Incoming dynamic booleans Modo 701 plug-in
polycounter lvl 10
Looks less tedious to cut and core than Zbrush shadowboxing. But it should fit right in with a GoZ-zremesh workflow.
[ame="
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m7qJKPnJC4"]Sneak peek of something cool for MODO 701 - YouTube[/ame]
[ame="
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m7qJKPnJC4"]Sneak peek of something cool for MODO 701 - YouTube[/ame]
Replies
But if that's the case (easy to get overexcited about this, especially if something similar to this is something you had hoped would exist some day), that's an amazing tool to have in your toolkit, and with modo being like 1/5th of the price of max (with the occasional discount/half price) it's getting more and more interesting to switch to that, since they are actually doing usefull stuff/improving their software.
Hoping this is bakeable (modo's render booleans aren't - yet? - sadly) - no more floaters for embossed details \o/
But who knows!? It's exciting in any case...
Farfarer - Based on the video, he specifically said it wasn't render booleans and nothing else they said would lead me to believe it wasn't bakeable.
But this is something else, really seriously cool.
finally, booleans without the work :thumbup:
Are you guys who use modo exporting to xNormal or something similar to do the rest of the baking setup?
You can bake in Modo and export directly to UnrealEngine. That works fine (just remember to flip the green channel).
Why not just use handplane? you can get perfect bakes as long as you can get a clean object space normal map.
I do all of my modeling (high, low, uvs) in Modo, but my baking in Max, Maya, or Xnormal (usually depending on what the client wants).
Sure you can "bake" and "export" to unreal with any normal map baker, that doesn't mean it is synced though, and not being synced means uncessary extra hard edges/uvs splits, or bevels to avoid nasty smoothing errors.
Though as Zac and Farf mention, you can bake OS and convert with TS.
Honestly I haven't tried baking anything in modo for years, because up until recently there was no easy way to do hard edges/smoothing groups(edit mesh normals) and there still isn't a way to control the cage. When that's in I will probably look into baking straight out of Modo, until then....
Also, shout out to GroBoto.
Booleans are great for certain types of mechanical shapes.
Moving around big sub-d operands with sparse edge loops allowing you to explore the overall forms and shapes non-destructively with a high level of control is the obvious use.
I think everyones can see the awesome potential in that; modo is essentially teasing the feature set I have allways wanted for Sub-D...
However, I am trying to imagine the not so obvious potential benefits. Like how it might work if you try to integrate very small details into bigger curved surfaces, particularly when the curved surface "doesn't have not enough geo" to support the small details, as is the case with many details that artist will, instead, opt to 'float.'
With this, it may be possible to get these small details, that one would typically float off the mesh, integrated directly into the mesh without having to "add more GEO," which is awesome for a number of reasons. For example, then your low-poly AO bakes would be proper (no shadows from the floaters), you could have a more uniformly tight projection cage, and you would have better projection skewing in general. Or you could even use the high poly meshes directly, as in films for example, In which case I also wonder how it handles UVs...
Yep. If anyone's modeled engine casing (with precision!), this plug-in's the best thing since sliced bread.
http://ie.picclick.com/1992-KTM-125-right-side-engine-casing-crank-281138653532.html
Same.
I imagine how I'd use it for 3d printing. Instead of printing multiples of the whole model maybe just print molds (the negative forms) and cast parts to be assembled a la garage kits. Theoretically cheaper workflow when you factor cost of printer filament vs. casting material you can buy in bulk.
I feel more comfortable making and selling kits on my own than giving away the master 3d file to an outsourced printer.
OT
There's an UP printer model under $900.
http://www.groboto.com/v3/Samples/samplemodels/index.html
http://www.groboto.com/v3/Samples/samplemodels2/index.html
Not bad but a bit triangle-y for high-poly.
EDIT: Read Magics post. FUUUUUUU.... SHIP IT.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hfoT5lHoOYY
Why are my pants suddenly so tight?
do want, so hard
This thing, not your tight pants.
Not much more to say.
I can recommend the (paid) modifier "Quadchamfer" for Max though.
i would like to see a wireframe with a final result, and not cool modifiers in action. i'm the only one not flipped out?
No, I think we are all cautiously optimistic. I personally don't expect anything better than the GroBoto style "SeamNet meshes." I hope its better, though SeamNet meahes are already pretty good.. .
In any case, it's still a step up from previous non-realtime boolean systems and if if all else fails, modo has great retopo tools.
But it shouldn't matter that much since the result speak for themeselves.
Who cares what the topology looks like as long as you can continually add more and more operands that smooth nicely without pinching or smoothing artifacts.
If the boolean'ing is quick and has good quality without bogging down after adding a few operands, I think most meshes could be modeled with very simple combinations of primitives or simple sub-d shapes without ever having to worry about topology. If you got something super complex that cant be built out of booleans this way, modo is still a great sub-d package.
What we see in the videos are very simple subdiv models. I'm really interested to see how this work with a subdiv model with 50k polygons, that's the deal.
Thats my concern as well, can we add a lot of operands without bogging it down or causing smoothing/shading artifacts?
I am not very familiar with packages like Solidworks, but I have some experience working with nurbs in 3ds max and M.O.I. . Most apps don't have real time, movable and modifiable previews of the boolean results do they? You also can't adjust every operand at the vertex/cage level, no? Once you have started trimming and boolean'ing stuff, you lose some direct control that you might otherwise have with the sub-d operands in the modo video, right?
Again, i am not familiar with the extent of Nurbs tools out there so I am curious to hear the answer...
In either case though, I still do find use for booleans in a lot of my sub-d modeling and this seems like a major step up from most tools like in Max or modos old system. Just the addition of realtime interactive previews is pretty major.
And as long as the mesh shades correctly for normal map baking, I don't really care what the topology looks like to be honest...