Polyhertz's 3dsMax script - 'Quick High-Poly'
high dynamic range
From an ongoing discussion on this thread - http://polycount.com/discussion/164254/maya-surface-based-asset-generation#latest - in which @Fansub first demoed his Shapeshifter tool for Maya - which us Max users drooled over - it turned out that @Polyhertz mentioned, humbly and nonchalantly 
, that he had created a script for Max that ran a similar operation..........and he did indeed.
So last night he sent me the script and I got to test it out today. And here are the results below. The script basically adds an inset based on smoothing groups and automatically opens the quad chamfer dialogue. I think the results speak for themselves. They are results that simply cannot be achieved with quad chamfer alone. This script to quad chamfer is as spinach to Popeye!
@PolyHertz , I think it would be well worth your while polishing this, adding a few features(inset preview top of the list) and flogging it on Gumroad. I'm sure it would be a huge success.
This was an example I recreated from the Fansub thread that noted the fact that quad chamfer just could not deal with this topology.
As stated by Fansub himself, these tools are not magical wands and some cleanup for optimal results will always be required, especially with boolean topo.
Note the shading artifacts from the boolean operations. Cleanup was a piece of piss in prep for the script.
Pre-chamfer inset based on smoothing groups is the secret sauce.
This was another Fansub mesh design that I copied to demo the script in comparison to Shapeshifter directly.
And finally, I took it through the workflow in under an hour(including making 2 cups of tea and going out for a smoke or 2) - Boolean mesh unwrapped and triangulated before export. There are a few seams that needed addressing but I didn't bother for the demo.
Sorry @Fansub I didn't do your mesh justice but I just paused your youtube vid and eyeballed it rather quickly.
, that he had created a script for Max that ran a similar operation..........and he did indeed.So last night he sent me the script and I got to test it out today. And here are the results below. The script basically adds an inset based on smoothing groups and automatically opens the quad chamfer dialogue. I think the results speak for themselves. They are results that simply cannot be achieved with quad chamfer alone. This script to quad chamfer is as spinach to Popeye!
@PolyHertz , I think it would be well worth your while polishing this, adding a few features(inset preview top of the list) and flogging it on Gumroad. I'm sure it would be a huge success.
This was an example I recreated from the Fansub thread that noted the fact that quad chamfer just could not deal with this topology.
As stated by Fansub himself, these tools are not magical wands and some cleanup for optimal results will always be required, especially with boolean topo.
Note the shading artifacts from the boolean operations. Cleanup was a piece of piss in prep for the script.
Pre-chamfer inset based on smoothing groups is the secret sauce.
This was another Fansub mesh design that I copied to demo the script in comparison to Shapeshifter directly.
And finally, I took it through the workflow in under an hour(including making 2 cups of tea and going out for a smoke or 2)
- Boolean mesh unwrapped and triangulated before export. There are a few seams that needed addressing but I didn't bother for the demo. Sorry @Fansub I didn't do your mesh justice but I just paused your youtube vid and eyeballed it rather quickly.
Replies
I would definitely check that out.
Good job on the demo info btw.
Cheers
I luv the tech forum.
Really in love with what i'm seeing here !
EDIT : For those of you curious to see this workflow in action,I've made a quick video to showcase the whole process,from a cube to a baked mesh in Marmoset Toolbag 2.
Edit: Definitely need more coffee. I misread the topic! @PolyHertz - I'd gladly pay to support the development of this tool!
@Synaesthesia Cheers mate. Just read your edit.
For all those wondering about the script. I didn't write it, Polyhertz did. I'm just testing it out for him. He says he wants to see how Fansub's Shapeshifter tool for Maya goes(see post link at page top) before he does anything with it. Hopefully he'll respond here when he sees the thread.
Ignore the horrible chamfer and bad example just threw this together
Not really sure as to why you inset, really the only problems are caused by Ngons not being connected well, which is solved using turn to poly
If it's to avoid the Ngon issue like shown, just make sure you have an edge to support the geo somewhere, also quadchamfer has an inset option within edit chamfer option.
I'm not trying to make the script any less valuable btw, but I can see why some are confused.
I get it, but I'm not seeing said results when trying the method of insetting by smoothing groups, then chamfering the smoothing groups, so something else must also be happening within the script I assume?
As when you break down into those steps and try to do it manually, you get bad smoothing no matter what.
Well, at least I do with anything moderately complex.
I didn't realize people wanted this so much, I mean it's not that complex of script really. For those that are asking for copies of it, the one I sent @musashidan still needs some work before being ready for release. I'll finish it up and post a copy on Gumroad soon.
@Mossbros Turbosmooth/MeshSmooth absolutely hate complex N-Gons like in your example. Like you've observed, inseting and chamfering don't fix this basic issue. It -might- be possible to do something about this on completely flat n-gons, but I'm not quite sure yet.
I don't want to give anyone the wrong impression; the script will not make turbosmooth work with complex n-gons any better then it already can. This may change later on, but atm that's just not something it's built to fix.
Even the 'The Division' weapons team said back in 2014 that adopting the boolean approach over trad sub-d completely changed their asset turnaround time.
I agree with you on these points : not only is this method over-hyped (the amount of clients i had that expected SS to make their high polies is crazy) but you also can't beat that good ol' powerful subD in terms of flexibility.
With that said,some props like the one in my video are imho easier and faster to do with this workflow or the Zbrush one.When the only thing you expect from subD is to smooth your corners i do think other solutions can sometimes be useful,but anything that requires complex shapes is a no-go atm.
The goal here is just to smooth the corners of a mesh like the Zbrush method,anything past that i always do it in subD.
Stack might look something like this:
Quad chamfer
[inset by smoothing group]
Smooth
ProBoolean
Final meshes would likely still require topo and smoothing group fixes and tweaks, but the interactivity could be beneficial.
Chamfer - Tension: 0.5 Segments: 4 From Smoothing: Unsmoothed
Chamfer - Tension: 0.0 Segments: 1 From Smoothing: Unsmoothed
Edit Poly
I tried it on Fansub's demo model and it looks very similar to the screenshot above.
Imho what lakes on this workflow is just proper tools and experimentations,but hey this is just a start.If people keep playing with it ideas will come to life and we'll be able to improve this method in the future,which is great imho.
I insisted a lot on the non-production-ready of this method when i first made it,and that is still valid as of this day.But if you can pump a prop with it and have it nicely baked don't hesitate to use it for a second as long as you know your shit.
Though about 90% of the time spent here was not spent modeling it but rather comparing the reference images and the blockout to get it right, which leaves a grand total of 3-5% of time spent on mesh cleanup.
For concepts, sci-fi scenes and kitbashing, your tool makes sense, although quick auto-remesh + subdivision (or relax on top) might be just as fast and in some cases even more foolproof.
For people who don't know how to model properly these tools aren't gonna help just like the rounded edge or proboolean workflow didn't help,but for others these techniques can be very useful at creating smooth angles really quickly.
I think some people may be 'over-hyping' indeed. Every time something like this pops up there is an initial frenzy. I'm not advocating 'the death of modeling fundamentals' or encouraging laziness. I'm merely testing a tool and sharing the results. And the reason I posted those results here is because I had hoped for a discussion......and here we are.
My personal philopsophy has always been to learn as much as possible; as many tools, methods, and workflows as I can; and throw out what stagnates me whilst keeping the useful stuff. Every time I aproach a model, no matter how simplistic or complex, my brain goes through the options I have readily available. Will I use sub-d, will it be with in-line edges or will I also use creasing/opensubdiv, straight polymodeling, splines or primitives, will it be box-modeled or edge-extruded, can I sculpt and retopo, booleans, dynamesh sculpting, procedural modeling, or the many ways I have developed in Zbrush that work for me. Only a fool would look at a method like the one discussed and think it's the holy grail of lazy modeling. It isn't. It's just another option.
And yes, I wholeheartedly agree that an understanding of clean boolean/solid modeling is extremely lacking. But that's what I stated above, that a knowledge of topology is still a requirement to achieve efficient results with this method, whereas the lazy who can't be arsed in the first place to learn the fundamentals will inevitably fail. Each artist will decide. Those who have no options to turn to either learn or perish.
@David_T It's not released yet. musashidan is testing the script for PolyHertz.
@David_T Polyhertz resumed work on it yesterday and intends to release it on Gumroad when it's polished.
Ngons are not bad at all if you know how to use them,and because this thread is about experimentation on workflows with Ngons,having complex shapes with weird ngons is only going to help us figure out the strengths and weaknesses of this method
Of course the asset is nothing special or complicated but I think that the forms of the blade are suitable for this method when time is limited, there is no blockout in place, and you know it's going to work before you start.
High poly
This argument has raged for as long as sub-d has been around(a long time in CG terms) and the bottom line is: understand the theory behind topology and you don't even need to worry about it. You will just know what to do.
Quads are still the most efficient solution to use as they lend well to modeling(clean edgeloops make it easier to control the topology), UVing is easier, rigging is easier. All based on the fact that quads create continuous loops and are easier to deal with generally.
And remember, in the context of game asset creation(which this method is suited for in some cases) the topology of the final in-game mesh will be triangulated so knowing how to deal with it is important. As @perna said quite correctly, you can't just ham-fistedly brute force the topo and expect clean results. Prep work, cleanup, and a clear understanding of what you're doing is vital.