|
I seem to remember Maya and Houdini both using bags of marbles to show off their new bidirectional solvers or something along those lines. Balls would be the next logical step.
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2010 06:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 12:42 |
|
|
Maybe this is old, but is this something to look out for? Unlimited Detail Technology
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2010 08:38
|
|
|
The Merkinman posted:Maybe this is old, but is this something to look out for? This just caused a poo poo storm at my company email with everyone saying their opinion on it. Few good points raised: "Yeah, it seems okay for static solid geometry only. Also, how does it Deal with shaders (points don’t have normals) - and anti-aliasing will Significantly increase the render time. Then there’s the issue of how to Source the geometry. This kind of thing has been around for a while, it’s Okay for digitized data (3D map imaging, MRI’s etc.) I’ve used a voxel animation system in production before, it’s pretty similar To this except the resolution increases to >pixel size. It was awful for animation, Jointed animations only...and to conserve memory there was no internal data, Only the surfaces. ...except the resolution decreases to <pixel resolution...I mean." "Seriously, I’ve heard of this process before as well as the inherent problems with actually turning it into a usable format for our crazy industry. For static (organic) environments I can see its potential but as mentioned, what about animated assets, shader recognition/processing and even real-time lighting (considering each point seems to calculate its own lighting so flat surface lighting materials would be problematic). Considering how the ‘in thing’ nowadays in games is to be set in real environments such as war-torn villages/towns, how’s this point system going to cope. What I want to know, can I learn it fairly quick...and make things pretty?" "I’m not really convinced, especially the bit where he’s all “those drat execs keeping us out of the boardroom” or whatever. And surely if you’re going to do a public demo of it you’d get some people in to do decent art for it first instead of just saying “imagine how good it could look”." "Let's face it, if this technology lived up to the claims they are making, it would revolutionise game development. They would have it patented up the wazoo, and would have approached every major game developer to get them to licence it; given what it is supposed to be capable of, not a single developer would pass. "
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2010 11:14
|
|
|
Yeah those images he's included are dire with lovely lighting and covered with noise. hardly sells his system.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2010 13:23
|
|
|
Ah, just throw more particles in, works for me: http://vimeo.com/10044475
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2010 15:27
|
|
|
What are y'all talking about bad art? It's about time we return to the Mind's Eye style!
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2010 16:25
|
|
|
The Merkinman posted:Maybe this is old, but is this something to look out for? It doesn't handle shaders or animation and all of their art looks like it heavily relies on instancing, indicating that maybe memory is a serious concern for the system. Also his entire pitch makes it sound like its smoke and mirrors because he barely talks about anything pertaining to the technology or how it is useful, and immediately sets up an attitude of "people who aren't immediately convinced are technical luddites  "
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2010 20:21
|
|
|
Isn't that similar to what Carmack keeps murmuring about regarding his ideas for a future id engine?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 04:04
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:Isn't that similar to what Carmack keeps murmuring about regarding his ideas for a future id engine? That unlimited detail video got sent around my office as well and a few people piped in as being skeptical. One mentioned that Carmack was already working on something like this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 15:41
|
|
|
Carmack's was something about raycasting into a voxel volume IIRC. It was also going to be used for static environments.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 15:46
|
|
|
I always wondered why autodesk discontinued combustion. It was a nice mid point that did it's job well. Now I know. It's in max 2011! http://area.autodesk.com/3dsmax2011/ They've also bought nodejoe and integrated that. So we've got a schematic material editor and a full compositing suite in a single update.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 16:17
|
|
|
cubicle gangster posted:I always wondered why autodesk discontinued combustion. It was a nice mid point that did it's job well. That's pretty cool. I still use Combustion fairly often.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 20:17
|
|
|
So is it Combustion or Toxik? I haven't used either enough to know the difference.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 23:24
|
|
|
Guess I'll post some more work  advice/crits always incredibly welcomeThese are my first environment models for uni, will hopefully be finished and all textured up within the month: Medieval house, tri limit 3500  Click here for the full 1680x887 image. With a half assed texture job, it ain't finished, don't worry:  Click here for the full 1680x892 image. Nomadic tent, tri limit 3500  Click here for the full 1680x907 image.  Click here for the full 1680x894 image. Church ruin, limit 4500 - 6000  Click here for the full 1680x885 image. Messing with the default Mudbox head, probably not Gordon Freeman  : Click here for the full 660x915 image. Can't wait to get some stuff actually finished and in my portfolio, I'm guessing bunches of WIP's aren't great when it comes to work placement hunting 
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 23:46
|
|
|
DefMech posted:So is it Combustion or Toxik? I haven't used either enough to know the difference. It doesn't look like Combustion, but I'd assume it doesn't have many of the features of Toxik. It seems to be taking Combustion's place in the market.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2010 00:01
|
|
|
Would you guys say there's any point in learning Flame this late in the game? I haven't been able to find anybody willing to teach, but I figure I could install Smack on one of the computers at work (being Macs, my home machine being PC) and learn the basics there. A few people I've mentioned this to say that I'd may as well just stick to learning the newer stuff (Nuke and the like), as they're more powerful and far cheaper than Flame systems/artists. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2010 03:20
|
|
|
Would anybody happen to know when v-ray with cuda support comes out?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2010 05:01
|
|
|
Travakian posted:Would you guys say there's any point in learning Flame this late in the game? I haven't been able to find anybody willing to teach, but I figure I could install Smack on one of the computers at work (being Macs, my home machine being PC) and learn the basics there. A few people I've mentioned this to say that I'd may as well just stick to learning the newer stuff (Nuke and the like), as they're more powerful and far cheaper than Flame systems/artists. Thoughts? I don't think you understand the correct purpose of Flame. It's not really a "sit down and work" thing, it's more of a "sit down with clients" system. Usually you work with it with clients and you have to manage and work on giving them what they want, so mainly it's used in commercials kind of work. If you want to work in a more commercial client environment, then yeah i'd say it's a good idea to learn it, if not, then Nuke is your friend.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2010 08:26
|
|
|
Ratmann posted:I don't think you understand the correct purpose of Flame. No, no, I understand that. It's still something that one would have to sit down and learn first, though, then look into specializing. The main argument I heard was that they're so bloody expensive these days that most studios would rather hire standard employees to do the work and go through revisions like anything else, effectively rendering Flame artists obsolete. Simply, I was asking more along the lines of whether or not there's still a market for new, fresh Flame artists, or if they've dwindled in popularity to the point of obsolescence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2010 08:41
|
|
|
Zvezda posted:Guess I'll post some more work I like this dude, he's got a really nice feel to him. You should definitely push it a bit more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2010 10:33
|
|
|
brian encino man posted:I like this dude, he's got a really nice feel to him. You should definitely push it a bit more. Cheers  I definitely will, once I've got uni work more under control. That dude has got to the point all my Mudbox sculpts reach, almost there but not quite.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2010 14:06
|
|
|
FERN GULLY FAN posted:Would anybody happen to know when v-ray with cuda support comes out? Cuda works with standalone and is 'nearly done' but he's writing an openCL version too. RT still has a few things left to add and vlado said he wants to get displacement and proxies working with it in some form, so I imagine they'll all roll out as one big update. It's just part of vray RT, so standard vray wont be able to use it for a while. Using it to speed up normal renders will be some time after this. From what i've seen, I reckon we'll see it in RT in about 6 months, or at least a lot more info.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2010 14:33
|
|
|
cubicle gangster posted:Cuda works with standalone and is 'nearly done' but he's writing an openCL version too. RT still has a few things left to add and vlado said he wants to get displacement and proxies working with it in some form, so I imagine they'll all roll out as one big update. It's just part of vray RT, so standard vray wont be able to use it for a while. thanks. good to know. That siggraph presentation was awesome. I really can't wait.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2010 19:29
|
|
|
Travakian posted:Simply, I was asking more along the lines of whether or not there's still a market for new, fresh Flame artists, or if they've dwindled in popularity to the point of obsolescence. There is still a market. But it is much much smaller than the market for regular node based VFX compositors. Its a pretty tricky thing to get hands on time with though given its combination of hardware, software and ungodly price.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2010 19:43
|
|
|
I'm fairly well versed in combustion, and from what i've seen from fusion and nuke is programming/heavy scripting and a proper 3d engine (and more but whatever). What does flame/flint do which is so special? Always seen them mentioned but never been able to find out why they're different. Is it just because they run on specialised hardware and as such are totally reliable and locked down to do one job? What job is that, for each? I always thought that aside from scripting and specialist tools within, once you know a node based comp you sort of knew them all. Maybe thats the case but the tools are that different, idk. Sorry about the heavy questions, i'm fairly new to them/my work with them is keying and cc, but it's an area I really enjoy. I'm doing shitloads more editing/postwork these days at work. cubicle gangster fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Mar 13, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2010 04:06
|
|
|
And there goes ImageMovers and 450 jobs... http://www.sfexaminer.com/economy/87509482.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2010 10:49
|
|
|
Ratmann posted:And there goes ImageMovers and 450 jobs... Was gonna post this. Yeah it sucks... Avatar did not have a private mocap stages etc so Disney saw IMD as a drain since Zemeckis can't really make a hit lately. -A n i m 8- fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Mar 13, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2010 17:44
|
|
|
Zvezda posted:Guess I'll post some more work Whoa, fellow Teesside goon?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2010 20:05
|
|
|
brian encino man posted:This just caused a poo poo storm at my company email with everyone saying their opinion on it. Few good points raised: Carmack said Doom 5 will be using a voxel based system. No more normal mapping! Infinite polygons! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Tech_6 Or do a search for "sparse voxel octree" Applebee123 fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Mar 13, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2010 20:56
|
|
|
dog days are over posted:Whoa, fellow Teesside goon? There's a bunch of us y'know. What are Doc's 3D modelling ICAs this year anyway? I'm curious to know if the course is keeping up with industry tech.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2010 21:19
|
|
|
Ratmann posted:And there goes ImageMovers and 450 jobs... Yeah, that's going to hurt, I knew a number of people who left Sony and work to go there. Sounds like Circle 7 all over again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2010 00:09
|
|
|
Aliginge posted:There's a bunch of us y'know. 3 buildings, textured with normal maps and stuff. And for character modelling a 6k tris model. Hes been off for some time with back problems or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2010 01:33
|
|
|
ResonanceCascade posted:Hes been off for some time with back problems or something. The problem being that his back is broken. And hi Ginger Chris!
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2010 05:07
|
|
|
dog days are over posted:The problem being that his back is broken. And hi Ginger Chris! Apparently for the second time as well, dudes got some serious hurt. (Teesside spam.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2010 10:08
|
|
|
Ugh, trying not to get psyched out looking at the pictures in this thread. Somehow or another I got the idea in my head to start working on learning Maya recently. I'm spending anywhere from 2-8 hours on it everyday, mostly watching videos at digital-tutors. My first model, done day 1:  Click here for the full 1097x788 image. My second model, done 7 days layer:  Click here for the full 989x665 image. I'm unhappy with some aspects of these, but after a certain point there's really not a whole lot of point fixing a model from your first week. My friend said my first model was pretty good at least, better than his first model, and he's been working in Hollywood for years now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2010 18:30
|
|
|
I've been experimenting with these "feathers" and thought I'd get some input. They'll produce a repulsion field, allowing the ship to hover.  
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2010 22:45
|
|
|
Is the ship for a game or something? It's extremely saturated and still too glossy dude. It looks like something made for rendering to sprites back in the 1990's.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2010 23:30
|
|
|
New to this thread, are there many Cinema 4D users here? It's something I'm looking at working with
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 00:24
|
|
|
It's for my webcomic. Any thoughts on ways of making it look shiny and new without making it look fake and plasticy?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 12:42 |
|
|
Minor evolution:    No one seems to like the feathers. I'm hoping they look more like teeth now, or a serrated edge. Still thinking about the texture. I think I need to apply a specularity and reflection layer that simulates highly burnished smooth areas contrasted with seams that are entirely unpolished by virtue of being recessed. Fuzzy Modem fucked around with this message at 05:14 on Mar 15, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 05:09
|
|