The xn3 UI gonna be replaced completely in xn4. I'm programming a standard native-look UI with an integrated 3D viewport ( which can be disabled so no resources will be wasted ).
Btw, the xn4's alpha is inminent ( although don't expect great things about it, it's very immature yet )... and the portability is making me crazy... I need to test the each thing 16 times ( windows XP + windows Vista + ubuntu + openSUSE + MacOSX 10.4 + MacOSX 10.5 + openSolaris 2008.11 + Solaris 10 ) and then 2X ( x86, x64 )... a pain.
The plan is release it the next month, but cannot promise it.
You might consider collecting anonymous statistics about your users. I would be willing to venture a guess than 90% of your users fall under the 4 SKU's of (x86, x64)*(XP, Vista).
I'm excited to see the new UI, could you tease a screenshot maybe?
Im eagerly awaiting the Linux version. Ive been wanting to try this out for a long time but my old computer didnt have a real video card and my current one is Linux only.
Unfortunately, cages cannot be saved separately. That could cause topology conflicts.
The mechanish to achieve that is just to press the "Save meshes" button. Then a dialog appears asking you about replacing the current files with the new cage.
When you say "Replacing the current files with a new cage?" what current files are you talking about?
Does the new file created by clicking the save meshes button contain the low, the high and the cage altogether?
What is going to happen if my low is one mesh, but the high source is made of multiple highres objects?
I am sure I will eventually figure this out by playing with it more. But it is still important to notice that at the moment this save mesh button is confusing. Maybe you can keep it the way it is, but add a big tooltip window explaining exactly what it does? (without having to read a separated tutorial!)
Anyways thanks for everything. I am still amazed that you keep Xnormal free, this is fantastic for individuals.
You might consider collecting anonymous statistics about your users. I would be willing to venture a guess than 90% of your users fall under the 4 SKU's of (x86, x64)*(XP, Vista).
Probably you're right but I'm soooooooo tired of Windows....
To write very portable application I think it's easy... the problem is to test the application and to swap the development environments... Unfortunately a hard disk can have only 3 boot partitions, so I need to turn off the computer, swap the HDD, boot the OS, boot the development IDE, check out the source files, compile and debug.... And virtualization it's not an option for me because I abuse the GPGPU/graphics and that cannot be virtualized effectively 8(
I'm excited to see the new UI, could you tease a screenshot maybe?
There won't be much things functional in the alpha 0. You could see some native-look UI
boring dialogs(like the general settings) and not much more. Only the HM2NM tool, a part of the new node-based shader system and the scripting system is functional atm. The idea for this alpha is just to test if the program can run over multiple OSs without problems ( see if any DLL fails or is not present, threading problems, UI problems due to the native look and feel, etc ) and also to show the people that xn4 is very different than xn3 and that it can run on multiple OSs. Don't expect much more than that for that release.
I'm specially worried about MacOSX... this is my first program for that OS so anything could fail in an horrible manner!
Hi Jog! Thanks for the quick reply.
When you say "Replacing the current files with a new cage?" what current files are you talking about?
Does the new file created by clicking the save meshes button contain the low, the high and the cage altogether?
Yep, it re-saves the current meshes loaded in SBM format + the cage info.
What is going to happen if my low is one mesh, but the high source is made of multiple highres objects?
If you use, for example, these files:
Lowpoly meshes
c: \myMeshes\chair_low.obj -> contains 2 sub meshes: seat and legs
Highpoly meshes
c: \myMeshes\chair_high_partA.obj -> contains 2 sub meshes: A and B
c: \myMeshes\chair_high_partB.obj -> contains 2 sub meshes: C and D
Then, when you press the "save meshes" xNormal will create these ones + save the cages. Figure you introduce the output filename "new" in the dialog:
Lowpoly meshes
c: \myMeshes\new_chair_low.sbm -> will contain 2 sub meshes as the original: seat and legs
Highpoly meshes
c: \myMeshes\new_chair_high_partA.sbm -> will contain 2 sub meshes as the original: A and B
c: \myMeshes\new_chair_high_partB.sbm -> will contain contain 2 sub meshes as the original: C and D
Those output SBMs will contain the new cage too.
But it is still important to notice that at the moment this save mesh button is confusing.
I agree. All is a bit confusing in that old interface which has grown without any control. Don't worry, I'm aware about all that and you're gonna be very happy with the new xn4's interface.
Well, it just re-saves a copy of all the meshes currently loaded + the cage(updated) into equivalent optimized SBM(well... or sucky OVB) files.
I think the mirrors may be acting evil, I can't seem to download the latest version anymore. It will complete @ 75.5mb, then gives an error saying either the download timed out from the site (IE), or the file is not complete (firefox).
this has been happening all day today, and yesterday (3-23, 24)
I just started using xNormal a few weeks ago, I love it!
It is in installer.exe.
For some time anti-virus company give lot of false threats :poly008:
Yep, antivirus usually just try to find portions of strings contained in the virus instead of using an efective way to locate them.
Well, it does not matter... I'll update the NSIS installer which I'm using so the message probably will dissapear automatically... Btw, the 3.16.8 is incoming with a few bugs corrected, Windows 7 WARP10 support and 200% speed improvement (this time on the bent normals).
Just got on the xNormal bandwagon - many many thanks for a kick-ass tool Jogshy. Fast, good and simple!
I'm trying to bake a non-organic thing here and wondering how to take advantage of the new discontinous cages - my problem is that since my card can't handle displaying 1M triangle+ meshes, I can't even get the viewer to launch... Any help?
my problem is that since my card can't handle displaying 1M triangle+ meshes, I can't even get the viewer to launch... Any help?
why not? Due to speed or to out of memory? Is it a laptop?
Btw, Vista can virtualize the VRAM using DX10. With the new version i'm preparing(3.16.8 ) you could use the Windows 7 WARP system(which is a fast software rasterizer).
I've tried using the new version, but i cant for the life of me find an option to use the new cage method. Is it on by default? If i go into the 3d viewer it seems to split the edges on the cage just the same as it always has.
I've tried using the new version, but i cant for the life of me find an option to use the new cage method. Is it on by default? If i go into the 3d viewer it seems to split the edges on the cage just the same as it always has.
Yep it's on by default. If you see the splits it's because you need to reset the cage. The previously-saved cage is fully respected.
To split the edge just select the vertices and press the "Break" button.
It would be much better to have an option just to revert back to the old method(where hard edges = cage splits). If you have any sort of complicated mesh, going in and selecting every vertex would be a huge waste of time. However having a simple button you can click to "split hard edges" would be fantastic. I think the manual split/weld stuff is good, but in most cases its overkill. It would be great to have:
"Weld All"
"Split hard edges"
In addition to what is there now.
Also, an option in the lowpoly mesh options to set which type(averaged, or split) so that you can have the option regardless if you are using cage or not.
I'm with EQ on these feature changes/requests, they really feel necessary. That and being able to actually open the modelviewer with HP meshes over 1m triangles - I'm using a shitty laptop! That or putting these switches outside the viewer somehow - I really only need these two options like EQ says, so going in to the viewer isn't really needed at all, just a simple option to split the cage along hard edges or not, across the whole model.
Just select all the vertices without the "do not select backface vertices" option enabled and press the weld/split.
Btw... is the split mode really needed? xn4's cage system uses always averaged cage directions. I don't think discontinuities in the cage is a good thing...
I've been messing around with xNormal, but right now I'm not convinced. Does anyone have links or anything to show if it's any better than just using max's render to texture?
Do people use this more for AO baking or realtime displaying, or because it's more accurate or faster?
Just select all the vertices without the "do not select backface vertices" option enabled and press the weld/split.
Wont this split all verts, not just verts on the hard edges of the lowpoly?
Btw... is the split mode really needed? xn4's cage system uses always averaged cage directions. I don't think discontinuities in the cage is a good thing...
Yeah absolutely. If you've got a complicated mesh, and you dont have the budget to add in a lot of geometry to help the ray direction(very common) its great to have an easy way to render off an accurate/non distorted(old method) bake, and a separate bake with the averaged cage, to get the correct edge detail, and then just combine them in PS.
Really, i would love for a better way to do this, i honestly would but i dont see an easy solution here.
Old method: Very accurate projection, less skewed details, but missed detail on edges
New method: Very good edge detail, seamless bake but skewed/distored details.
So, how do you get the best of both worlds? Well the easiest thing is to have a simple toggle you can check, and render both maps.
Having a complicated system where you need to go in and manually set up a bunch of things, and really, still have the same problems, and still need to make 2 bakes just isnt efficient at all.
Heres an image to show exactly what i do.
Now, in max the only thing i need to do to render these different bakes, is turn off use cage(and make sure the distance is set properly). Essentially a 1 step process, click a check, hit bake and im done. Really easy.
If i wanted to do the same in xnormal, its a much more complicated process, i need to open up the 3d viewer, wait for the highpoly to load, go in and manually edit the cage, etc. Generally i dont even use the cage, it has always seemed more of a hassle than anything.
It would be awesome if there was just a simple check in the lowpoly mesh options to use either method. Or simple buttons that would give the same functionality in the cage editor, but really i would love it if i could do all of this, without ever needing to use a cage.
[edit] Ok, i just checked out how it works in XN a little more, and i was mistaken, the "Break" button works how i would want it to, so ignore what i said above. There seems to be a bit of a bug here, if i extrude the cage a bit, break, and then try to re-weld it, the verts shoot off into random directions. Easy enough to just reset it, but still a bug none the less.
So i dont think anything else needs to be added to the cage editor atm, what you have works quite well i think. But i still think it would be nice to have a simple check in the lowpoly options, for the times when you're not using cage at all.
I've been messing around with xNormal, but right now I'm not convinced. Does anyone have links or anything to show if it's any better than just using max's render to texture?
Do people use this more for AO baking or realtime displaying, or because it's more accurate or faster?
Define "better".
I think it has a lot to do with what you're doing with your mesh in the end result. Max's bakes are pretty poor, because it renders normals to display correctly in the scanline renderer, instead of realtime, so you get some pretty bad smoothing errors on a lot of objects. If you're viewing in max, XN isnt a whole lot better, because it doesnt calculate maps exactly as max displays them either. Maya does a really good job of displaying XN/Maya rendered maps, and XN does a good job in its 3d viewer of displaying XN/Maya rendered maps as well, honestly i havent found any solution for viewing in max that isnt going to give you bad smoothing errors without using lots of hard edges. If the end result is something entirely different, like a game engine, its best bake with something specifically tailored to that engine, to get the proper tangents/bi-tangents.
So.... It depends. I like XN because its simple, can handle really high poly meshes without crashing, its pretty damn fast, and it means i dont have to open max. Along with awesome features and support from santiago.
Also as far as generating AO in a different app, this is generally a bad idea, because it may not match up exactly, its best to generate everything in the same app.
Hmm... I will have to keep playing around with it more. I've switched to Mental Ray when doing bakes in Max, and it's a little slower, but produces clean bakes.
Those images in the post above look nice towards the right, but it seems to be too much work.
In max the double bake thing is really simple, assuming you have some hard edges on your lowpoly(smoothing groups). Just do your bakes with cage, then set the filenames different, and go to the projection options and click off "use cage". Do the bakes again and you're done. It will take twice as long to do your bakes, but its really easy. Go make a sandwich, or start setting up your PSD, or rub out a quick one or something. Endless posibilites.
There seems to be a bit of a bug here, if i extrude the cage a bit, break, and then try to re-weld it, the verts shoot off into random directions. Easy enough to just reset it, but still a bug none the less.
I think it has a lot to do with what you're doing with your mesh in the end result. Max's bakes are pretty poor, because it renders normals to display correctly in the scanline renderer, instead of realtime, so you get some pretty bad smoothing errors on a lot of objects. If you're viewing in max, XN isnt a whole lot better, because it doesnt calculate maps exactly as max displays them either. Maya does a really good job of displaying XN/Maya rendered maps, and XN does a good job in its 3d viewer of displaying XN/Maya rendered maps as well, honestly i havent found any solution for viewing in max that isnt going to give you bad smoothing errors without using lots of hard edges. If the end result is something entirely different, like a game engine, its best bake with something specifically tailored to that engine, to get the proper tangents/bi-tangents.
So.... It depends. I like XN because its simple, can handle really high poly meshes without crashing, its pretty damn fast, and it means i dont have to open max. Along with awesome features and support from santiago.
Also as far as generating AO in a different app, this is generally a bad idea, because it may not match up exactly, its best to generate everything in the same app.
my experience with that is that maya is very forgiving with normalmaps, but that nearly every other realtime engine goes by the same smoothing rules as any other, which means: if your lowpoly smoothing is very unstable, then it wont bake that well.
It appears that in the case of your direction map rendering, the map is calculated only for positive x y z or negative xyz if set that way. Are the direction maps calculated in only one direction and if so is it possible to calculate in both positive and negative coordinates on one map ? I'll try to upload an example image later.
Hmm I've been testing normal map baking with cages and I've run into a problem. Pushing the cage so that it overlaps in some parts mostly joint areas, 3ds max seems to bake clean normals, but if I export that cage (with the SBM) exporter I get artifacts where the cage overlaps. So I'm wondering what is there an option in Xnormal to calculate the cage like 3ds max does?
Ok, I got this solved. Going to the 3dviewer and globally pushing the cage and resaving the SBM worked.
I'll post some more while xnormal is baking my AOs. Xnormal is such an invaluable too for me. Max keeps crashing when importing over 2 mio objects from zbrush but Xnormal just keeps on rocking and baking!
I think some features could be a bit simplified. My technical knowledge is kinda average I'm still having some problems grasping all the settings ex. AO baking. Usually I feel reluctant to mess up with the settings and I do it only if really have to. Maybe there could be simple presets like low, medium, highquality and an advanced switch to bring out more settings for the users that want it.
After making some tests and thinking a lot about it, I decided to cancel xNormal 4.
It was a hard decision but here are some motives for that:
The project gonna be just and simply too big for me. I started it as a hobby but it gonna require a brutal time and effort which I am not ready to pay.
After making some calculations, I'm loosing a lot of money with it. Each month that passes I loose almost 50$ paying the web server. I need also to pay a power and Internet monthly fee associated to its development.
I found some technical problems with some operating systems. Here are some rants:
Macintosh. I would need to get a Mac. The cheapest one is the MacMini. It costs 575 and it offers a 300 euros-hardware quality PC ... which, by the way, is completely useless for the big CPU/GPU computations which xNormal requires.
As example, let me link you what a PC with the same hardware could cost. All the prices are from www.miordenador.com and www.alternate.de , taxes included:
Intel E5200 2,5Ghz 45nm -> 63
Asrock P43D1600Twins-1394 P43 DDR3 with integrated graphics -> 67
Transcend DIMM 1Gb DDR3-1066 -> 18
Asus EAH4350 silent/di/512M/lp -> 32,5
Toshiba MK1252GSX 120Gb SATAII 2''5 -> 33
AOpen ES45F ATX case with 350W power -> 47
LiteOn DS-8A2S DVD8X rewriter 2,5''-> 40
OS -> Free, putting there Ubuntu Linux.
Total: 300
That's 275 euros cheaper than the MacMini. This PC it's sighly better than the basic MacMini and it also offers better overlock.... So why I should get a Mac when I can get a PC cheaper?
I don't buy computer using just this critiria: hey! it's beautiful and small. No, I want features and calculation power.
Conclusion: Macs are clearly overpriced and only MacPros give enough CPU/GPU power I could need to develop and use xNormal ... but a basic MacPro costs 2200... and that's a lot.
I tried to use virtualization... but failed ( and, by the way, the MacOSX license explicitly prohibits the use I really need ).
At this point let me remind that xNormal is free and in no way I could pay that for a computer. I also tried to contact Apple's developer program without any success ( their response was just a "there's no excuse! get a mac!" ).
On the other hand: Solaris. I tried to port xNormal to this operating system but got multiple drivers and compatibility problems. The LAN and SATA horribly failed with my NF650i motherboard. Same for Sabayon Linux and SUSE. Of course, none of them detects my SATA RAID nor my Radeon 3650(well or my monitor, I'm not sure).... So it's a big problem!
OpenCL implementations are neither complete... and the OpenGL 3 drivers are too immature. Both of them were basic things I wanted for xn4...
I'm also want to mention that I'm a bit tired of xNormal. It started as a hobby and I want to
keep it as a hobby. The quantity of work that xn4 could require is enormous. To port it to several OS it's not an easy nor cheap task.
So, to conclude, I'll continue patching xNormal 3 without adding much more functionality...
My spare time is reducing a lot and I cannot start a big project as xn4 anymore. Other projects also require my attention! Sorry!
I'm afraid nope. Got some serious problems with Mac, Solaris and some linux distros plus my spare time is reducing a lot because other projects require my attention too ( xRender and xEngine to be more precise )
Btw, I'm just waiting a few for 3dsmax 2010 to release the 3.16.8.
Thats some awful news man. Well I just want to thank you for all the time you've spent working on xnormal, forging it into the wonderful tool that it is today. I know you saved me personally, and i'm such many others, countless amounts of time. This is truely a sad day for all of polycount, and i only hope that you continue to stick around. I really cant say enough to thank you for all of the work you've done, i know it must have been a massive amount of time/energy on your part to keep this project running.
Have you considered a commercial version or anything like that? I know i would pay for it, and i'm sure many others would too.
Or possibly going open source, if its just a matter of being bored with the project?
Have you considered a commercial version or anything like that?
Yep, but I need 5000 euros(whic ofc I don't have) to make an enterprise company plus some extra program licenses(3dsmax/photoshop/maya/Qt,etc), patents... and I would need to start a risky adventure for it... I'm fine as I am currently, hehe!
Or possibly going open source, if its just a matter of being bored with the project?
Nope! I'm using some friend's code and they want to keep it closed source and I'll utilise it for other projects too.
The problem was that I though xn4 gonna be much more easy to do... but the multiplaform programming sucked... plus most of the ideas I have for it vanished (ogl3.1,opencl,realtime manipulation)... and I got completely pissed by the Mac platform(expensive, development problems, null Apple support, etc ) and Solaris(it just fails in an horrible manner on my hardware).
I also got a bit tired of continuosly developing only a thing(xNormal). I need to "escape" a bit to other projects or I'll become crazy. Btw, I plan to offer for free also the two alternative projects I'm working in now. One is a biased/unbiased renderer and the other is a 3D engine.
i only hope that you continue to stick around.
Don't worry, although I'm putting xNormal in "maintainance" mode I'll continue patching it frequently ( I won't add too complicated-to-do features though ).
And... hopefully, I'll return with renewed forces once I finish the two other projects and Larrabee/CausticOne/NViRT are a real thing...
I definitly would pay for it as well ! Sad news indeed, but you deserve some rest ! As I already told you many times (and I'm gonna do it again), I also would like to THANK YOU very much for everything. For xnormal but also all the priceless explanations/follow-ups and technical support you gave us in this thread.
I'll continu to secretly dream that one day you'll find the energy and time to rethink about Xnormal 4 (maybe this time, just on Windows? Just to make things easier )
Have you considered a commercial version or anything like that? I know i would pay for it, and i'm sure many others would too.
I have very little spare cash after all my expenses, and regardless of this fact, I would pay for this too. This program saved my ass during senior thesis.
i have to say, that the xnormal4 features are not what i need at the moment.. so i´m already very very happy with x3 .. and you deserve all the respect of the comunity and a lot of powerdonationing!
me too want to thank you for this incredible cool tool!
Bad news, but atleast you're not disappearing completely, right? I second that I am very happy with x3, I only wish that stuff about the cages would make it in there and I'd be so happy... Will be sure donate!
For starters, thanks for everything you have been doing so far. It's kinda crazy good that you basically defined an industry standard with Xnormal. And not asking a dime for it.
I think the donation system will work out fine. But you could really ask for a fixed priced aswell. I understand it might not be the philosophy behind xnormal (since you mention that it was just a tool at first, and that you want to focus on other things now) but still it could certainly bring you a steady revenue. See Crazybump's bsiness model - free for unemployed artists, licence fee for everybody else...
Also, about multiplatform. I understand there is a demand for a mac port ... but really I don't think that's very important. Is there a single game studio out there being Mac only? And if so, I am sure such hipsters could easily afford a PC just for baking. So yeah I don't think that spending hours porting XN4 to the mac would be a worthwile thing to do.
I will make sure to talk about XN donations at work asap too.
I've been playing around today with this plugin, because i was really frustrated with maya's integrated normal baker, and i find xnormal easier to use once you read the manual. The problem i've been having today is that i'm getting these washy normal maps :
left one is from maya, right one from xnormal. I've managed to slightly improve the one maya's giving me, but with xnormal i have no clue on what to do to imporve quality (other than AA which was set to 4 in the example above)
Is that in maya? I've noticed this before, i think it has to do with the way maya filters textures or something. I wouldn't worry about it, when you have a texture etc on i doubt it would be noticable at all.
but with xnormal i have no clue on what to do to imporve quality (other than AA which was set to 4 in the example above)
can anyone help me ?
Some advices:
1. Which output format are you using? The JPG is a lossy format. BMP/TGA/PNG only supports 8 bits of precision. Ideally, you should output the normal/displacement maps using TIFF(FP32) and let your engine to deal with the quality reductions.
2. Use object space maps for non-deformable meshes. TS ones require a perfect tangent basis match ( your programmers should use xNormal SDK to achieve that )
3. Disable texture compression (DXT/S3TC) in the viewer you use(I don't know if this is possible in your Maya version).
4. In Maya, play with the hardware texturing->Mipmap trilinear/high quality filtering. Alsi with high quality rendering->color texture resolution/bump texture resolution.
5. Use a graphics card with pixel shaders 3.0 or above. ps1 have very limited accuracy(specially for the specular computations). ps2 is a bit better but it can use 24-bits instead of 32.
Thanks for the feedback guys @EarthQuake : yes it is maya's viewport , but it shows up the same way in the game engine (blender's game engine) @jogshy:
- i have been using tga for the file format, i'll give tiff a try and see what i get
- i'll try object space ( does it affect performance in any way ?)
- what puzzles me is that i've gotten a cleaner normal map out of more complicated meshes than the one i'm working on now, never had to tweak the viewport stuff
- i've subdivided the highpoly twice, should i do more ?
in the original maya map they do show up if i zoom in, but not to the level of disturbance i see in the viewport, it's not even noticeable unless i use a shiny reflective material ( bad news for me since it has to be for a car )
Replies
You might consider collecting anonymous statistics about your users. I would be willing to venture a guess than 90% of your users fall under the 4 SKU's of (x86, x64)*(XP, Vista).
I'm excited to see the new UI, could you tease a screenshot maybe?
I still don't get that part tho :
When you say "Replacing the current files with a new cage?" what current files are you talking about?
Does the new file created by clicking the save meshes button contain the low, the high and the cage altogether?
What is going to happen if my low is one mesh, but the high source is made of multiple highres objects?
I am sure I will eventually figure this out by playing with it more. But it is still important to notice that at the moment this save mesh button is confusing. Maybe you can keep it the way it is, but add a big tooltip window explaining exactly what it does? (without having to read a separated tutorial!)
Anyways thanks for everything. I am still amazed that you keep Xnormal free, this is fantastic for individuals.
To write very portable application I think it's easy... the problem is to test the application and to swap the development environments... Unfortunately a hard disk can have only 3 boot partitions, so I need to turn off the computer, swap the HDD, boot the OS, boot the development IDE, check out the source files, compile and debug.... And virtualization it's not an option for me because I abuse the GPGPU/graphics and that cannot be virtualized effectively 8(
There won't be much things functional in the alpha 0. You could see some native-look UI
boring dialogs(like the general settings) and not much more. Only the HM2NM tool, a part of the new node-based shader system and the scripting system is functional atm. The idea for this alpha is just to test if the program can run over multiple OSs without problems ( see if any DLL fails or is not present, threading problems, UI problems due to the native look and feel, etc ) and also to show the people that xn4 is very different than xn3 and that it can run on multiple OSs. Don't expect much more than that for that release.
I'm specially worried about MacOSX... this is my first program for that OS so anything could fail in an horrible manner!
I'm gonna blog about the alpha soon.
Yep, it re-saves the current meshes loaded in SBM format + the cage info.
If you use, for example, these files:
Lowpoly meshes
c: \myMeshes\chair_low.obj -> contains 2 sub meshes: seat and legs
Highpoly meshes
c: \myMeshes\chair_high_partA.obj -> contains 2 sub meshes: A and B
c: \myMeshes\chair_high_partB.obj -> contains 2 sub meshes: C and D
Then, when you press the "save meshes" xNormal will create these ones + save the cages. Figure you introduce the output filename "new" in the dialog:
Lowpoly meshes
c: \myMeshes\new_chair_low.sbm -> will contain 2 sub meshes as the original: seat and legs
Highpoly meshes
c: \myMeshes\new_chair_high_partA.sbm -> will contain 2 sub meshes as the original: A and B
c: \myMeshes\new_chair_high_partB.sbm -> will contain contain 2 sub meshes as the original: C and D
Those output SBMs will contain the new cage too.
I agree. All is a bit confusing in that old interface which has grown without any control. Don't worry, I'm aware about all that and you're gonna be very happy with the new xn4's interface.
Well, it just re-saves a copy of all the meshes currently loaded + the cage(updated) into equivalent optimized SBM(well... or sucky OVB) files.
this has been happening all day today, and yesterday (3-23, 24)
I just started using xNormal a few weeks ago, I love it!
Today when i tried to download latest Xnormal 3.16.7from website..
Nod32 catch a variant of Win32/Spy.Agent.PZ trojan.
In the xNormal.exe or in the installer.exe?
It's a false positive I bet, but I'll try to fix it if it's possible.
For some time anti-virus company give lot of false threats :poly008:
Well, it does not matter... I'll update the NSIS installer which I'm using so the message probably will dissapear automatically... Btw, the 3.16.8 is incoming with a few bugs corrected, Windows 7 WARP10 support and 200% speed improvement (this time on the bent normals).
I'm trying to bake a non-organic thing here and wondering how to take advantage of the new discontinous cages - my problem is that since my card can't handle displaying 1M triangle+ meshes, I can't even get the viewer to launch... Any help?
Btw, Vista can virtualize the VRAM using DX10. With the new version i'm preparing(3.16.8 ) you could use the Windows 7 WARP system(which is a fast software rasterizer).
To split the edge just select the vertices and press the "Break" button.
"Weld All"
"Split hard edges"
In addition to what is there now.
Also, an option in the lowpoly mesh options to set which type(averaged, or split) so that you can have the option regardless if you are using cage or not.
Btw... is the split mode really needed? xn4's cage system uses always averaged cage directions. I don't think discontinuities in the cage is a good thing...
Do people use this more for AO baking or realtime displaying, or because it's more accurate or faster?
Yeah absolutely. If you've got a complicated mesh, and you dont have the budget to add in a lot of geometry to help the ray direction(very common) its great to have an easy way to render off an accurate/non distorted(old method) bake, and a separate bake with the averaged cage, to get the correct edge detail, and then just combine them in PS.
Really, i would love for a better way to do this, i honestly would but i dont see an easy solution here.
Old method: Very accurate projection, less skewed details, but missed detail on edges
New method: Very good edge detail, seamless bake but skewed/distored details.
So, how do you get the best of both worlds? Well the easiest thing is to have a simple toggle you can check, and render both maps.
Having a complicated system where you need to go in and manually set up a bunch of things, and really, still have the same problems, and still need to make 2 bakes just isnt efficient at all.
Heres an image to show exactly what i do.
Now, in max the only thing i need to do to render these different bakes, is turn off use cage(and make sure the distance is set properly). Essentially a 1 step process, click a check, hit bake and im done. Really easy.
If i wanted to do the same in xnormal, its a much more complicated process, i need to open up the 3d viewer, wait for the highpoly to load, go in and manually edit the cage, etc. Generally i dont even use the cage, it has always seemed more of a hassle than anything.
It would be awesome if there was just a simple check in the lowpoly mesh options to use either method. Or simple buttons that would give the same functionality in the cage editor, but really i would love it if i could do all of this, without ever needing to use a cage.
[edit] Ok, i just checked out how it works in XN a little more, and i was mistaken, the "Break" button works how i would want it to, so ignore what i said above. There seems to be a bit of a bug here, if i extrude the cage a bit, break, and then try to re-weld it, the verts shoot off into random directions. Easy enough to just reset it, but still a bug none the less.
So i dont think anything else needs to be added to the cage editor atm, what you have works quite well i think. But i still think it would be nice to have a simple check in the lowpoly options, for the times when you're not using cage at all.
Define "better".
I think it has a lot to do with what you're doing with your mesh in the end result. Max's bakes are pretty poor, because it renders normals to display correctly in the scanline renderer, instead of realtime, so you get some pretty bad smoothing errors on a lot of objects. If you're viewing in max, XN isnt a whole lot better, because it doesnt calculate maps exactly as max displays them either. Maya does a really good job of displaying XN/Maya rendered maps, and XN does a good job in its 3d viewer of displaying XN/Maya rendered maps as well, honestly i havent found any solution for viewing in max that isnt going to give you bad smoothing errors without using lots of hard edges. If the end result is something entirely different, like a game engine, its best bake with something specifically tailored to that engine, to get the proper tangents/bi-tangents.
So.... It depends. I like XN because its simple, can handle really high poly meshes without crashing, its pretty damn fast, and it means i dont have to open max. Along with awesome features and support from santiago.
Also as far as generating AO in a different app, this is generally a bad idea, because it may not match up exactly, its best to generate everything in the same app.
Those images in the post above look nice towards the right, but it seems to be too much work.
my experience with that is that maya is very forgiving with normalmaps, but that nearly every other realtime engine goes by the same smoothing rules as any other, which means: if your lowpoly smoothing is very unstable, then it wont bake that well.
Ok, I got this solved. Going to the 3dviewer and globally pushing the cage and resaving the SBM worked.
I think some features could be a bit simplified. My technical knowledge is kinda average I'm still having some problems grasping all the settings ex. AO baking. Usually I feel reluctant to mess up with the settings and I do it only if really have to. Maybe there could be simple presets like low, medium, highquality and an advanced switch to bring out more settings for the users that want it.
http://santyhammer.blogspot.com/
I'm afraid nope. Got some serious problems with Mac, Solaris and some linux distros plus my spare time is reducing a lot because other projects require my attention too ( xRender and xEngine to be more precise
Btw, I'm just waiting a few for 3dsmax 2010 to release the 3.16.8.
Have you considered a commercial version or anything like that? I know i would pay for it, and i'm sure many others would too.
Or possibly going open source, if its just a matter of being bored with the project?
Yep, but I need 5000 euros(whic ofc I don't have) to make an enterprise company plus some extra program licenses(3dsmax/photoshop/maya/Qt,etc), patents... and I would need to start a risky adventure for it... I'm fine as I am currently, hehe!
Nope! I'm using some friend's code and they want to keep it closed source and I'll utilise it for other projects too.
The problem was that I though xn4 gonna be much more easy to do... but the multiplaform programming sucked... plus most of the ideas I have for it vanished (ogl3.1,opencl,realtime manipulation)... and I got completely pissed by the Mac platform(expensive, development problems, null Apple support, etc ) and Solaris(it just fails in an horrible manner on my hardware).
I also got a bit tired of continuosly developing only a thing(xNormal). I need to "escape" a bit to other projects or I'll become crazy. Btw, I plan to offer for free also the two alternative projects I'm working in now. One is a biased/unbiased renderer and the other is a 3D engine.
Don't worry, although I'm putting xNormal in "maintainance" mode I'll continue patching it frequently ( I won't add too complicated-to-do features though ).
And... hopefully, I'll return with renewed forces once I finish the two other projects and Larrabee/CausticOne/NViRT are a real thing...
I'll continu to secretly dream that one day you'll find the energy and time to rethink about Xnormal 4 (maybe this time, just on Windows? Just to make things easier
Thanks again Jogshy !
I have very little spare cash after all my expenses, and regardless of this fact, I would pay for this too. This program saved my ass during senior thesis.
me too want to thank you for this incredible cool tool!
looking forward to your other stuff
http://boards.polycount.net/showthread.php?t=62351
For starters, thanks for everything you have been doing so far. It's kinda crazy good that you basically defined an industry standard with Xnormal. And not asking a dime for it.
I think the donation system will work out fine. But you could really ask for a fixed priced aswell. I understand it might not be the philosophy behind xnormal (since you mention that it was just a tool at first, and that you want to focus on other things now) but still it could certainly bring you a steady revenue. See Crazybump's bsiness model - free for unemployed artists, licence fee for everybody else...
Also, about multiplatform. I understand there is a demand for a mac port ... but really I don't think that's very important. Is there a single game studio out there being Mac only? And if so, I am sure such hipsters could easily afford a PC just for baking. So yeah I don't think that spending hours porting XN4 to the mac would be a worthwile thing to do.
I will make sure to talk about XN donations at work asap too.
Good luck for everything.
Im am chuffed to bits now
left one is from maya, right one from xnormal. I've managed to slightly improve the one maya's giving me, but with xnormal i have no clue on what to do to imporve quality (other than AA which was set to 4 in the example above)
can anyone help me ?
1. Which output format are you using? The JPG is a lossy format. BMP/TGA/PNG only supports 8 bits of precision. Ideally, you should output the normal/displacement maps using TIFF(FP32) and let your engine to deal with the quality reductions.
2. Use object space maps for non-deformable meshes. TS ones require a perfect tangent basis match ( your programmers should use xNormal SDK to achieve that )
3. Disable texture compression (DXT/S3TC) in the viewer you use(I don't know if this is possible in your Maya version).
4. In Maya, play with the hardware texturing->Mipmap trilinear/high quality filtering. Alsi with high quality rendering->color texture resolution/bump texture resolution.
5. Use a graphics card with pixel shaders 3.0 or above. ps1 have very limited accuracy(specially for the specular computations). ps2 is a bit better but it can use 24-bits instead of 32.
6. Tessellate more your highpoly mesh.
@EarthQuake : yes it is maya's viewport , but it shows up the same way in the game engine
@jogshy:
- i have been using tga for the file format, i'll give tiff a try and see what i get
- i'll try object space ( does it affect performance in any way ?)
- what puzzles me is that i've gotten a cleaner normal map out of more complicated meshes than the one i'm working on now, never had to tweak the viewport stuff
- i've subdivided the highpoly twice, should i do more ?
Perhaps it's a problem related to the Maya's realtime viewport(or shader).