the plugin itself is very good, but the purpose of creasing in the workplace is questionable.
if you've used maya or modo before, you've probably already used semi-sharp creasing. turbosmooth pro quite simply adds this functionality.
the plugin interface will be familiar to anyone who has used the turbosmooth modifier before, but "surface parameters" has been replaced with the creasing options. the plugin supports semi-sharp creasing by vertex weights, edge weights, and smoothing groups at the same time. it also supports material borders--but i don't see much use of that.
i found myself making my base objects, applying smooth groups, setting a global crease value, then manually editing problem edge weights to get an even result. i was able to create this in about 20 minutes while figuring out what everything does:
the cool thing is you can see how basic the cage really is with isoline display on. now keep in mind this object wouldn't be too difficult to do with control loops, but this kind of object becomes painless with semi-sharp creasing as long as you have clean topology. car modelers should look at semi-sharp creasing as a serious companion to traditional subd modeling.
you can get a similar result by using max hard creases and applying two turbosmooth modifiers. it's not as intuitive but it creates a similar result:
ok, semi-sharp creases are good for swooping car bodies; but is it good for complicated hard surface?
the answer: maybe.
THIS IS NOT A BANDAGE FOR BEING BAD AT SUBD. your mesh will need good flow and a fairly even density for this to work. you can see that--just like traditional subd--it doesn't handle poles well. since you still need to add support loops to correct flow and remove pole artifacts, it makes me question why you would use this instead of going entirely with traditional subd.
this also brings me to the fatal flaw of using semi-sharp creasing: editing without the plugin. let me pose to you an example situation.
you have modeled a robot/weapon/car/prop using semi-sharp creasing. the client likes the model but wants to make a change to it themselves. they use max but don't have the plugin or use maya/softimage. what do you do? sending them a collapsed mesh is a poor option that screws everybody over.
in addition i found that using quad chamfer in conjunction with regular edge loops was often faster and more logical than using semi-sharp creasing. it gave a more editable result and output a simple cage mesh i could send to anyone or anything.
so my conclusion is: great plugin with limited uses. traditional subd modeling ultimately reigns supreme. car modelers should be interested as they already create dense meshes.
you have modeled a robot/weapon/car/prop using semi-sharp creasing. the client likes the model but wants to make a change to it themselves. they use max but don't have the plugin or use maya/softimage.
Unlike Max -- Maya and Softimage, MODO has a NATIVE support of complete Catmull-Clark Subdivision (aka PSubs) which uses semis-sharp edges. So it's not a problem at all to transfer such model from Max to Maya or SI - at least is is possible with a bit of workaround.
So Max is the only package that doesn't support full CC subdivision natively... And this plugin is kinda "patch" that fills this gap.
P.S. Currently it's proven that semi-sharp edges transfer seamlessly between Maya and MODO.
Unlike Max, Maya and Softimage, MODO has a NATIVE support of complete Catmull-Clark Subdivision (aka PSubs) which uses semis-sharp edges. So it's not a problem at all to transfer such model from Max to Maya or SI - at least is is possible with a bit of workaround.
So Max is the only package that doesn't support full CC subdivision natively... And this plugin is kinda "patch" that fills this gap.
P.S. Currently it's proven that semi-sharp edges transfer seamlessly between Maya and MODO.
maya has also native support...
i have no idea why everyone says it doesnt...
Oglu, that is a relatively new development. It was added to maya 2014, right? which was released 15-20 days ago... Maybe it has had it for longer in plug-in form but not natively until now? I would still give it a few months until they work out most of the bugs.
no im not speaking about the GPU acceleration... im talking about edge creasing with catmull clark algorithm... maya is able to do that since version 5.0
Unlike Max, Maya and Softimage, MODO has a NATIVE support of complete Catmull-Clark Subdivision (aka PSubs) which uses semis-sharp edges. So it's not a problem at all to transfer such model from Max to Maya or SI - at least is is possible with a bit of workaround.
So Max is the only package that doesn't support full CC subdivision natively... And this plugin is kinda "patch" that fills this gap.
P.S. Currently it's proven that semi-sharp edges transfer seamlessly between Maya and MODO.
Oglu, that is a relatively new development. It was added to maya 2014, right? which was released 15-20 days ago... Maybe it has had it for longer in plug-in form but not natively until now? I would still give it a few months until they work out most of the bugs.
maya has also native support...
i have no idea why everyone says it doesnt...
As I already said, Maya DOES HAVE PSubs support. And it appeared long before Maya 2014! I have Maya 2008 installed on my computer - and edge creasing works fine! See attachment as provement ))
P.S. I re-read my previous post ) It looks pretty ambiguous! I meant: Maya, Modo, XSI support full Catmull-Clark. Max - doesn't. ))
Yeah, edge creasing has been working fine in Maya for a while ... except that besides the subdivision part which works great, the overall implementation is super buggy. For a while (at least 2008 and 2009 if I remember correctly), combining multiple objects containing crease value totally broke. Not sure if this is fully fixed by now ...
Replies
edit: i'm having trouble forming an opinion of creasing, i'll post my thoughts tomorrow sometime.
the plugin itself is very good, but the purpose of creasing in the workplace is questionable.
if you've used maya or modo before, you've probably already used semi-sharp creasing. turbosmooth pro quite simply adds this functionality.
the plugin interface will be familiar to anyone who has used the turbosmooth modifier before, but "surface parameters" has been replaced with the creasing options. the plugin supports semi-sharp creasing by vertex weights, edge weights, and smoothing groups at the same time. it also supports material borders--but i don't see much use of that.
i found myself making my base objects, applying smooth groups, setting a global crease value, then manually editing problem edge weights to get an even result. i was able to create this in about 20 minutes while figuring out what everything does:
the cool thing is you can see how basic the cage really is with isoline display on. now keep in mind this object wouldn't be too difficult to do with control loops, but this kind of object becomes painless with semi-sharp creasing as long as you have clean topology. car modelers should look at semi-sharp creasing as a serious companion to traditional subd modeling.
you can get a similar result by using max hard creases and applying two turbosmooth modifiers. it's not as intuitive but it creates a similar result:
ok, semi-sharp creases are good for swooping car bodies; but is it good for complicated hard surface?
the answer: maybe.
THIS IS NOT A BANDAGE FOR BEING BAD AT SUBD. your mesh will need good flow and a fairly even density for this to work. you can see that--just like traditional subd--it doesn't handle poles well. since you still need to add support loops to correct flow and remove pole artifacts, it makes me question why you would use this instead of going entirely with traditional subd.
this also brings me to the fatal flaw of using semi-sharp creasing: editing without the plugin. let me pose to you an example situation.
you have modeled a robot/weapon/car/prop using semi-sharp creasing. the client likes the model but wants to make a change to it themselves. they use max but don't have the plugin or use maya/softimage. what do you do? sending them a collapsed mesh is a poor option that screws everybody over.
in addition i found that using quad chamfer in conjunction with regular edge loops was often faster and more logical than using semi-sharp creasing. it gave a more editable result and output a simple cage mesh i could send to anyone or anything.
so my conclusion is: great plugin with limited uses. traditional subd modeling ultimately reigns supreme. car modelers should be interested as they already create dense meshes.
Thanks for the "review". Very insightful.
Unlike Max -- Maya and Softimage, MODO has a NATIVE support of complete Catmull-Clark Subdivision (aka PSubs) which uses semis-sharp edges. So it's not a problem at all to transfer such model from Max to Maya or SI - at least is is possible with a bit of workaround.
So Max is the only package that doesn't support full CC subdivision natively... And this plugin is kinda "patch" that fills this gap.
P.S. Currently it's proven that semi-sharp edges transfer seamlessly between Maya and MODO.
maya has also native support...
i have no idea why everyone says it doesnt...
http://www.edharriss.com/tutorials/tutorial_subd_edge_vertex_crease_xsi/tutorial_subd_xsi_edge_vertex_crease.htm
I think the only one that was using a different subdivision algorithm from the other software was modo (till 501?), Max still uses its own.
Even Cinema 4D had it from the beginning with edge and vertex weight:
As I already said, Maya DOES HAVE PSubs support. And it appeared long before Maya 2014! I have Maya 2008 installed on my computer - and edge creasing works fine! See attachment as provement ))
P.S. I re-read my previous post ) It looks pretty ambiguous! I meant: Maya, Modo, XSI support full Catmull-Clark. Max - doesn't. ))