouette is intact.
Yes, I agree.
Personally I've used a few VR devkits over the last few years. Geometric complexity isn't important. Even Minecraft would look great in VR.
Artists overestimate new things. VR isn't a big deal for art production. Its real impact is on game design.
Over-directed movie-games will have to change, but asset production won't.
A big question plz: How do you deal with UV's? Do you retopo from scratch? If yes, how do you uv the low poly and high one? Don't they need to have the same uv layout?
I don't retopo from scratch, and I don't UV the highpoly ever. It's not necessary for baking. I UV the lowpoly only once it's done. I derive the LP as much as possible from the blockout / boolean geo.
This is what I was able to do it in about 20 mins, it only took that long since I had to actually create a concept. I used Maya to use booleans and then imported them into Zbrush. I then used Dynamesh Master to Dyanmesh the objects into 3 million polygons. Then I simple just used the Polish feature and got a total of 6 pieces.
Personally I've used a few VR devkits over the last few years. Geometric
complexity isn't important. Even Minecraft would look great in VR.
Artists overestimate new things. VR isn't a big deal for art production. Its real impact is on game design.
Over-directed movie-games will have to change, but asset production won't.
@Amsterdam Hilton Hotel , cheers Ben, nice to get your input on this. It is surely an important factor in the future but, as you say, not as important as game design. "graphics maketh not the game"
and I've certainly played my fair share of visually stunning and horrifically repetitive, dull games over the years....
Hello, nice tut, my question though is everytime I use boolean , I find my object full of extra messy vertexes that I need to manually fix and this takes me a lot of time, is there a way to avoid those issues?
Hello, nice tut, my question though is everytime I use boolean , I find my object full of extra messy vertexes that I need to manually fix and this takes me a lot of time, is there a way to avoid those issues?
This is the nature of boolean topology. If you take a cylinder with 140 edges around the circumference and mash it into a 6 sided cube, then you can't expect beautiful topology. But this is the point of the technique : the topology doesn't matter.
If you are referring to the cleanup of the boolean to obtain the low poly model, then this is something that has to be done manually, unless you want to retopologise from scratch. Cleaning up the low is nothing in comparison to the time saved creating the highpoly.
I have traditionally avoided booleans in Max like the plague, but I decided to give this a shot again(the results posted are amazing). I've run into one issue though, after a while the Pro-Boolean objects take forever when adding a new operand. Should this be expected? The operands are a mix of standard primitives and editable polys, and after about 6 operands it gets starts to get longer and longer with each additional object. It gets so slow that I'll click and have time to get more coffee before it finishes.
I did notice that the regular boolean compound object in 2017 seems to be a bit faster, the only difference is that you loose direct modification control over each operand. And you have to add an Edit Poly modifier before you can add a Turn To Poly modifier.
Hello, nice tut, my question though is everytime I use boolean , I find my object full of extra messy vertexes that I need to manually fix and this takes me a lot of time, is there a way to avoid those issues?
This is the nature of boolean topology. If you take a cylinder with 140 edges around the circumference and mash it into a 6 sided cube, then you can't expect beautiful topology. But this is the point of the technique : the topology doesn't matter.
If you are referring to the cleanup of the boolean to obtain the low poly model, then this is something that has to be done manually, unless you want to retopologise from scratch. Cleaning up the low is nothing in comparison to the time saved creating the highpoly.
I amactually talking for a high poly workflow where I use sometimes some complex meshes to be subtracted by another one in order to create a nice cut flow in the high poly mesh , but most of the times produces a sloppy result and vertex mess, this I need to clear because I want a good quad flow on my hp to use correctly the smoothing modifier applied above . So youconfirm that there is no realsolution to that apart perhaps use less complex geometry?
I amactually talking for a
high poly workflow where I use sometimes some complex meshes to be
subtracted by another one in order to create a nice cut flow in the high
poly mesh , but most of the times produces a sloppy result and vertex
mess, this I need to clear because I want a good quad flow on my hp to
use correctly the smoothing modifier applied above . So youconfirm that
there is no realsolution to that apart perhaps use less complex
geometry?
It's like I said above, you can't expect production topology when using booleans. It just doesn't work like that. The boolean algorithm is tessellating the geometry dynamically, in real-time, updating the topology with each operation. As a result many poles and triangles are required to do this.
Just wondering how about using the remesh tool to have a quadflow on zbrush b4 exporting? Wouldn't this solve many ngons issues?
There won't be any n-gons as they are illegal topology, and ZB won't create them. But yes, I often use Zremesh instead of Dynamesh with this workflow. It really depends on how complex the model is. But if you are only using the result as a highpoly bake mesh then it doesn't matter how clean the underlying topology is as long as the surface is visibly clean.
I have traditionally avoided booleans in Max like the plague, but I decided to give this a shot again(the results posted are amazing). I've run into one issue though, after a while the Pro-Boolean objects take forever when adding a new operand. Should this be expected? The operands are a mix of standard primitives and editable polys, and after about 6 operands it gets starts to get longer and longer with each additional object. It gets so slow that I'll click and have time to get more coffee before it finishes.
I did notice that the regular boolean compound object in 2017 seems to be a bit faster, the only difference is that you loose direct modification control over each operand. And you have to add an Edit Poly modifier before you can add a Turn To Poly modifier.
Is there something I'm doing wrong?
Just ran a test with about 50 operands of all shapes and sizes. Didn't drop a single frame in the viewport. Calculation time went up fractionally as I got close to 50 but not too noticeable. Proboolean Max2016
As for the new(old) bools in 2017. Yes, they are faster than Proboolean. You don't need to be able to extract them. Max hides them when you add them as an operand, so they are not actually permanently added to the boolean object. You can toggle on 'display hidden objects' in scene explorer or enable/disable them in the boolean explorer to see them or not.
Also, just add a Quadify Mesh mod instead of a turn to poly. Turn to poly obviously isn't available as a boolean isn't technically an editable polygonal mesh.
I have traditionally avoided booleans in Max like the plague, but I decided to give this a shot again(the results posted are amazing). I've run into one issue though, after a while the Pro-Boolean objects take forever when adding a new operand. Should this be expected? The operands are a mix of standard primitives and editable polys, and after about 6 operands it gets starts to get longer and longer with each additional object. It gets so slow that I'll click and have time to get more coffee before it finishes.
I've never had it take so long that I could literally leave and come back, but on a few complex objects like the valve block in the OP it got to where adding a new operand would take maybe a second. That was a lot more than six operands though. I wonder to what extent this depends on computer resources.
Thanks! That's why I was wondering if I was doing something wrong because it's taking so long. It's not that old of a system(AMD Phenom II X6 3.5ghz, 16gb ram, SSD, gtx 970, Windows 10 Max 2016/2017) and pro-boolean just chugs.
How about this? Should work in 2016-17 1. do every bool op 2. Quadify mod with size around 5-8 3. edit poly mod , activate edge mode. 4. Go to ribbon selection Tab and click Hard edges on left side 5. chamfer mod amount 0.2-0.4, tension 0 6. OpenSubdiv
@reanimate , work in whichever you prefer. They both essentially do the same thing. If you eventually fully migrate to 2017 then I assume that's where you'll be working so this is a question only you can answer.....
yeah it seems you are right, i'm just thinking if there's a way to do this without going out 3ds. since 2017 boolean still missing some feature also 3ds chamfer some time not working as expected. kinda hoping if there's a way to have something like fansub shapeshifter in 3ds
yeah it seems you are right, i'm just thinking if there's a way to do this without going out 3ds. since 2017 boolean still missing some feature also 3ds chamfer some time not working as expected. kinda hoping if there's a way to have something like fansub shapeshifter in 3ds
I've no idea what fansub shapeshifter is(google results in links to hentai porn!) but if you check the first page of this post I linked 2 vid tuts from my YT channel: one is this process using quadify>turbosmooth; the other is using chamfer modifier.
It can be done in Max, but falls short on more complex meshes. This is where dynamesh shines as it it designed for complex froms and dynamically tessellates much more efficiently. The thing with chamfer/turbosmooth/opensubdiv is that they rely on relatively clean topology to function optimally, based on edgeloops. Dynamesh doesn't care about this and cleverly uses triangles and poles to derive the surface.
That's why, in my vids, I call the Max option 'the poor man's dynamesh'
This is ShapeShifter,a sort of smart bevel technique for Maya that was made to work with over-booleaned 3D objects.
There is a long way to go before having something as good as the method described in here,but i'm slowly getting there.Talked about it a little bit on this post.
I've no idea what fansub shapeshifter is(google results in links to hentai porn!)
rest assured I'm not making any hentai porn
This is ShapeShifter,a sort of smart bevel technique for Maya that was made to work with over-booleaned 3D objects.
There is a long way to go before having something as good as the method described in here,but i'm slowly getting there.Talked about it a little bit on this post.
Haha! sorry, mate. Looks like a great tool. How does it behave on more complex geometry? I suppose it's similar to adding a chamfer modifier on top of a boolean in Max, but without the normal shading errors.
As long as your topology insn't the nastiest thing ever,it bevels everything perfectly fine.The only area where it needs improvements is on more complex boolean transition like in this post but as you can see the results are already pretty good for something made in a few hours.
yeah it seems you are right, i'm just thinking if there's a way to do this without going out 3ds. since 2017 boolean still missing some feature also 3ds chamfer some time not working as expected. kinda hoping if there's a way to have something like fansub shapeshifter in 3ds
I've no idea what fansub shapeshifter is(google results in links to hentai porn!) but if you check the first page of this post I linked 2 vid tuts from my YT channel: one is this process using quadify>turbosmooth; the other is using chamfer modifier.
It can be done in Max, but falls short on more complex meshes. This is where dynamesh shines as it it designed for complex froms and dynamically tessellates much more efficiently. The thing with chamfer/turbosmooth/opensubdiv is that they rely on relatively clean topology to function optimally, based on edgeloops. Dynamesh doesn't care about this and cleverly uses triangles and poles to derive the surface.
That's why, in my vids, I call the Max option 'the poor man's dynamesh'
This is ShapeShifter,a sort of smart bevel technique for Maya that was made to work with over-booleaned 3D objects.
There is a long way to go before having something as good as the method described in here,but i'm slowly getting there.Talked about it a little bit on this post.
Yeah i've tried your demo mesh in 3dsmax and there's some area where quad chamfer/bevel are fail to do it right
As long as your topology insn't the nastiest thing ever,it bevels everything perfectly fine.
The thing with Booleans is, though, that the topo always is.
Just read through your Shapeshifter dev thread and I have to say I'm impressed. The baked results are perfect. I just tested this in Max using your demo mesh and the Chamfer(quad chamfer) modifier, and the results weren't great. How are you dealing with normal shading artifacts on N-gons? Does your beveling physically create some sort of boundary so that the N-gon support edges are redirected through your bevel?
The thing with Booleans is, though, that the topo always is.
When i say nasty geo i don't mean something like Snefers geometry or the meshes presented in this thread,those are super clean tbh.I'm talking about ugly as hell topology that has hundreds of vertices connected to nothing but void space.Those are the real enemy of ShapeShifter and in it's latest prototype i changed its behavior to detect all those unwanted vertices and delete them.
The biggest issue with booleans is bad topo,and if you add bevels on top of them it just breaks everything.What ShapeShifter does is create like you said some sort of boundary based on hard edges and right inside those boundaries all the crazy operations like bevels happen,and they never affect or get affected by the general topology at all.
It's not all sunshine and unicorns,tho,and when you have something like cylindrical shapes booleaned over cylindrical shapes it becomes hard to get a large bevel,but still no errors.
The thing with Booleans is, though, that the topo always is.
When i say nasty geo i don't mean something like Snefers geometry or the meshes presented in this thread,those are super clean tbh.I'm talking about ugly as hell topology that has hundreds of vertices connected to nothing but void space.Those are the real enemy of ShapeShifter and in it's latest prototype i changed its behavior to detect all those unwanted vertices and delete them.
The biggest issue with booleans is bad topo,and if you add bevels on top of them it just breaks everything.What ShapeShifter does is create like you said some sort of boundary based on hard edges and right inside those boundaries all the crazy operations like bevels happen,and they never affect or get affected by the general topology at all.
It's not all sunshine and unicorns,tho,and when you have something like cylindrical shapes booleaned over cylindrical shapes it becomes hard to get a large bevel,but still no errors.
Brilliant concept, mate. It's funny when a lone programmer like yourself creates a tool that is more advanced, and what users really require, than the R&D team at Adesk (shapeshifter Vs Bevel in ext2) it happens all the time in Max.
Very interesting approach. Best of luck with the tool into the future. Don't suppose you're familiar with Maxscript....
What's even more interesting about this workflow is that you can simply smooth those boundaries and have some rounded-edge effect happening in realtime,so it's a really encouraging R&D project because you know it has a lot potential.
Don't suppose you're familiar with Maxscript....
Never created a single cube in Max,hope that answers your question
What's even more interesting about this workflow is that you can simply smooth those boundaries and have some rounded-edge effect happening in realtime,so it's a really encouraging R&D project because you know it has a lot potential.
Don't suppose you're familiar with Maxscript....
Never created a single cube in Max,hope that answers your question
Better than hentai! How's stability with the bevels? I've spent a little free time lately going back through booleans again, and I'm still running into crashes and invalid faces on the most basic of cuts. I don't quite get where it breaks or why sometimes, even when I start with pre-cuts.
(is anyone else getting a constant popup with a quick set for damnable emojis? :open_mout:pensiveopen_mouthfuckoff:
I'd love to see the same problem solved within 3ds. It would remove the need to change programs just to generate the HP.
Intuitively, you'd apply a chamfer modifer based on smoothing to do the same job. But that has a few problems, - Booleans leave stray verts, which screw up edge chamfering - Max chamfers skew if their verts have odd edge-counts - Max concave n-gons turn into a disaster when subdividing
This is definitely fertile ground for someone looking to make money with a plugin
The ShapeShifter hentai porn plugin is just great.
I'd love to see the same problem solved within 3ds. It would remove the need to change programs just to generate the HP.
Intuitively, you'd apply a chamfer modifer based on smoothing to do the same job. But that has a few problems, - Booleans leave stray verts, which screw up edge chamfering - Max chamfers skew if their verts have odd edge-counts - Max concave n-gons turn into a disaster when subdividing
This is definitely fertile ground for someone looking to make money with a plugin
Miauu.......are you reading this.....? If anyone springs to mind to accept that challenge it's KK.
You can
change the order of the operands, change their operation type, remove
them, re-insert them, and edit them even while they're in the
Proboolean.
Im having a bit of a problem editing the operands while in the pro boolean. Seems I can only select sub objects of the main base, not the subobjects of the operands themselves. I am missing something here. Any help appreciated.
You can
change the order of the operands, change their operation type, remove
them, re-insert them, and edit them even while they're in the
Proboolean.
Im having a bit of a problem editing the operands while in the pro boolean. Seems I can only select sub objects of the main base, not the subobjects of the operands themselves. I am missing something here. Any help appreciated.
Cheers
So if I got your question right, there you go: ( i had no modifier on this piece but you can save them while working, like said before)
Thanks Another Caveman! Yeah I was doing that and sometimes it was taking a while before the editable Poly became available, so I assumed it wasnt working. Thanks for the screenshot everything is smooth runnings now.
This is ShapeShifter,a sort of smart bevel technique for Maya that was made to work with over-booleaned 3D objects.
There is a long way to go before having something as good as the method described in here,but i'm slowly getting there.Talked about it a little bit on this post.
Yes! I fell in love with it when I saw it in the quickpipe thread here, but it's only scripted for Maya. Someone mentioned that he'd developed a prototype for max, but put it on the backburner.... Really dreaming for something like this for 3DS.
hey guysssss i'm giving a go at this technique, but it seems after a while into the model it just kills max, when i try to move an operand it just chuggs and takes forever. anyone else have this problem? any tips?
I'm running max 2012 and tested this method and I can also say that it can chug once you keep adding more and more primitives (especially many sided cylinders or primitives with too many modifiers). I am using a really old version of 3ds max and my computer isn't really that beefy (AMD phenom 2 x6 and 570 GTX) so I'm just giving my two cents on performance based on my specs. Most people have said that the newer versions of 3ds max optimized the proBoolean algorithm so it might be better if i went to a newer version. Overall this workflow looks to be really interesting and can definitely be useful (I used to absolutely hate Boolean for no good reason a long time ago as well).
well i think i sorted out my problem, max just doesnt like me putting booleans inside booleans,, well too many of them. one thing about this that anoys me my scene will end up with several different booleans, and its tiresome switching back and forth between the compound primitives and standard primitives menus, anyone know a way in max to make a hotkey where you push a button and it makes your selected obj a proboolean,? or anyone wanna make a script for that?
well i think i sorted out my problem, max just doesnt like me putting booleans inside booleans,, well too many of them. one thing about this that anoys me my scene will end up with several different booleans, and its tiresome switching back and forth between the compound primitives and standard primitives menus, anyone know a way in max to make a hotkey where you push a button and it makes your selected obj a proboolean,? or anyone wanna make a script for that?
Set a hotkey to create proboolean and another to create box.
ok closest i could find was making a menu at the top with proboolean in it, not as fast as a hot key or tool bar but much faster than switcihing the create panels constantly UPDATE well... i thought this worked but even when you select it in a menu it switches the create panel to compound so you still have to switch back manualy
now i feel like an idiot, i looked around forever for that, but it seems to have the same issue of changing your panel to the compound panel, was kinda hoping it would just turn the model into boolean and not switch the pannels.
also on a related note, years ago in the how you do dem shapes thread someone posted (earthquake?) a max shader material they used for subd models, anyone remember that setup? or a good max material setup for this stuff?
also on a related note, years ago in the how you do dem shapes thread someone posted (earthquake?) a max shader material they used for subd models, anyone remember that setup? or a good max material setup for this stuff?
Personally, I like to use Matcaps. Here's a vid tut from my channel showing how to set them up:
also on a related note, years ago in the how you do dem shapes thread someone posted (earthquake?) a max shader material they used for subd models, anyone remember that setup? or a good max material setup for this stuff?
A standard Blinn material with a low-mid grey diffuse, a high specular level of 80-100 and a glossiness of 20-40 should be fine. A high specular level is really the key to being able to spot any errors in the surface geometry.
Replies
I have the Oculus Rift and it isn't as big as a problem as I originally thought. I think NM work good enough as long as the silhouette is intact. So extruded forms should have real geometry. This can be solved with tessellation for organic models. But there should be a lot more topology for VR models, that is true.
How do you deal with UV's?
Do you retopo from scratch? If yes, how do you uv the low poly and high one? Don't they need to have the same uv layout?
The high poly never needs to be unwrapped for baking purposes. Its sole purpose is to capture its high fidelity detail to the Normal map.
Yes, I agree.
Personally I've used a few VR devkits over the last few years. Geometric complexity isn't important. Even Minecraft would look great in VR.
Artists overestimate new things. VR isn't a big deal for art production. Its real impact is on game design.
Over-directed movie-games will have to change, but asset production won't.
I don't retopo from scratch, and I don't UV the highpoly ever. It's not necessary for baking. I UV the lowpoly only once it's done. I derive the LP as much as possible from the blockout / boolean geo.
and I've certainly played my fair share of visually stunning and horrifically repetitive, dull games over the years....
If you are referring to the cleanup of the boolean to obtain the low poly model, then this is something that has to be done manually, unless you want to retopologise from scratch. Cleaning up the low is nothing in comparison to the time saved creating the highpoly.
I have traditionally avoided booleans in Max like the plague, but I decided to give this a shot again(the results posted are amazing). I've run into one issue though, after a while the Pro-Boolean objects take forever when adding a new operand. Should this be expected? The operands are a mix of standard primitives and editable polys, and after about 6 operands it gets starts to get longer and longer with each additional object. It gets so slow that I'll click and have time to get more coffee before it finishes.
I did notice that the regular boolean compound object in 2017 seems to be a bit faster, the only difference is that you loose direct modification control over each operand. And you have to add an Edit Poly modifier before you can add a Turn To Poly modifier.
Is there something I'm doing wrong?
What software are you using so we're clear?
As for the new(old) bools in 2017. Yes, they are faster than Proboolean. You don't need to be able to extract them. Max hides them when you add them as an operand, so they are not actually permanently added to the boolean object. You can toggle on 'display hidden objects' in scene explorer or enable/disable them in the boolean explorer to see them or not.
Also, just add a Quadify Mesh mod instead of a turn to poly. Turn to poly obviously isn't available as a boolean isn't technically an editable polygonal mesh.
Should work in 2016-17
1. do every bool op
2. Quadify mod with size around 5-8
3. edit poly mod , activate edge mode.
4. Go to ribbon selection Tab and click Hard edges on left side
5. chamfer mod amount 0.2-0.4, tension 0
6. OpenSubdiv
Left : Proboolean Right: boolean
i'm just thinking if there's a way to do this without going out 3ds.
since 2017 boolean still missing some feature also 3ds chamfer some time not working as expected.
kinda hoping if there's a way to have something like fansub shapeshifter in 3ds
It can be done in Max, but falls short on more complex meshes. This is where dynamesh shines as it it designed for complex froms and dynamically tessellates much more efficiently. The thing with chamfer/turbosmooth/opensubdiv is that they rely on relatively clean topology to function optimally, based on edgeloops. Dynamesh doesn't care about this and cleverly uses triangles and poles to derive the surface.
That's why, in my vids, I call the Max option 'the poor man's dynamesh'
rest assured I'm not making any hentai porn
This is ShapeShifter,a sort of smart bevel technique for Maya that was made to work with over-booleaned 3D objects.
There is a long way to go before having something as good as the method described in here,but i'm slowly getting there.Talked about it a little bit on this post.
Looks great.
Yeah i've tried your demo mesh in 3dsmax and there's some area where quad chamfer/bevel are fail to do it right
Just read through your Shapeshifter dev thread and I have to say I'm impressed. The baked results are perfect. I just tested this in Max using your demo mesh and the Chamfer(quad chamfer) modifier, and the results weren't great. How are you dealing with normal shading artifacts on N-gons? Does your beveling physically create some sort of boundary so that the N-gon support edges are redirected through your bevel?
The biggest issue with booleans is bad topo,and if you add bevels on top of them it just breaks everything.What ShapeShifter does is create like you said some sort of boundary based on hard edges and right inside those boundaries all the crazy operations like bevels happen,and they never affect or get affected by the general topology at all.
It's not all sunshine and unicorns,tho,and when you have something like cylindrical shapes booleaned over cylindrical shapes it becomes hard to get a large bevel,but still no errors.
Very interesting approach. Best of luck with the tool into the future. Don't suppose you're familiar with Maxscript....
Never created a single cube in Max,hope that answers your question
(is anyone else getting a constant popup with a quick set for damnable emojis? :open_mout:pensive
I'd love to see the same problem solved within 3ds. It would remove the need to change programs just to generate the HP.
Intuitively, you'd apply a chamfer modifer based on smoothing to do the same job. But that has a few problems,
- Booleans leave stray verts, which screw up edge chamfering
- Max chamfers skew if their verts have odd edge-counts
- Max concave n-gons turn into a disaster when subdividing
This is definitely fertile ground for someone looking to make money with a plugin
Im having a bit of a problem editing the operands while in the pro boolean. Seems I can only select sub objects of the main base, not the subobjects of the operands themselves. I am missing something here. Any help appreciated.
Cheers
( i had no modifier on this piece but you can save them while working, like said before)
Cheerio
i'm giving a go at this technique, but it seems after a while into the model it just kills max, when i try to move an operand it just chuggs and takes forever. anyone else have this problem? any tips?
one thing about this that anoys me my scene will end up with several different booleans, and its tiresome switching back and forth between the compound primitives and standard primitives menus, anyone know a way in max to make a hotkey where you push a button and it makes your selected obj a proboolean,? or anyone wanna make a script for that?
UPDATE
well... i thought this worked but even when you select it in a menu it switches the create panel to compound so you still have to switch back manualy
also on a related note, years ago in the how you do dem shapes thread someone posted (earthquake?) a max shader material they used for subd models, anyone remember that setup? or a good max material setup for this stuff?