|
Flesh Forge posted:working on mouth/inner mouth rigging: It seems to run really slowly in the viewport, or is it just the screencap?
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2018 08:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 04:00 |
|
|
It runs really slowly in the viewport, yeah. I have too many constraints going on for the hardware I have, overall the rig needs to be redone from scratch with a lot fewer constraints.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2018 08:28
|
|
|
So I recently signed up for an account at Poliigon and dropped $48 on texture credits. Wow, they have tons of really great textures including a lot of sky and studio HDRIs. Totally worth it for how simple it is and the quality. Problem was I went hog-wild with 4K and above textures where they really weren’t necessary and started running out of memory when rendering. Need to make sure to get the 2K textures... 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2018 04:17
|
|
|
Get more ram, they have 6k+, I think the hdris are 15k. Speaking of excessive ram usage, I think I broke a record this past week. We took a photo of the beach but the sand looked a little grimy so I rendered a patch to brush into the photo. One plane, one material, vray sun/sky, 55gb ram usage. I was surprisingly impressed. cubicle gangster fucked around with this message at 08:16 on Jun 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2018 08:12
|
|
|
Can’t just add RAM to the video card, if it’s too big I can switch over to CPU rendering I think I have 16GB.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2018 18:19
|
|
|
16 is pretty low these days. I have a quick question - I have a max file which contains an object which is 22 million polys. The object by itself creates a 1.8gb max file. it has UV's baked in. Viewport handles it fine (alarmingly so), and it renders by itself - but just having a blank scene with it open uses up around 30gb of ram and i'm about to start bringing a whole load of heavy poo poo in to join it. Whats the best way to optimise this without loosing the UV's? It's a few different channels that are baked. Pro optimiser as expected crashes max after around 40minutes of single core usage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2018 22:10
|
|
|
cubicle gangster posted:16 is pretty low these days. If you have access to ZBrush, decimation master would work well I reckon *edit* actually zb won't support multiple UV channels. You could optimise it then project the new UV channels back on though I suppose there's no option to separate it into parts in max which will optimise without crashing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
EoinCannon posted:I suppose there's no option to separate it into parts in max which will optimise without crashing? That's my fallback - I have found that pro optimise very quickly fucks up the mesh surface however. I've been deleting sections that face away from the camera and replacing them with low poly mounds for shadows, and cut it into 8 pieces so far. I think it'll work, I was just checking i wasnt missing an easy way. Hubris getting in the way of an overly ambitious personal project...
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
What kind of model is it? organic, character, structure? Anyway, dammit this should work but no actually that's doing exactly what I'm telling it to. *sob* (trying to map a texture on a trapezoid and just mapping to image bounds. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 00:59
|
|
|
Synthbuttrange posted:What kind of model is it? organic, character, structure? I resized some maps and got it to render, it is a massive terrain. Bonus points to anyone who can recognise where I took my 'inspiration' from (ran google maps screenshots through photoscan for a simple heightmap to start with) Rendering it for the first time was a somewhat sobering experience as it has made me realise how much work is left to do to get this where it needs to be.  It is an environment scene for a short film I am working on. I've finished modeling the main assets, and now i'm working on the environments. One is in space, one in the cloud layer, one set in a wide valley and another at micro level on the ground by the river. cubicle gangster fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Jun 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 01:25
|
|
|
Is it yosemite national park? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 02:15
|
|
|
I guess that was too easy! I was having a hard time getting a good valley going, my early effors were rough and I needed something real to base it on if I was ever going to trust that it looks believable. This was the previous version I was working with -  Which while the mountains look cool, there are some strange things going on with the relationship between areas and some consistency issues with the scale. Just couldnt crack it & knew no matter how much time I put into it, it would always look off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 02:52
|
|
|
Synthbuttrange posted:What kind of model is it? organic, character, structure? This really should not happen, but you can try manually cutting that quad into two tris and see if the same behavior occurs. Not ideal but it might let you work around this. Playing around with some face morph targets etc    e: the eyes are too big in proportion and that really jumps out when she squints 
Flesh Forge fucked around with this message at 03:23 on Jun 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 03:21
|
|
|
I know I'm probably late to the hype party but goddamn it's cool to actually see your model properly in real time in the viewport with Eevee. Dev version crashes constantly for me though so I guess I'll best wait for a release. Also, wip texture, still learning as I go, still ponderously slow. Been dipping my toes into fx too: https://gfycat.com/AjarSplendidDotterel I wish I could make the smoke actually properly expand like it would in a vacuum. Elukka fucked around with this message at 10:36 on Jun 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 10:33
|
|
|
Synthbuttrange posted:What kind of model is it? organic, character, structure? I'm pretty sure you can't map a texture to a trapezoid. It feels like such a simple thing and it's completely mindblowing that it's somehow not actually possible. I've ran into this time and time again, and you need a custom shader and some hacks. The exact problem is "affine correct texture mapping for trapezoids". The higher subdivided it is the less visible it is but that's a terrible hack  The reason is, your expected result has more of the texture bunched up in the top, and less at the bottom, and it doesn't just linearly go from one edge to the other, which.. isn't really supported. Triangles have to linearly transition from each vert attribute to the next. Even if you do it "right" with the hacks and implement projective interpolation in a custom engine outside of the 3d software (ie if you were making these for a game), you get this    The seams don't line up any more, due to the way it "stretches" edges in order to keep them in perspective. (e: seems like it lines up if you keep it purely trapezoidal which is good) It's not really a possible thing and it haunts me every day I try to program anything with some kind of ribbon that changes size, like paths or trails. Jewel fucked around with this message at 12:23 on Jun 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 12:20
|
|
|
I know its horrifying why computer why you hurt me
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 12:44
|
|
|
So - did anybody watch Annihilation, (the movie) and wonder if the (second-to-last) final alien (ball of oddness) was built from Blender? I watched a making-of video that talks about using the Mandlebrot (they call it a Mandlebot?) set to build the shape - isn't that an option on the planet-builder thingie? Video for reference. I'm sure they used Maya or whatevs, but drat, it definitely looks like it could be built in Blender. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBDdm1CZytg&t=979s The actual clip in the movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15jwJhN5VGI The more I'm googling and surfing the Blender user forums, I'm not finding anything about Mandelbrot in particular, (at least as far as mesh creation). magnificent7 fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Jun 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 17:46
|
|
|
Elukka posted:I know I'm probably late to the hype party but goddamn it's cool to actually see your model properly in real time in the viewport with Eevee. Dev version crashes constantly for me though so I guess I'll best wait for a release. Smoke fx own, I like
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:This really should not happen, but you can try manually cutting that quad into two tris and see if the same behavior occurs. Not ideal but it might let you work around this. What age is this character? With the blends they're looking pretty old. The mouth looks like it might be too far down the face, leading to some odd mouth shapes and a stubby chin.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 22:04
|
|
|
magnificent7 posted:So - did anybody watch Annihilation, (the movie) and wonder if the (second-to-last) final alien (ball of oddness) was built from Blender? I watched a making-of video that talks about using the Mandlebrot (they call it a Mandlebot?) set to build the shape - isn't that an option on the planet-builder thingie? It was comped. None of the main packages can do that with plugins/out of the box. They'll have used a mix of normals, depth passes and low poly overlays to handle the lighting. The camera movement would have been approximated within mandelbulb and then the shot tracked and re-projected - helps that it was floating in space so you cant see any jitter. I had a deep look into trying to do something with fractals a while ago. The video here goes over it in great detail - https://lesterbanks.com/2015/01/using-mandelbulb-3d-vfx-pipeline/ edit: haha or maybe it was houdini. https://lesterbanks.com/2018/03/mandelbulb-math-houdini/ it looks exactly like the result from that tutorial. cubicle gangster fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Jun 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 23:13
|
|
|
Thanks for the tip ccs i move it around a bit. I'm all done!
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 01:26
|
|
|
wait are blender naming features after pokemon now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 01:50
|
|
|
They added an extra e. Maybe it stands for something but I dunno what.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 02:09
|
|
|
Synthbuttrange posted:wait are blender naming features after pokemon now. Yes and it's real dumb but whatever, is what it is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 02:16
|
|
|
Ccs posted:What age is this character? With the blends they're looking pretty old. The mouth looks like it might be too far down the face, leading to some odd mouth shapes and a stubby chin. She's supposed to be late twenties but yeah I see what you mean, that's partly me trying to avoid that thing with Poser character meshes always having huge long witch chins and partly (again) the eyes are too big. I spent a very long time looking at Poser content and it kind of hosed me up  e: This is why when people poo poo on traditional art education I have to disagree with them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 02:18
|
|
|
magnificent7 posted:So - did anybody watch Annihilation, (the movie) and wonder if the (second-to-last) final alien (ball of oddness) was built from Blender? I watched a making-of video that talks about using the Mandlebrot (they call it a Mandlebot?) set to build the shape - isn't that an option on the planet-builder thingie? Dneg did most (all?) the VFX, so it's most likely Houdini.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 06:33
|
|
|
cubicle gangster posted:It was comped. None of the main packages can do that with plugins/out of the box. They'll have used a mix of normals, depth passes and low poly overlays to handle the lighting. The camera movement would have been approximated within mandelbulb and then the shot tracked and re-projected - helps that it was floating in space so you cant see any jitter. I had a deep look into trying to do something with fractals a while ago. I found a video using Mandelbulb and Blender 2.8 EEVEE, but drat if I can follow what they did. I'm thinking it might be simpler to use a mandelbrot image to do displace mapping? I know it won't come close to the final movie; at least not on my POS Dell. ImplicitAssembler posted:Dneg did most (all?) the VFX, so it's most likely Houdini. So what I hear you saying is "yes you can do it in blender and here's how it's so simple there's no need to spend a dime on high-end software don't be crazy"
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 19:04
|
|
|
magnificent7 posted:
Given companies reluctance to pay for Houdini licenses, you'd think they'd be falling over themselves to use a free software, yet for some reason they don't?. I wonder why?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 19:37
|
|
|
Isn't Houdini absurdly powerful? Like Blender is good and has gotten better, but its more Maya level than anywhere close to the control Houdini offers. Im seeing a lot of studios forgo Maya for Blender now though. All of Tangent Animation's movies are Blender based, and their workflow is catching the attention of other Toronto studios. Blender also had a really good showing at Annecy this year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 21:37
|
|
|
If there is an option to pinch pennies, a company will almost certainly take it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 22:48
|
|
|
I would love for Blender to become the industry standard. That way independent projects done over the internet with multiple participants would be a lot easier to manage. Nowadays it's like, "Oh, I have Maya 2015 but the rigging artist has 2016 and the lighter has 2018 and the modeler is exporting an obj from Modo." The amount of incredible bullshit to get all that to work together is a headache. Whereas if it was Blender it would be "Yeah, I'll grab the latest version of Blender off their website and we'll all work with that."
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 02:29
|
|
|
Ccs posted:Whereas if it was Blender it would be "Yeah, I'll grab the latest version of Blender off their website and we'll all work with that." What's the difference between this and anyone on an Autodesk subscription? We could go and grab max 2019... But I trust 2016. Does blender have absolutely no issues opening old files with new versions, or has it not been used enough in production to see them? I'm just bullshitting with you and wondering if this problem really is going to be solved if blender ever got as big as the big ones. If you saw total adoption would it be that seamless?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 04:35
|
|
|
cubicle gangster posted:What's the difference between this and anyone on an Autodesk subscription? We could go and grab max 2019... But I trust 2016. I personally have never had issues opening files several years old on newer versions. It's possible there are edge cases with certain features, but backwards-compatibility has always been one of the focuses of the project and it's worked well for me. And the difference is that you don't need an Autodesk subscription. It's been a long time since I used Maya but I would be really annoyed if I had to use it again, it's powerful software but it's bloated and loaded with bugs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 07:27
|
|
|
The problem is not really the software itself but it's integration with the pipeline and proprietary tools. Is that compatibility maintained when you version up? Guaranteed?. Every production I'm on is usually 2 versions behind the current release for that reason.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 08:21
|
|
|
Won't that just be the same for Blender once it's widely adopted though?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 08:29
|
|
|
mutata posted:Won't that just be the same for Blender once it's widely adopted though? no reason to not be 100% up to date tho coz its free it's crossed some imaginary threshold I have just invented where now it can only get more powerful as it's taken more and more seriously
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 09:57
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:no reason to not be 100% up to date tho I honestly don't think it's imaginary. In 2001, it was a fun "oh hai look I make boxes" 3D app. Fast forward 17 years, (yes, I've used it for that long and I still have no idea wtf I'm doing most of the time) and it's pretty drat good in the right hands, with powerful enough computing power. I love using Blender and I wish I was more committed to staying up to date. I'm still baffled with cycles and nodes. I'm old school yo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 14:22
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:no reason to not be 100% up to date tho The point of the previous posts, though, is that large projects always have proprietary, internal, custom tools made just for them and that's a lot of work and time to update the whole pipeline to make the jump to a new version. Most of the time for most studios it's not as easy as just hitting the upgrade button and price isn't necessarily the reason.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 15:19
|
|
|
Hi guys, what is the be-all end-all tutorial currently on phoenix FD? We've had it deployed on some workstations and I'd like to find something that can give me a good shortcut to the middle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 16:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 04:00 |
|
|
Biggest drawback for Blender is that if you need support or customized features (outside the scope of its Python capabilities) you're SOL. With Max or Maya you can pick up the phone and have people at Autodesk working to solve your problem. I'm not saying that it's necessarily a good or bad thing, but there have been a couple occasions where I have needed to speak with people that were responsible for building the product. When you're paying them, they're a lot more likely to talk to you and help you out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 16:24
|
|
