🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Apr 2023 08:04:38 UTC No. 943145
Imagine how much better vertex modelling software could be if it was made as intuitive and user-friendly as CAD, instead of just constantly adding obscure features 95% of people will never use while leaving the interface and workflow an arcane mess with important features locked behind ridiculous gimmick shit like geometry nodes
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Apr 2023 08:15:47 UTC No. 943146
true
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Apr 2023 13:22:54 UTC No. 943169
It's just that vertices, topologies, normals and stuff like that was never meant to be manipulated directly by the user.
The computer should be able to figure out the best arrangements from high level directives.
Otherwise what's the point of even using computers?
But then a breed of monkey came around and demanded they be able waste their life pushing vertices around.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Apr 2023 13:29:00 UTC No. 943170
The fact that Blender includes a monkey head as a primitive it's not an accident. It's an open mockery. But people for some reason love punishment and struggle. People love mediocrity and being yelled at.
People like to be deceived. Don't ask me why.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Apr 2023 13:33:28 UTC No. 943171
Do you need proof of what I just said? Just do a quick search on Youtube and behold how many Blender tutorials are there with titles along the lines of: "Become an expert in just 5 minutes"
And some even try to sell you some NFTs in the process and let you "make 6 millions dollaronis in just one month". Am I rIght Blender Guru? Fuck you and your fuck face.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Apr 2023 20:10:08 UTC No. 943194
>>943145
>gimmick shit like geometry nodes
Procedural modeling is the future of 3D.
That and AIs.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Apr 2023 01:04:47 UTC No. 943784
>>943145
>>943169
>But then a breed of monkey came around and demanded they be able waste their life pushing vertices around.
but then a breed of monkey came around and demanded they be able *to* waste their life arguing about dancing pixels on a screen, controlled by a pre-programmed (by more monkeys(code monekys)) computer.
then another breed of moneky came along and decided to cry about such things on a ukrainian origami folding image sharing board
pissing into ze wind mein feckless friend
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Apr 2023 06:55:35 UTC No. 943802
"OP didn't have enough braincells to be able to understand how to use blender and decided to cry about it" the thread
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Apr 2023 08:33:58 UTC No. 943807
>>943784
You're attributing magical properties to your manual vertex pushing hand work it really doesn't have. You've been lied to. It was never necessary or desirable to touch vertices and topologies directly.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Apr 2023 08:46:06 UTC No. 943810
>>943802
You've wasted most of your life with this Subdivision Modeling thing because, if Pixar says it's good, then it must be good.
And after many years you came out with essentially nothing in your hands.
And even Blender is moving away from the Subdivision Modeling nonsense with things such as dynamic mesh sculpting.
All that time spent contorting your hand to press hot keys and that little twisted amount of knowledge you managed to acquire is already being obsoleted.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Apr 2023 13:26:34 UTC No. 943832
>>943810
>>943145
Blendlet here. Honestly? I'm starting to feel this way. It's really annoying things, like how selecting vertices in editmode is perfectly intuitive. But then selecting vertices in weightpaint mode is retarded. I don't understand why they don't give me the same select options in weight paint mode.
Or how when you want to mask in sculpt mode, you can't just select vertices directly, and use that as a mask. No, you have to select vertices, and then turn the selection into face sets, and then enable the brush option that treats face sets as masks. Why can't I just use my selection as a direct mask?
And speaking of face sets, why isn't there a "remove facesets" option? You can initialize face sets, which is just enabling them in such a way as to hide them, but they're still there. Or you can toggle face set visibility via viewport options, but they're still there. You can't actually tell Blender to clear face set data entirely.
But those are smaller gripes compared to what truly concerns me: When in edit mode, there is no way to avoid vertices from intersecting with faces. Like, there's no collision detection to tell a vertex "no you can't go there" So if you need to model an area with a tight space, you have to go through a ton of trouble to see what you're doing. and actually avoid intersection. It's such a pain in the ass. But I wonder: can ANY 3d software do that? Does ANY 3d software have innate collision detection in their editor?
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Apr 2023 18:01:47 UTC No. 943855
>>943832
>there's no collision detection to tell a vertex "no you can't go there"
Define "no you can't go there". How precise the solution for a problem is going to be depends on how precisely you were able to define the problem.
With manual vertex editing, nobody to my knowledge has ever been able to precisely define the set of rules by which the software should decide if a vertex can "go there" or not.
Consider for example that only watertight meshes have an inside and an outside. But there would hundreds upon hundreds of special cases to consider.
To some extent it's not even clear what a "valid" mesh even is. Do you consider self intersecting geometry invalid even if it renders correctly?
And the list goes on but it's just to show what a dead end manual vertex editing really is.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Apr 2023 18:10:48 UTC No. 943857
>>943855
It's pretty simple in my mind. Like, the program already knows where a face is, right? Blender assigns every face with a ID, and coordinates. So if another face(or just an edge) attempts to intersect a face, it should be booted out.
I mean, how do video games handle collision? It calculates the intersection of two hitboxes, and then it pushes the invading hitbox out.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Apr 2023 19:07:38 UTC No. 943869
>>943857
>it should be booted out
To which side of the face? Should it be pushed away along the face normal? If so using which normal? The flat face normal or the nearest vertex smooth normal?
To be clear, I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm just saying that it's complicated.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Apr 2023 19:17:01 UTC No. 943873
>>943869
I suppose that whichever method you used to move the vertices, the repelling force should be exactly the opposite direction, effectively halting the vertices in place.
Like, when you use blender, you can decide how to move the vertices, right? Either locally, globally, along the normals, in relation to the view port, or in relation to the cursor. So if you have local selected, and you move the vertices, blender knows the directions the vertices can move to get from point A to point B. thus, when a vertice encounters the coordinates of a face it's not allowed to intersect, it moves back the way it came, stopping at the last known clear coordinate.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Apr 2023 19:19:25 UTC No. 943875
>>943145
>implying vertex modeling is a Blender only thing
Not everyone is a modeler faggot, geometry nodes can be used for FX as well, try walking in into an FX studio telling them that node based workflow should be changed to one akin to CAD based and see how they react.
Why dont you try modeling a human out of NURBs while you're at it. Industrial designers should stay out of animation/FX CG, only usable comparison is with Marvelous Designer and even then the common MD user is useless converting that mesh into an optimized piece with the proper proxies for dynamics.
>>943810
>Subdivision phased out
How can you rig a mesh produced by dynamic mesh sculpting WITHOUT retopo
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Apr 2023 19:39:55 UTC No. 943884
>>943873
What do you do if pushing a vertex out of a face puts it inside another face?
>>943875
How can you rig a mesh produced by dynamic mesh sculpting WITHOUT retopo?
You just do it. I do it all the time. Look at >>943715 for just one example. Do you think I've retopo'd it? It's a metaball and I've rigged the dynamic mesh.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Apr 2023 19:42:59 UTC No. 943887
It actually better to rig a dynamic mesh directly without messing with the topology because simulations work better on a tesselated mesh and retopo-ing it produces no better visual quality than just decimating the mesh for performance.
How did so many people got suckered into this "Retotpo" nonsense I really don't understand.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Apr 2023 19:44:12 UTC No. 943888
>>943884
>What do you do if pushing a vertex out of a face puts it inside another face?
how would that even happen? The vertex can only move from a clear coordinate to a bad on. so if you repel the vertex back exactly the direction it entered, then it will repel back to a clear coordinate.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Apr 2023 19:44:55 UTC No. 943890
>>943884
can't visualize shit on an example with such a horrendous model, show wires on a proper model with muscle definition faggot - it doesn't even need to be yours.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Apr 2023 19:46:47 UTC No. 943891
>>943888
>how would that even happen?
Yes. It's a major concern in in game collision systems as well. For an example of how things can go wrong with collisions even for top notch professionals, look no further than Cybertruck 2077. Whatever that game is called. It's complicated.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Apr 2023 19:49:25 UTC No. 943892
>>943890
You asked if it was possible to rig and animate a dynamic mesh. I've just shown you the last thing I did yesterday. I'll dig up something for you if you really want but just know it's possible to animate without retopo-ing or even caring about topology.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Apr 2023 19:52:08 UTC No. 943893
>>943892
all that is, is a rigged cloth deformation, what - you need to run a sim to always calculate collisions? why don't you go through the weighting process with the nightmare amount of points and irregular flow? This is already doable in AAA but they sure as fuck don't do this because it's considerable more efficient having a base mesh they can reuse for male and female, not put themselves at the mercy of fucking sculpter's dynamesh
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Apr 2023 19:53:31 UTC No. 943895
>>943892
and do share if you have a better example, because it's a lazy enough idea on paper but a nightmare to implement on large scale
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Apr 2023 19:55:44 UTC No. 943897
>>943893
That's a Cloth sim because I wanted it to be a cloth sim. It's doesn't have to be.
>you need to run a sim to always calculate collisions?
You don't have to. You may want to run a cloth sim to remove self-intersecting geometry and add jiggle physics as well.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Apr 2023 19:58:58 UTC No. 943898
>>943894
sorry anon on this specific example this is hardly hi res, not even worth not bothering with proper grid flow, the pros of sticking with a proper well thought-of mesh topology is you get the muscle definition and deformation essentially for free. Pinching and deformation occurs where it should without having to subject a character finaler artist to the soul crushing job of fixing bad rigging + bad modeling via sculpted blendshapes, even in your video you can see the problems with deformation, I give you some benefit of the doubt because you did not spend enough time on the geo but don't try to brush aside the need of proper topology workflow and the impacts on rigging.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Apr 2023 19:58:59 UTC No. 943899
>>943891
I would think it's complicated when there are a lot of independent moving parts. One object collides with another object, collides with another object, and the calculations get mess. But in an editor, you're only moving the vertices you have selected. You move those vertices from point A to point B. They encounter off limit coordinates, and sort of "reverse" back to the last known good coordinate. Shouldn't be *that* hard.
In fact, you can already replicate the effect using geometry nodes. Look at this: https://youtu.be/Dj-2xCb_GKs?t=282
That example is more complicated than what I'm suggesting. But it should give you an idea. He's essentially calculating the difference, and then pushing the vertices back.
And I get it's probably a little harder than how easy I'm making it seem. But I truly don't think it's so difficult that it couldn't be implemented into an editor. It's one of those things that's worth putting the effort into developing, because of how much time and effort it will save artists. One smart guy implementing collision for the editor, could save a collective millions of hours of artists trying to model tight spots without intersecting.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Apr 2023 20:03:07 UTC No. 943900
>>943898
It's whatever works for you in the end.
>>943899
It's not a bad idea.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Apr 2023 20:03:09 UTC No. 943901
>>943897
So as a summary you're only doing a rigging exercise in a temp dummy mesh? it's not a convincing result, for your own benefit Id advice to test in a finished dynamesh highly dense human sculpt and you will promptly see the shortcomings of such a workflow.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Apr 2023 20:04:11 UTC No. 943902
>>943900
it's not a good result m8, what was your goal here? do you have even one finished and rendered project using this method? are you a student?
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Apr 2023 20:08:17 UTC No. 943903
>>943901
>>943902
Do I see some butthurt from the retopo community?
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Apr 2023 20:28:21 UTC No. 943908
>>943903
Retopo is truly a souless wageslaving monkey job, having a good anatomical mesh with emphasis on musculature flow beforehand and modifying it/sculpting on top is superior planning. At studios unless you have a uniquely shape creature or no proper base mesh only retopo is used but always as last resort because otherwise is a waste of money.
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 28 Apr 2023 21:43:29 UTC No. 944458
THIS IS A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT.
If you're using solidworks, be sure to enable dynamic reference visualization.
It shows you what the selected feature is dependent on and what is dependent on it.
You're welcome.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Apr 2023 03:20:25 UTC No. 944481
>>943145
Blender is CAD!
…for idiots.
Anonymous at Sun, 28 May 2023 04:55:49 UTC No. 946927
>>943145
I don't know
Anonymous at Sun, 28 May 2023 08:21:48 UTC No. 946967
>>943145
what if i do all this in max? did autodesk lie to me? are polygonal models a scam?
Anonymous at Mon, 5 Jun 2023 15:10:52 UTC No. 947582
>>943857
Try voxel stuff. 3DCoat is great.
Anonymous at Tue, 6 Jun 2023 08:14:26 UTC No. 947640
>>943869
>To which side of the face?
Either same side it was on before, or front of face. Add a checkbox if you want. Easy.
>Using which normal
The face normal
These aren't big problems
Anonymous at Tue, 6 Jun 2023 08:27:17 UTC No. 947641
>>943908
quit acting like I can understand what you said.
Anonymous at Sun, 25 Jun 2023 23:05:59 UTC No. 949366
>>943908
MF, I been to technicolour studios where rigging artists made requirements of having tubular anatomy-less topology. The Industry is full of retardation... Although is good to see Anons with common sense. I salute you fren.
Anonymous at Sun, 25 Jun 2023 23:11:31 UTC No. 949367
>>947582
3DCoat is not accepted in the Industry since the owners are schizophrenic Christians. You gotta join the Kabbalistic group to be industry standard.
Anonymous at Sun, 25 Jun 2023 23:13:30 UTC No. 949368
>>943145
>gimmick shit like geometry nodes
How low Iq you gotta be??
Anonymous at Mon, 26 Jun 2023 12:39:50 UTC No. 949402
All I see and hear is the crying of the kids that got filtered hard.
Blender is a lifestyle, not a software.
Anonymous at Mon, 26 Jun 2023 21:17:45 UTC No. 949435
>>949402
So Blender is like being gay, a furry or both, right? Somehow I've always suspected that was the case.
Anonymous at Thu, 29 Jun 2023 11:01:21 UTC No. 949682
>>949435
>so Blender is like being gay, gay, or double gay?
Anonymous at Thu, 29 Jun 2023 15:11:46 UTC No. 949699
>>949682
Yeah like the maya vfx industry in Canada/common wealth. Where almost no one in the studios are woke retarded gayshits. Trust me the AAA autofag industry is filled with homosexuality and woke agendas. At least Blendlets have the option to opt out as hobbyists/Indies or freelance.
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jul 2023 17:09:27 UTC No. 950146
>>943807
So what the actual fuck do you consider the proper technique to make either organic high poly or hard-surface models with alot of details? What about simple models?
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jul 2023 17:25:44 UTC No. 950147
>>943169
I can understand and I agree that we should be pushing computers to do the taxing, repetitive, meanial work for us, but what I do not understand is how YOU would go about making simple or very detailed high or low poly models without pushing vertices like a monkey, are you telling me they had geometry nodes in the 90's? Tell me a workflow that would work on a detailed human body mesh, without any issues when it comes to shading or rigging/weight painting.
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jul 2023 10:32:57 UTC No. 950222
>>943145
me when I spend my life arguing about computer software like a fucking schizo instead of actually doing something productive
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jul 2023 12:40:19 UTC No. 950231
how would you model a broken crate or some old medieval prop efficiently? You probably have 0 professional experience given this braindead take.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jul 2023 19:37:25 UTC No. 953249
CAD modeling is more intuitive. You have actual volumes with actual curved surfaces, and you apply virtual machining operations to them. Everything works according to common sense. I thought high-poly vertex modelling was insane when I first saw it. I always assumed vertex modelling was just a hack for real-time games on weak hardware, used for low poly only, and everybody doing photorealism used CAD with super-advanced automation for all the fine details. I only accepted vertex modelling because my imagined CAD software doesn't exist.
The chair nerd at Fri, 28 Jul 2023 05:36:23 UTC No. 953335
>>950225
It is. When autodesk already has the market cornered but still needs to spend millions on marketing you can fucking bet it has many shills on payroll shitposting on every forum
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jul 2023 10:27:40 UTC No. 953355
I was absolutely shocked when I tried vertex modelling for the first time.
I had used rhino and google sketchup in HS in the late 00s. It never occurred to me that there was a difference between CAD and vertex modelling for vidya.
Later I got into zbrush and found it intuitive (aside from booleans being shit). When I learned about manual retopology in blender I found that intuitive and easy too.
But the first time I tried hard surface modelling? What a rude awakening. I assumed I was retarded and didn't know the software, so I watched an in-depth tutorial about using machinetools and hopscutter. Was surprised to see that the tutorial was 12 hours long about making a shitty office chair. I assumed they were going really slow so retards could follow. Nope, it simply is that autistic to make anything with vertex modelling.
>need to make a hole through an object
>a simple operation that makes up a huge percentage of hard surface modelling
>lets just retopo the whole surface so it doesn't break
>need to add edge loops to the cutter surface too
>still looks like shit
Vertex modellers genuinely would rather spend the whole day cutting a hole in an object or bending intersecting pipes than make something that looks interesting, so that only other autists will admire them.
Good for them though,
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jul 2023 14:12:39 UTC No. 953374
>>953355
Some troll convinced them that if their topology doesn't "look good" (whatever the means, the rules constantly change) they're never going to get hired by Studio Ghibli. You have to be patient.
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jul 2023 14:30:40 UTC No. 953375
blender kinda sucks but for those of you doomed to use it check out this humble bundle
https://www.humblebundle.com/softwa
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jul 2023 14:44:39 UTC No. 953378
>>953355
>>953374
watch elementza tutorials to see what goes wrong when you have lazy random topology
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1g
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jul 2023 14:53:09 UTC No. 953380
>>953378
Give me a precise definition of "lazy random topology".
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jul 2023 15:26:35 UTC No. 953386
>>953374
It's not even about that, just to avoid shading errors you need autism.
I respect those who have it, but it just isn't for me.
I will just be using plasticity going forward.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jul 2023 15:06:36 UTC No. 953469
>>953355
Nigger what the fuck are you talking about. 12 hours, making holes, vertex modeling slow? It’s slow if you are not proficient.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jul 2023 17:15:21 UTC No. 953472
>>953469
So you're saying that unless you're super fast and put a lot of (unpaid) effort into it, then it's slow.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jul 2023 18:41:18 UTC No. 953484
>>953249
CAD modeling is absolutely used in film and games, but obviously the final product is always a polygon model. A CAD model is like a very high poly sculpt. It's never going to go straight into use like that - it's always going to get turned into a polygon model that supports UV mapped textures, deformation and whatnot.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jul 2023 19:05:11 UTC No. 953486
>>944480
fellow stern fag spotted
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jul 2023 19:22:30 UTC No. 953491
>>950147
Fucking this. OP and the other whiners say they have better methods, and then post dreck like >>943894.
Show something that could be used in a AAA prodution, and I'll hear you out. Otherwise, just keep crying until AI lowers the skill requirement enough for you.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jul 2023 19:37:12 UTC No. 953495
>>953491
Have you considered that you may have some sort of sexual fetish for mesh topology?
Because all that matters in the end is if the model renders correctly or not.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jul 2023 19:40:47 UTC No. 953497
>>953494
Geometry Nodes is an experimental feature and it's also somewhat dishonest because instead of giving you useful features, the Blender people can use it as excuse to just tell you to make your own.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jul 2023 19:49:26 UTC No. 953499
>>953355
You're dumb
Rendering shape primitives is easy, collisions on shape primitives are easy also. That is why CAD uses them aside from the obvious engineering reasons. The catch is that parametric modelling looks shit. Do an inspection of some appliances around your home. They were all designed with parametric cad tools and they look shit.
Good looking things are nearly always complex shapes and are rarely made up of mathematically perfect circles, spheres and planes. That is all that parametric cad can provide to us. This is why we have vertex modelling because we can make whatever damn shape we want. The reason topology is important is because vertex modelling is very performance intensive in comparison to parametric models. To work around this we use SHADERS and TEXTURES. These allow us to not use as much geometry in-turn reducing the processing requirements for a scene. Shaders are evil and were made by math nerds who think they can determine the angle of a plane from 3 vertices and then derive appropriate lighting from it and worse - fake the lighting to the plane looks like a curve. These math losers get it wrong whenever the topology is shit so the model looks like shit. That is why we need good topology because not everyone has a supercomputer in their wardrobe like you do.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jul 2023 19:53:00 UTC No. 953500
>>953497
The problem with geometry nodes is that it works.
It is just designed to have an absolutely insane learning curve in order to reduce the nodes that have to ship with the product. The list of nodes is already insane and adding a useful set of abstracted nodes would be 'too complicated' and 'unnecessary'
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jul 2023 19:58:25 UTC No. 953501
>>953499
I'm primarily a zfag organic modeller. If I need something hard surface I make it in plastictity, and then sometimes take it into zbrush.
I don't understand the need to use vertex modelling for hard surface, I don't feel there's anything bad looking or limited aside from the fact that most people working in CAD aren't artists (yet). The only issues are converting your model to polygons, which usually isn't a big problem. It's certainly doesn't provide as much of an issue as say cutting a hole on a curved surface with vertex modelling.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jul 2023 19:59:08 UTC No. 953502
>>953500
I don't think Geometry Nodes are usable at all at this time. Maybe in another 10 years, but then again they're way less useful then the Python API that has been there for 20 years.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jul 2023 20:14:13 UTC No. 953507
>>953501
zbrush is just vertex modelling but the vertices are hidden.
Plasticity is the goober of softwares. You cannot cheat in plasticity, you cannot hack things together - everything must be done properly. This is boring and takes too long to be useful in many circumstances.
If I need something complex slapped together in 2 minutes then vertex modelling gives you the freedom to achieve it. Plasticity does not.
This makes it only usable for rule-followers and those people are the human equivalent of an ant colony. Each person does his part all day every day but none are innovators - nothing new is produced.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jul 2023 20:35:33 UTC No. 953516
>>953507
>zbrush is just vertex modelling but the vertices are hidden.
yeah but we're talking hard surface. And much like how you need to have autism to do hard surface vertex modelling, you need to be a based retard to use zbrush for that.
>>953507
>everything must be done properly
are you joking? vertexes are hothouse flowers, if anything demands following the rules it's hard surf vertex modelling.
You can't cheat in plasticity because you can't fuck up. Everything works.
>takes too long to be useful
are you joking again? Plasticity is incredibly fast and flexible.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jul 2023 20:48:56 UTC No. 953519
>>953499
>determine the angle of a plane from 3 vertices
And a normal. Which seems to work pretty damn well.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jul 2023 22:09:42 UTC No. 953542
>>953532
Post wires of that or I won't get aroused.
Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jul 2023 02:48:44 UTC No. 953572
>>943145
Unless your goal is industrial design (which it fucking isn't because everyone here wants to make art not design a mechanical part), you are an autist for using CAD.