Blender Sculpties: Prim.Blender vs Domino

Oh wow, Keira, that's cool! (I haven't had the chance to try fur, yet!) -- do you have some pics?

Unfortunately, not at the moment. Don't get home until late tonight, but I've started a project for my upcoming store using this, and have created a fur setting that I'm happy with for short-fur dogs, at the moment, and if I spend more time with it, it can only get better (I created mine in about 5 minutes).

When I get home, I can send you an example, though, and I'll also be making a video tutorial for this method within a few days.

The hardest bit is preventing the fur from being too thick and blocking out the light, really.

I once found a tutorial about making eyes with particles in blender. I took that idea and created my own eyes. Not perfect, but good enough for me anyways



the original tutorials are here, but i significantly changed it to my needs:

http://www.blendernation.com/2008/04/03/two-quick-ways-to-create-great-iris-textures-using-blender/


have fun

yes!

Warning, warning, warning ... We recently have been looking at sculpties and lag. It turns out that you should be very carefull when you are using multiple sculpties very close together. I tested it last week by putting 72 sculpties all together at one spot. My otherwise very fast graphics card dropped down from 120 fps to below 40 fps when the sculptie set came into view! see /8/af/315268/2.html et. all for more informations

Concerning the LSL export it is a bit tricky and all i know, is that i once managed to get it to work, but the placement of the parts was not reliable (i probably made something wrong). Anyways, after i finish my current task i will probably take a look into the script generator. Domino told me, it should be easy to enhance the exporter to work in a more convenient way But i can't tell any delivery dates yet.

Well, just tried the RC with simple multi-prim sculpties... it seems to work.

Still afraid to try it on a complicated multi-prim sculptie.. since usually when I start working on it, I can't stop till loads of hours are put in -- and would be a pain if the import doesn't work!

Might be missing something as I'm trying this in an exhausted sleep deprived mode...

but seems like the LSL export's don't scale the prims to the right size.

For that matter, how do you view the dimensions (x, y, z scale) of an object in blender?

You can't, kinda. At least, I've yet to find a way. There probably is one hidden away somewhere that I've yet to find.

If you hit 'N', you bring up the Object Properties (Depending on the mode, particle mode will bring up the Particle Properties window, etc), which includes 'scale', but this is completely relative. If you Apply Scale, that will reset to 0.

So there is no way to precisely specify the dimensions of an object in Blender?

Hmmm... When i want to get the object scalings manually, i go to object mode, then press "n" as you say. The transform properties of the selected object contain 3 values named DimX, DimY, DimZ. As fas as i can tell, this is the bounding box, so these value are the correct scaling factors. Concerning the "absolute size" of the build, i do not see why you will need that, because the Dim values are relative to each other, so after your applied them and created the linkSet in SL just scale the whole thing up/down to the wanted size...

Just curious: THe results of my experiments with the LSL export where a bit different: I could see the correct scaling (and thus the relative resizing of the parts was correct), but in my story the final object locations have been corrupted somehow. I did not go deep into debugging yet, but Domino has reported that the RC scripts do allready contain some code for an enhanced scripting solution, so sooner or later a good solution will appear here. And i tend to think it will be "sooner"

I bit the bullet a few days ago on the strength of these glowing posts regarding the infinite virtues of blender, watched all of Keira Wells' and Gaia Clary's EXCELLENT tutorials (great work) and I've got to say without a shadow of a doubt that you all have got to be kidding me. It's diabolical. I can use it just fine thanks for the tutorials, I'm just stunned that it takes me 6 to 7 times longer to do it with blender simply because most of the bulk modeling is done with keyboard "shortcuts" which more often than not leave a stretched mesh that you have to manually straighten out with yet more shortcuts.

The thinking behind the OP wanting to migrate from deservedly industry leading apps to this is frankly mind boggling. Also, Maya and Zbrush support plugins and scripts in the exact same way that Blender does, Maya even uses python for the scripting. Fair do's they are expensive, but even Wings and AC3D's modeling knocks this into a cocked hat.

Honestly, my intention is absolutely not to troll, I fully appreciate it's what works for the individual and good luck to you all. It's definitely not for me, but thank you all very much for the encouragement.

When i switched from "MS-Office" to "Open-Office" a few years ago, i kept asking my boss, why the hell he is enforcing us to do that! It took me 3 to 4 times more effort to make a good document with "this open source stuff" compared to the "well designed MS-Office suite"...

Recently i was forced to use MS-Windows again for a while and it took me some hard hours of work to understand, how i can make good documents with this commercial product, compared to the "well designed Open Office suite"...

Even Einstein has once said, that everything is relative
If i would try to make anything with your favorite program, i am sure i will say something similar as you say about blender. So i think, that the main point here is:

Choose your favorite program and learn how to use it efficiently. Then do not bother with other tools until you really MUST do so for whichever reason.

And finally i don't think, that we are kidding here. I think, we are exploring...

There's always the transform manipulators if you want to stick to mouse, or mouse gestures. Most Blender users prefer the hotkeys, but they aren't the only option. Usually their use results in a faster workflow, not a slower one though.

It's the first time I've heard of a stretched mesh problem.

I find myself modeling much, much faster in Blender than in any other application that I've used, personally, after learning the shortcuts. If you're getting an overall stretched mesh, you're probably selecting more than you intend, or using proportional falloff.

If you don't want to use keyboard shortcuts, everything is available within the UI, but will take you longer to get to. The shortcuts that bring up menus are bringing up submenus of other menus, cutting out the time it takes to navigate through those higher menus.

Along with those, Blender has the basic keyboard shortcuts that all 3d programs seem to, such as Move(Grab), Rotate, and Scale. If you learn the basic shortcuts, it streamlines your use of Blender, in my opinion.

One thing that I do wish Blender had is a command-line interface a la Rhinoceros. I love that bit, probably my favorite thing about Rhino.

As you can see in this tute http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAI_9LD3Wr0

I was pretty non-plussed at all the messing about required to do something so simple. I tend to stick to complex oblongs so the process is compounded by having to repeat the proess dozens of times rather than say, selecting 65 loops and snapping them shut together to make 64 boxes from an 8x128.

It makes me happy to know people have mastered it, but I think all I'm going to use it for is to convert those stubborn obongs because the converter is great. Yet even conversion is hampered by having a cockeyed file browser.


I think this kind of sums up the user who would get the most out of blender. I'm far happier with intuitive mesh controls wrapped in a good GUI or it's a no go.

It's just not for me.

Just out of curiosity, is there any application that makes this simple? I'm just snapping 4 sides out of a cylinder, then snapping the top and bottom to cap the ends. I honestly can't think of a simpler method to take a default sculpt shape and create a cube.

Also, part of the reason so much is required for this particular thing, is that sculpts are so limited. If you were to increase the Multires level by about 3 levels, a simple Cast modifier (No keyboard shortcuts involved!) would make a near-perfect cube, with just the edges showing some distortion. A Cast modifier of that sort on a 1024 face spherical (Or other) sculpty will cause a jagged-edged, though cuboid, sculpt, due to the fact that it's attempting to automatically flatten out round edge loops.

I'm completely serious, if there is any simpler way, in any program, I'd like to know, just for the sake of knowing.

AC3D for one. The vert control has a sublime mechanic to it that makes it laughably easy. I wouldn't poke it's sculpty converter with a very long stick though.

Can you tell a link to an example video, how you would make a sculpties cube with AC3D ? Meanwhile i took 3 minutes for recording plus a couple of editing hours to show you the ultimate approach for making a cubic LOD-resistent and face-optimised sculptie with good texturing properties using blender.

http://blog.machinimatrix.org/2009/04/25/cubes/

I am sure, some other person will now show up and show you an even better approach.

have fun ( i did at least

I really don't want to steer the thread off course, so hopefully this is the last question!

I've never seen a tutorial for it geared towards SL stuff, but this video seems to show off what I mean by how it has different, faster and more intuitive modeling. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8RC5aJuWks

Making a LOD resistant cube takes about 30 seconds, if that. There are no LOD helpers as with Domino's scripts, so unless you know by heart which loops are the hardest, it's probably not for you.

But this is exactly, what i wrote about tool specific knowledge previously. More specific:

"If you know the problem domain, and if you know, how to solve your problems with your tool, you can do it fast, and there is no need to switch to another tool."

Anyways your video example has opened my eyes wide for a better way to make a perfect cube My video is now even shorter and easier. So i have learned another bit now from your post and could transfer it to my workflow. Perfect!

Thank you for that!

Gaia

If I understand correctly then I agree completely.

Glad I could help you find a more efficient way of working

LOD Cube in Blender with RC scripts:

1) Add a sculpt mesh with type 4, x faces 4, y faces 4, subdivision 3, use subsurf and clean lods.

2) In modifier panel, change sub surf type to simple

3) Go to front view (numpad 1)

3) Alt click top loop, scale to 0 (s0)

4) Enable snap to vertex mode (magnet icon on edit window)

5) Alt click 2nd loop, grab and snap (hold ctrl) to top loop

6) Alt click bottom loop, scale to 0 (s0)

7) Alt click next to bottom loop, grab and snap to bottom loop

optionally select all and rotate 45 degrees on Z to align box with axis (aarz45)

Enjoy your LOD resistant base sculptie box

You'd typically either bake and reimport, or apply just 1 level of subsurf and add either 2 levels of multires or a 2 level subsurf depending on what suited the modeling process for your item.

That's what I mean by excessive. IMO it should be:

1) Create 32x33 cube.



Even the long way is shorter.

1) Create 9x9 plane

2) Fold in the sides and pinch the ends shut

3) Subdivide twice.


Which you can do that in pretty much every 3D program.

If there is an application which has this as an option, then yeah it would be quicker. But of course the steps I described only need doing once. Save the sculptie map for the cube and if you need it in future, just import it.



That is not shorter. How many clicks and how much mouse travel is involved in step 2)?

Hi. I am curious and maybe i have missed some basic information:

Your approach produces a cube with 8 face-rows at the top and at the bottom of the cube. So only 16 face-rows remain for the sides. The solution i published earlier only needs 4 rows of faces for the top/bottom, so there are 24 rows of faces left for the sides. Is there anything wrong or less optimal with that approach compared to yours ? Maybe your cube has better texturising properties ?

I tried your approach and i just do not see a good way to fold the caps. I mean, there are 64 faces in the mesh, so i would put 8 faces on each side, but 8*6 is only 48. Where do i put the remaining 16 faces ? with "pitch the ends shut" you mean "pull them together to one point" ? Then the top and bottom would contain 16 (perhaps partially degenerated) faces each and each side would contain 8 faces.

If you just ask why you could not just create a cube, then bake ? With my recent published JASS-Library add on you get that for free. Just click on:

1.) add->mesh->JASS-Library
2.) from there select the "cube (lod)"

So this is a seamless integration into blender workflow and it takes 2 seconds of work ...
ok, this comparison is not fair somehow, but on the other hand, what are we talking about ? The easiest way to get a cube for starting a new sculptie ? That may be the JASS-Library then.

If you aim for "any initial object should be bakeable", then it gets a bit more complicated... But i do no think, that you are talking about that ? I assume, we just talk about how to make a cube in the most efficient way... Correct me, if i missunderstand.