Jump to content
3DCoat Forums

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
In near future I will add possibility to add background image. If clone source will be outside the model, color will be picked from background.

Wonderful.

PS: just sent you the file for the save/load problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Ok so after some more cleaning up I managed to get rid of all of the smoothing errors. It seems that while it works it's a lot more picky about the polygon shape than other applications. One of the trouble polygons was shaped like the attached image. LightWave and I believe other 3D apps, have no problem with this shape.

Actually almost any application I use will give you smoothing/non planner errors if you use a polygon like that straight up as it's hard for the app to figure out just what you intended come render time. Where is the normal- and how would you divide that polygon in to triangles? However, if you're subdividing the area, then it will be more than likely smoothed correctly esp. in a good catmul-clark situation. Maybe this has also changed though with LW's new render engine?

This has been my experience so far- unless subdividing you're likely to get smoothing errors on a polygon like that- even on a flat surface, come render time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually now that I go back and look the polygon that caused the trouble did look slightly different. It was this one:

2009-03-18_1223.png

However, even if I make a polygon just like the one in my illustration you can see that LightWave has no trouble with it. And this is just the viewport, not rendering, but rendering also has no trouble:

2009-03-18_1226.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Actually now that I go back and look the polygon that caused the trouble did look slightly different. It was this one:

2009-03-18_1223.png

However, even if I make a polygon just like the one in my illustration you can see that LightWave has no trouble with it. And this is just the viewport, not rendering, but rendering also has no trouble:

2009-03-18_1226.png

I'd split the face this way for better compatibility:

2009-03-18_1226711.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd split the face this way for better compatibility:

2009-03-18_1226711.png

Yes I know that would be better, I was trying to prove a point that if I wanted to do it the "wrong" way it would still work with no smoothing errors.

Downloading 66 now. Thanks for being patient with us Andrew :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Ok so after some more cleaning up I managed to get rid of all of the smoothing errors. It seems that while it works it's a lot more picky about the polygon shape than other applications. One of the trouble polygons was shaped like the attached image. LightWave and I believe other 3D apps, have no problem with this shape.

I think some of the issues you are having would be resolved if you didn't stress the polygons so much. If I tried make those types of polygons in xsi, maya or c4d, it could potentially result in some strange shading artifacts. Part of the reason why it might is because when the computer is rendering stuff to the screen it is essentially breaking down everything into triangles. For some game models if shading artifacts are appearing on the surface, just simply splitting those trouble areas into triangles will actually fix those problems. They can also disappear if you are using subdivision surfaces. I would be careful about judging the appearance of models using lw modeler. It tends to shade in ways that hide trouble areas, and they may not show up until the camera hits a particular angle in a rendered animation (which is the worst time for such things to show up). In fact yesterday I was noticing such a problem on the shading on a cartoon tank game model while in c4d. I looked at the original model built in xsi and didn't display as awkwardly as it did in c4d but it was displaying with a little discontinuity in xsi. I just split the area into triangles and the problem area shaded correctly.

You might find this video helpful. It's about shading. http://www.guerrillacg.org/home/3d-polygon.../smooth-shading

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
What is DP? I can't find by searching!

it is direct painting, its not labelled as such though so you have to go to file->import for per pixel painting or something like that, sorry Im not at home where I can tell you more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
Updated to V66 (Win & OSX)

Changes:

- correct undo/redo

- correct layer moving up/down and mering,correct work of all actions under RMB in layers palette (but topo symmetry)

- correct displacement import/export

- fixed critical save bug (3B file from DP mode was corrupted sometimes)

well it seems like you already squashed this one, but might as well post this while v66 is downloading. I didnt notice this was happening, but all the 'corrupted' files, or more appropriately, files which did not store the painting texture, are half size the normal ones. (arrow pointing to files where there is no texture data saved, and model comes in blank)

also you might get a bug report about a crash on save with v66 (what was happening is that ran out of disk space) saving a new file every 5 min will do that to ya! right now v66 is most likely working properly.

3dc_save.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After painting in DP with a material it cannot be entirely erased. you can see here I painted the whole area then erased the left side.

2009-03-18_1424.png

After further testing it seems as though it only happens when all three, normal, color, and spec, are enabled. If I try to do it with only one of any of them it doesn't happen.

Edit: After more testing it looks like it's just color. See the image below. I painted with all three, then just normal, just color, and just spec. Then erased all 4 samples underneath. You can see the "residue" is only visible on the "all three" one and the color one. Oh and it's not just materials, any painting will do it.

2009-03-18_1434.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After painting in DP with a material it cannot be entirely erased. you can see here I painted the whole area then erased the left side.

2009-03-18_1424.png

After further testing it seems as though it only happens when all three, normal, color, and spec, are enabled. If I try to do it with only one of any of them it doesn't happen.

Edit: After more testing it looks like it's just color. See the image below. I painted with all three, then just normal, just color, and just spec. Then erased all 4 samples underneath. You can see the "residue" is only visible on the "all three" one and the color one. Oh and it's not just materials, any painting will do it.

2009-03-18_1434.png

I can confirm this one, I'm also getting it a step further where I can not paint in some areas when this is the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm also experiencing a bug where after converting a voxel sculpt for pixel painting and then retopologising, some of the new geometry I add will jump to areas of the model that are no where near what I'm working on. This happens with a lot of the retopology tools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
However, even if I make a polygon just like the one in my illustration you can see that LightWave has no trouble with it. And this is just the viewport, not rendering, but rendering also has no trouble:

2009-03-18_1226.png

Why not make it like this?:

post-1287-1237411095_thumb.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

V66 DP Problem with layers:

After painting on layer1, I merged down with layer0 and lost the content of layer1 on 5 out of the 6 materials (I'm left with what was on layer0 on 5 materials). Undo brings back the layer1, but not the content. In other words merge-down doesn't work on objects with multiple materials.

Also clone tool doesn't seem to work with DP. Maybe it's just not yet implemented?

Franck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

I had to post this, for a 'in the field' comparison between the old micro vertex paint and the new one before I colored it over. Here I think the difference is clear, the old paint is blocky, chunky does not blend well, its no per pixel paint. While the new per pixel paint is sharp, blends well and feels just like Photoshop. A picture is worth a thousand words so here it is. and as of v66 its workable (still need to save and reload every 10 min because of a bug that I will call the 'color picker bug' where holding down V will eventually lag out), other than that, its working great..... thanks Andrew!

DP_vs_microvertex.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Contributor

I like the new look of the web site.

Andrew, will you be implementing direct Voxel paint in this release?It would be great to combine the shader effects with some paint details.If it takes too much time then that's alright, just thought I'd ask.

Been very busy with quite a few new Vox sculpts lately.Haven't had much time to test last few versions much.Looking forward to more work on VS side.

Anyway direct painting is looking good, it seems to have made a lot of people very happy. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not make it like this?:

post-1287-1237411095_thumb.png

Because, like I said to Akira, who posted the same image, I was proving a point. While I would not normally model like that, if I wanted to, I could. Just trying to say, if for some crazy reason I wanted a polygon that looked like that, LightWave could (and does) handle it just fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Because, like I said to Akira, who posted the same image, I was proving a point. While I would not normally model like that, if I wanted to, I could. Just trying to say, if for some crazy reason I wanted a polygon that looked like that, LightWave could (and does) handle it just fine.

Phil,

Try making that concave poly by itself, starting with a simple square poly and using the Drag tool. You'll see the problem most when the poly is not part of a larger mesh and you view the poly normal direction. I suspect that either the box attached at the corner in your image is hiding the error or the normal is manually flipped. At render time all 3d apps tesselate their geometry into triangles, so you would only have a 50% chance of seeing an improper tesselation on the poly (assuming the poly was by itself and not hidden in a larger mesh).

Here's an example of tesselation gone wrong:

post-506-1237419424_thumb.jpg

Notice the normal flipping back to the opposite direction when tripled in both tesselations. This is because LW sees the concave poly as having a flipped normal. I would imagine the normal in your example is flipped as well. I don't know how 3DC handles flipped normals, but using convex polys all the time will completely avoid the issue.

Cheers,

-Oliver

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
I really don't see why this is such an argument. Here's a video, I'm doing exactly what you said. No smoothing error.

http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s136/wi...t=smoothing.flv

No argument, sorry if you took offense. I got a different result on two PCs using different brands of NVidia cards. The PC I am on now has no error; just like your video. But the PC next to it flips concave polys once the interior angle starts to reach 270 degrees for some reason (even though it is a much more powerful card). I did not realize a video card would make a difference in seeing an error. I was trying to explain why some concave polys can be problematic at times, that's all. If the UV is concave as well it would explain smoothing errors in 3DC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

V66 DP Problem with layers:

After painting on layer1, I merged down with layer0 and lost the content of layer1 on 5 out of the 6 materials (I'm left with what was on layer0 on 5 materials). Undo brings back the layer1, but not the content. In other words merge-down doesn't work on objects with multiple materials.

Also clone tool doesn't seem to work with DP. Maybe it's just not yet implemented?

Franck.

Ok, reproduced and fixed.

But - don't use Merge visible, it is not working!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the new look of the web site.

Andrew, will you be implementing direct Voxel paint in this release?It would be great to combine the shader effects with some paint details.If it takes too much time then that's alright, just thought I'd ask.

Been very busy with quite a few new Vox sculpts lately.Haven't had much time to test last few versions much.Looking forward to more work on VS side.

Anyway direct painting is looking good, it seems to have made a lot of people very happy. :D

DP in VS (I mean without transferring to paint mode, directly on voxels) can't be done before release, but making possible paintin in VS is important goal. If you will see the history of V2 updates most functionality was done after official release in 10 significant updates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oops accidentally posted this in Feature Requests. Deleted that one.

Here's another bug. When importing a model for DP if that model has multiple UV maps changing the top res for the first map will changes the resolutions for ALL maps. Changing the bottom res will change the bottom one for all of the maps. Here's a video:

http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s136/wi...dc_res_prob.flv

What about this issue - I will automatically re-arrange faces so that vertex with most obtuse angle will be first in face. Also I will split N>4 gons.

It will solve problem.

But if you start changing the polygons won't that affect the final output and the UV maps so it wouldn't work with the original model any more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...