Anonymous at Tue, 20 Aug 2024 19:18:29 UTC No. 992491
Got really quiet around Blender
Anonymous at Tue, 20 Aug 2024 21:01:54 UTC No. 992503
I'm looking for an easy way to fill space between body and clothes meshes
I usually sculpt clothes by extracting masked parts of the mesh, adding a solidify modifier, and laying it on top of the model
This often results in gaps between the body and the mesh as clothes often do not stick directly to the mesh underneath and float just a little above it
Since the model I'm making is for 3D printing I need to get rid of the gap between objects as there shouldn't be any empty spaces inside the model
Any help?
Anonymous at Tue, 20 Aug 2024 21:51:04 UTC No. 992505
>>992503
Maybe make cloth a closed volume and then boolean union with body?
Anonymous at Wed, 21 Aug 2024 03:39:07 UTC No. 992535
>>992491
it feels like the whole board got quieter
>>992503
tell me if you find a good way because I usually mask and grab in sculpt mode
Anonymous at Wed, 21 Aug 2024 07:37:33 UTC No. 992541
what would be the best place to find """demo""" versions of blender addons? since i am a poor as fuck third worlder who can't afford to buy them and since blender is GPL it makes "pirating" addons 100% legal
to be specific i am looking for simplicage pro the only version i was able to find is 1.0.8 which has some issue with cage generaton
Anonymous at Wed, 21 Aug 2024 10:47:46 UTC No. 992551
Why Blender camera is so annoying and hard to use? It's so hard to take meaningful shots with it, I simply never use it and do screenshots in render mode instead.
I don't understand, why can't it just capture viewport properly, why all this hassle with weird fov/formfactor?
Anonymous at Wed, 21 Aug 2024 11:07:48 UTC No. 992552
>>992551
Because you obviously don't know how a camera actually works.
Anonymous at Wed, 21 Aug 2024 13:12:57 UTC No. 992563
>>992552
But do I even need camera when I want to take pictures of renders? It seems screenshoting viewport is faster regardless of your deep knowledge. Because no amount of deep knowledge will make it faster or easier to do something with an object that requires special configuration as opposed to just pressing ctrl+prnscr,
Anonymous at Wed, 21 Aug 2024 13:14:45 UTC No. 992564
>>992563
Well, if the whole point of camera is to be able to animate it's movement to do render animated cinematics then I understand why it exists I guess. If I'm just taking static pics of renders though, can I safely just ignore it?
Anonymous at Wed, 21 Aug 2024 13:23:36 UTC No. 992566
>>992563
>>992564
I'll answer to that myself through the power of reddit, but if there's more to say about this, please do.
https://www.reddit.com/r/blender/co
https://www.reddit.com/r/blender/co
Anonymous at Wed, 21 Aug 2024 13:37:42 UTC No. 992568
>>992552
With answer like that do you want to say this thread and board is only for extremely advanced topics answers to which aren't available elsewhere?
I thought I can ask any basic bitch stuff here, sure thing everything is available in books or reddit or whatever, we can even not use 4chan whatsoever if we really wanted.
Anonymous at Wed, 21 Aug 2024 18:23:14 UTC No. 992582
>>992490
made my first model in blender, can anyone with artistic knowledge show me how i can improve what i made? im not sure what it is but something about it just looks really unrealistic
Anonymous at Wed, 21 Aug 2024 18:51:43 UTC No. 992584
>>992581
the anatomy is fucked up, still impressive though
Anonymous at Wed, 21 Aug 2024 23:23:54 UTC No. 992589
>>992563
Have fun giving a client a render at 1572x974 instead of the 1920x1080 that they asked for.
Anonymous at Thu, 22 Aug 2024 11:11:16 UTC No. 992606
>>992589
AI upscale to the rescue! Still easier than configuring camera to have decent FOV.
Anonymous at Thu, 22 Aug 2024 11:12:42 UTC No. 992607
>>992606
you're not very bright, are you
Anonymous at Thu, 22 Aug 2024 11:48:18 UTC No. 992608
>>992607
I think that's been well established considering he can't figure out how cameras, rendering, or numbers work.
>>992606
Congratulations, using a 2x upscaler you've upscaled it to 3144x1948. While I'm sure the client would be thrilled for the bump in resolution (that's smeared with AI artifacts), you've still haven't supplied them with the correct aspect ratio that they require because you're just taking random screenshots.
Anonymous at Thu, 22 Aug 2024 11:53:18 UTC No. 992611
>>992606
Also, I wouldn't call "screenshot, chuck it into an AI upscaler, waiting for that to finish, still have the wrong aspect ratio", quicker than typing in "50mm" or "35mm" into the focal length of the camera.
50 and 35 are pretty standard, retard-proof, focal lengths. If you need wider, crank it down to like 15 minimum, if you need closer go to like 150 max. It's not difficult. If you don't want to bother learning what focal lengths do (like higher ones flattening out distances), just stick it to 50mm and leave it. There's a reason it's called "nifty fifty".
So yeah, unless you've got some disability where typing in a number is a severe challenge, I wouldn't call it "easier" than the retarded steps to get a shitty screenshot usable.
Anonymous at Thu, 22 Aug 2024 12:04:04 UTC No. 992613
when creating a rig ui, what's generally good things to include? Currently I have buttons to show/hide bone layers, 0-1 toggles for ik/fk, rotation follow, ik parent switching, etc, toggles for mask modifiers, some sliders for shaders, and fk/ik snapping.
Anonymous at Thu, 22 Aug 2024 15:27:27 UTC No. 992619
>>992611
Focal length is 50mm by default, where do I put 35 though, is this supposed to be camera size? The main problem with camera is that I need to position it to take a good shot, and to position it, I use viewport, I rotate it, zoom, etc, until I see a good angle. Then I hit Ctrl + Alt + NumPad 0, and Blender for some reason instead of actually positioning my camera where my viewport is, shows this dumb yellow rectangle in the center of screen which becomes a viewport of the camera instead of actual viewport I currently have. Then I have to zoom in to that yellow rectangle to see how it will look. Then I fucking have to zoom out trying to eyeball from which distance I have to hit Ctrl + Alt + NumPad 0 again to make the yellow rectangle have the viewport I actually want. This is such a shit workflow, especially when good angle is subtle and nuanced. Enjoy spending 10+ minutes eyeballing this shit for every shot.
Anonymous at Thu, 22 Aug 2024 21:57:46 UTC No. 992636
>>992619
>where do I put 35 though
>typing in "50mm" or "35mm" into the focal length of the camera.
Like I just said.
>I need to position it to take a good shot, and to position it, I use viewport, I rotate it, zoom, etc, until I see a good angle.
Back in the day before I had a 3d mouse, I entered "fly mode" (shift+f) when in camera view to position it. It turns the camera into an fps no-clip camera that you can just move around your scene with WSAD. Scroll wheel adjusts speed, space will teleport you where you're looking, tab will enable gravity which allows you to walk around your scene like an actual place (height settings are in preferences). When you get the camera where you want, just click.
Now, I just lock the camera to view and position it with the 3d mouse.
You can also use the shiftXY to move the composition up/down slightly without rotating or positioning the camera. Think of it like panning the view to look at the shit outside the yellow box.
>Then I hit Ctrl + Alt + NumPad 0, and Blender for some reason instead of actually positioning my camera where my viewport is, shows this dumb yellow rectangle in the center of screen which becomes a viewport of the camera instead of actual viewport I currently have.
If you already positioned the camera, why the fuck are you setting the camera to your current view? All that shortcut does is move the camera where you're currently looking. If you want to look through the camera, just press Num0.
As for the "dumb yellow rectangle", that's your fuckin shot. When you hit render, that's what's visible. Why would it show you your whole viewport when your render resolution is a separate value that's different to what size your viewport is?
Don't confuse your ineptitude and lack of skill for some great revelation like you've gazed into the abyss and reached enlightenment. You can get way more fucking "subtlety and nuance" from positioning the camera than you could ever do moving the viewport with the MMB.
Anonymous at Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:59:28 UTC No. 992643
i know it's bad
i know it's cliche
i know it's a shortcut
but goddamn why does my shit look so much better on 2s than it does on 1s. its like it magically erases mistakes
Anonymous at Fri, 23 Aug 2024 08:15:18 UTC No. 992649
>>992636
> typing in "50mm" or "35mm" into the focal length of the camera.
> Like I just said.
Goddamn I swear it was "50 x 35 mm" yesterday...
> fly mode
> Num0
Thanks, going to camera view and then to fly mode allows to fly with yellow rectangle visible, so it's a bit better, now I at least don't have to eyeball the future area of yellow rectangle when positioning.
> great revelation like you've gazed into the abyss and reached enlightenment
I never consider butthurt a revelation.
> Why would it show you your whole viewport when your render resolution is a separate value that's different to what size your viewport is?
I get it, but why can't it at least place camera in a way that yellow rectangles width or height is stretched to cover fully to viewport width/height, depending on which is bigger or smaller?
All it has to do is to move camera back until its FOV becomes large enough?
It doesn't even try to fit it, those dimensions of yellow area seem completely arbitrary choice, it's always too small, why not make it 4 pixels wide if it doesn't matter?
Anonymous at Fri, 23 Aug 2024 08:21:38 UTC No. 992650
>>992649
Oh and it's somehow not yellow anymore on that screenshot, I have no idea what happened. I just moved viewport a bit, re-entered camera and fly mode and now it's yellow again, and with different dimensions, kek. This camera thing lives a life of its own.
Anonymous at Fri, 23 Aug 2024 10:39:44 UTC No. 992651
>>992649
>stretched to cover fully to viewport width/height, depending on which is bigger or smaller?
Just ain't how it works. As said, the yellow rectangle is what's being rendered. If you arbitrarily stretch the box in the view just for the sake of looking good, then you're giving the user a false sense of what's in the camera's view vs not. The yellow box is the camera's viewfinder. That's it. When you look through a camera, you can't see the shit outside of it, same principle. Or if you're a zoomer who's never used an actual photo camera, the yellow rectangle is your phone's screen when you go to take a picture. Just because you can see what's around the screen, doesn't mean the phone can see that shit.
If you want it visually bigger, just zoom in while in the view. You'll zoom in on the view without moving the camera/ Unless you have an option ticked to where zooming in also move the camera, in which case, turn it off.
You can also pan the view as well without moving the camera. And it should go without saying by now, but if you pan the view to where part of the camera is off screen, it'll still render normally.
>now it's yellow again, and with different dimensions, kek
Its the same dimensions, and resolution as what you specified in your output. Same aspect ratio as well.
If you put 1920x1080, then no matter how much you zoom in and out in the viewport, you're outputting a 1080p image.
Using the phone analogy again, moving the phone closer to your face makes it look "bigger", but you're still taking a picture at whatever resolution you told it to.
Moving it closer to your face doesn't change the resolution.
Camera view is just a visual representation of where the camera is looking. The darkened areas (the passpartout setting), are just there to show you it's not visible to it.
Also the "yellow rectangle" just means the camera is selected.
Anonymous at Fri, 23 Aug 2024 13:29:00 UTC No. 992654
>>992503
To avoid that kind of shits I usually make a duplicate of everything and join and remesh everything in a low resolution to use it as filler, you have to sculpt it a bit most of the times.
Anonymous at Fri, 23 Aug 2024 15:03:30 UTC No. 992656
>>992651
> When you look through a camera, you can't see the shit outside of it, same principle.
But we can walk back. Now we have a yellow box. What happens when we physically move camera back?
My expectation is that field of view of camera expands, and according to current viewport it would look like the yellow rectangle scales uniformly. Which means we could scale it uniformly by pushing camera back until it hit the nearest edge of the viewport.
Ofc some part of viewport will still be outside of camera's viewport if they have different aspect ratios, but at least it could be as close as possible for given aspect.
Yes, I noticed now that scaling when camera view is active works differently. It basically looks like you took screenshot of viewport and scale into the result image, not sure why this is useful.
Anonymous at Fri, 23 Aug 2024 21:50:36 UTC No. 992671
>>992656
>But we can walk back.
That's just the equivalent of moving the camera, you walking back is the same as hitting g on it and moving it. Moving a camera back does nothing to increase its field of view, it can see more, but its focal length/fov is the same.
Unless you're in the camera view and use the grab/move operation, or rotate (or any camera specific operations like dolly), anything you do in the camera view doesn't translate to actual camera movement (as designed).
>Yes, I noticed now that scaling when camera view is active works differently. It basically looks like you took screenshot of viewport and scale into the result image, not sure why this is useful.
I don't know if you have a problem with reading or not. Nowhere did I mention "scaling" the camera. zoom in with the scroll wheel to look closer at the view while keeping the camera static. It's useful because that's the exact shit you've been complaining about "the yellow box doesn't fill the screen", just zoom in.
Scaling the camera won't do anything.
I really don't get what's so hard about this for you. I feel like most of this shit is super simple to pick up for anyone.
Anonymous at Fri, 23 Aug 2024 22:05:10 UTC No. 992673
>>992671
> I don't know if you have a problem with reading or not. Nowhere did I mention "scaling" the camera. zoom in with the scroll wheel to look closer at the view while keeping the camera static.
Scaling the camera won't do anything.
Yes, by writing "scaling" I meant "zooming".
> It's useful because that's the exact shit you've been complaining about "the yellow box doesn't fill the screen", just zoom in.
But I don't want it to fit the screen with the same content it has, I don't understand how is this useful, I want it to capture wider area by default, closer to what viewport captures.
> That's just the equivalent of moving the camera, you walking back is the same as hitting g on it and moving it. Moving a camera back does nothing to increase its field of view, it can see more, but its focal le
Yes, by increasing field of view I don't mean like setting, I mean like current area it sees atm.
> I really don't get what's so hard about this for you. I feel like most of this shit is super simple to pick up for anyone.
This is really just weird UX. What I'm asking for is for it to work according to "what you see is what you get' principle, because that's the best it could do. It just has weird arbitrary behavior.
> anything you do in the camera view doesn't translate to actual camera movement (as designed).
But I'm not even talking about actions in camera view. I talk about what happens when I press Ctrl + Alt + NumPad 0. It could move camera back to be actually useful operation.
Anonymous at Fri, 23 Aug 2024 22:08:14 UTC No. 992674
>>992673
> But I'm not even talking about actions in camera view.
I mean, my main complaint is not zooming in camera view or whatever, that's secondary question regarding second screenshot. Main complaint is that it's hard to position camera to capture current editor view. By default it captures like 25% of it, it could do its best to capture the maximum, to make camera view as close to what we see in current viewport as possible, but for some unknown reasons decided not to.
Anonymous at Fri, 23 Aug 2024 22:55:26 UTC No. 992675
> It just has weird arbitrary behavior.
Okay, maybe it's not arbitrary, just not useful. What it basically does, is places the camera in the same position as viewports "3d eye" or whatever.
For some reason it decided to not make camera position different from "3d eye" position for better UX.
Anonymous at Sat, 24 Aug 2024 01:01:25 UTC No. 992680
I'm a total beginner and I'm looking to create a train sequence where I have two mountains facing each other with a train track going from the inside of one to the inside of the other. I have 0 blender experience and I don't really know where to start. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
Anonymous at Sat, 24 Aug 2024 02:13:15 UTC No. 992681
what's the deal with cloudrig? worth using over rigify?
Anonymous at Sat, 24 Aug 2024 07:00:06 UTC No. 992688
>>992674
The camera usually has the exact same settings as the viewport though (viewport uses 50mm as the focal length if I remember right). The only difference is there's a box that shows you what's getting output. If the shit you want it to see isn't in the box, move the camera until it is. Same as if you moved in your viewport.
I've already told you how to move it without using move/rotate.
If you need it to see more without moving the camera, lower the focal length to 35 or lower.
What you see literally is what you get. If it's in the box, that's what you get.
>>992680
>I don't really know where to start. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
Start by learning how to use the software. Do the meme donut tutorial.
Then look up how to make the shit in the scene you want.
"Blender Mountain tutorial"
"Blender train modelling"
You get the idea. Try to look for tuts that aim towards beginners.
Anonymous at Sat, 24 Aug 2024 13:35:02 UTC No. 992700
>>992660
Anyone?
Anonymous at Sat, 24 Aug 2024 14:36:39 UTC No. 992703
>>992660
>>992700
You don't need a course to make that scene, it's all basics and a bit of effort
Anonymous at Sat, 24 Aug 2024 16:08:51 UTC No. 992707
>>992700
Vanilla blender? just pirate the hard surface addons (boxcutter/hardops/meshmachine) and take a look at the tutorials, I know a faggot did a sdf addon to do csg, you could try to get it too.
>>992703
yes, he asked for hard surface and no lv design or whatever so I suppose the picture is not related.
Anonymous at Sat, 24 Aug 2024 19:18:49 UTC No. 992717
>>992688
Actually found a workaround to make it easier to control the camera via viewport. If I enter camera mode, zoom in until yellow rectangle becomes as large as possible without overflowing, and then turn on "Lock camera to view", I can control the camera directly by rotating / zooming / moving viewport. Anyway using fly mode in camera view is probably also good enough for most cases.
Anonymous at Sat, 24 Aug 2024 19:40:45 UTC No. 992721
what is the best paid course/masterclass for blender?
Anonymous at Sat, 24 Aug 2024 21:08:03 UTC No. 992726
>>992721
the 100-Chapter Guide to Blender from the Basics to 3D Animation is the most downloaded as generic course in cgpeers, it is in Chinese:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjm
https://coloso.global/en/products/1
You have also these there and a fuckton of others too:
https://blender3darchitect.gumroad.
https://yansculpts.gumroad.com/l/ma
https://www.cgboost.com/courses/mas
https://blendermarket.com/products/
http://cgmasters.net/training-cours
https://www.vfxgrace.com/blender-an
https://www.toanimate.ca/
https://www.udemy.com/course/learn-
Anonymous at Sat, 24 Aug 2024 21:18:40 UTC No. 992727
>>992721
why paid? there's so much free stuff available
Anonymous at Sat, 24 Aug 2024 21:28:03 UTC No. 992728
>>992727
He should go with the donut.
1837x1322
complex_shapes.png
Anonymous at Sat, 24 Aug 2024 22:08:11 UTC No. 992733
Beginner here requesting help from pros.
It seems all hard surface modeling content i have seen can be divided in 2:
1. Take a bunch of squares and cylinder and manipulate them with booleans, bevels, insets and extrusions.
2. Nurbs or extruded vertex to make a figure you will then make into 3d via extrusion.
I am not saying this is bad, but i find it lacking. If i want to do stuff like a cylinder out of a cube like pic here i would be at a complete loss.
I don't have the skillset to generate something like this, hard surface modeling content i saw does not cover this kind of geometry.
I tried to replicate it but the topology not only it would not look like these, it would be an absolute disaster full of ngons and way too much geometry that would not render correctly, basically nothing useable.
What skills am i missing or how do i learn to do stuff like this? Can it be considered hard surface modeling?
Anonymous at Sat, 24 Aug 2024 22:09:38 UTC No. 992734
>>992733
>I tried to replicate it
Sorry, this is a typo, i meant:
>IF I tried to replicate it.
Anonymous at Sat, 24 Aug 2024 22:20:26 UTC No. 992736
>>992717
That's literally what I told you to do.
Anonymous at Sat, 24 Aug 2024 22:28:17 UTC No. 992740
>>992733
>What skills am i missing or how do i learn to do stuff like this?
https://youtu.be/iQAwfsvLFNQ?t=126
Anonymous at Sat, 24 Aug 2024 22:34:52 UTC No. 992742
>>992733
>>What skills am i missing or how do i learn to do stuff like this?
you need to buy an addon, at least that's what I've learned from every youtube tutorial
Anonymous at Sun, 25 Aug 2024 01:05:55 UTC No. 992747
>>992583
Some things about the geometry and timber handle look unrealistic. Probably best to copy a reference closely and compare. Specifically the tang and details on the end of the guard, and the material on the blade needs work, texture is too consistent, why the horizontal noise, does steel look like this? My lay opinion. I like the noisey version though, looks good with some dithering.
839x874
robo gril.png
Anonymous at Sun, 25 Aug 2024 03:59:24 UTC No. 992750
robo girl
Anonymous at Sun, 25 Aug 2024 08:23:58 UTC No. 992758
>>992721
Definitely not the general purpose one. I mean, a good course should focus on very specific topic, maybe even stick to very specific style.
Like "how to sculp this kind of props in Ghibli style".
In general purpose course you will only learn shit you can easily find elsewhere.
Just my opinion.
1175x1127
blender_cube_with....png
Anonymous at Sun, 25 Aug 2024 08:38:53 UTC No. 992759
>>992733
Isn't this a boolean union of cube and cylinder though?
1. Union cube and cylinder via boolean
2. Add loop cut to cylinder to separate upper part from lower
3. Add multiple loop cuts into the lower part
4. Scale the top face of cylinder in propotional editing mode with sphere falloff
I'm not sure if I missing something but here is my attempt.
Anonymous at Sun, 25 Aug 2024 11:10:21 UTC No. 992763
>>992733
And the bottom shape is most likely sculpting, iirc there is a tool that can do that in like a single slight stroke of your mouse, but I don't remember which one.
1034x761
wip.png
Anonymous at Sun, 25 Aug 2024 11:12:16 UTC No. 992764
Boolean modeling is some powerful shit, man
Anonymous at Sun, 25 Aug 2024 11:27:46 UTC No. 992766
>>992764
it's quick, but you essentially have to retopo if you want to subdivide it
Anonymous at Sun, 25 Aug 2024 11:54:12 UTC No. 992768
>>992766
But if you're using whatever else approach you also have to manually do exactly the same things to topology to make it work with subdivide, am I correct?
I'm not sure why "you have to retopo" is often said like it's extra work, when this is just the same work you have to do with every modelling approach you use.
Anonymous at Sun, 25 Aug 2024 14:23:46 UTC No. 992774
>>992764
>powerful
it works in low poly, in objects >250K faces is a pain in the ass.
>>992766
>you essentially have to retopo
No I don't have to retopo, I'm doing models to print, yes I know blender is not the best tool to do that shit.
1920x1080
0001.png
Anonymous at Sun, 25 Aug 2024 17:58:22 UTC No. 992784
It took a lot of procrastination but I've finally finished my house. It kinda sucks, and I want to do better but it looks like not all Ryan's tutorials are free. I'm going to do the robot next, but I'm not sure if this'll be enough. Are there any other channels that you guys might recommend?