Jump to content
3DCoat Forums

Pose tool and bending shapes


ajz3d
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Contributor

This may sound like a silly question, but for the love of God I cannot figure out how to nicely bend non-organic shapes with the Pose tool. I always get an ugly deformation no matter how long I tweak the rotation pivot. I can minimise the effect (see: picture), but the flaw is still very noticeable.

 

Any ideas?

post-12523-0-05391000-1402415813_thumb.p

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor

Yepper, it appears to be a weakness in the pose tool... You could use merge from retopo, first creating a retopo mesh with the bend and then merging as skin with the merge tool, with closing the mesh selected as well. You can do this in an external model editor as well but in 3DC you have the other parts of the model already scaled so you can match the scale of of that model in the retopo room.

 

The above does not mean the Pose tool can be improved but for now using what is available currently in 3DC to get the desired result...

 

Maybe someone else will have an answer for the Pose tool but the above is a different workflow for the desired result.

Edited by digman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Contributor

Yepper, it appears to be a weakness in the pose tool... You could use merge from retopo, first creating a retopo mesh with the bend and then merging as skin with the merge tool, with closing the mesh selected as well. You can do this in an external model editor as well but in 3DC you have the other parts of the model already scaled so you can match the scale of of that model in the retopo room.

 

The above does not mean the Pose tool can be improved but for now using what is available currently in 3DC to get the desired result...

 

Maybe someone else will have an answer for the Pose tool but the above is a different workflow for the desired result.

Ah yes! I always rely so much on external programs when doing poly modeling of base meshes that I keep forgetting that I can do this kind of stuff in 3D Coat's Retopo Room too, even if it takes more time. :)

 

I want to stay entirely in 3D Coat with this one, so I think I'll do a rough sculpture of a bent shape, fully retopo it, relax and import it back to Voxel Room. This should do the trick, although it's a bit tedious and time consuming due to 3D Coat's limited poly modeling features.

I really wish I could do it with Pose.

 

Did you use the FFD lattice on it?

I did try it after reading your post, but I can't get decent results with it.

 

Thanks guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor

Ah yes! I always rely so much on external programs when doing poly modeling of base meshes that I keep forgetting that I can do this kind of stuff in 3D Coat's Retopo Room too, even if it takes more time. :)

 

I want to stay entirely in 3D Coat with this one, so I think I'll do a rough sculpture of a bent shape, fully retopo it, relax and import it back to Voxel Room. This should do the trick, although it's a bit tedious and time consuming due to 3D Coat's limited poly modeling features.

I really wish I could do it with Pose.

 

I did try it after reading your post, but I can't get decent results with it.

 

Thanks guys.

If you could record a screen capture of the problem and send it to Andrew (support@3d-coat.com), I'm sure he'll look into it, or offer a solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor

I remembered today, Oh yeah you can just move the gizmo, had a brain freeze there... :wacko:  The pivot point of the rotation is at the center of the new gizmo or the end point of the regular one.

 

I kept the falloff range close.

Aligned to view in the Pose tool panel.

Selected move only gizmo in the Pose tool panel.

Moved the gizmo to the end of the Pose selection and then rotated.

 

Last picture is a few rotations and I used the irregular spline tool to create a few sharper corners as I was testing. You can make sharper outside corner is this way if you need them.

 

All in All works pretty well but if you want complete accuracy then a base polygon model route would be the best.

 

Tested on only a 250,000 voxel object so is rough in quality...

post-518-0-58746600-1402507366_thumb.jpg

post-518-0-79130300-1402507380_thumb.jpg

Edited by digman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Contributor

Thank you, but I am after a little bit smoother deformations. On your examples they're all quite hard.

 

The shorter the transition area of the selection, the harder the inner corner and blockier outer area I get. But the longer the transition, the weirder bend I get. Probably I really should sent Andrew some video of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Hi Ajz3D,

It is kinda fiddly I agree - where you place your rotation point , the blur of the pose falloff etc.

Whilst I can get good results, there's often some little issue that creeps in. Often a very slight bulging where you don't want it.

I often wonder whether it is the accuracy of the blur.

If you apply a pose selection with the rectangle marquee and blur/ soften it - the blur does not distribute accurately / evenly through the cross section of the form.

 

The best results I find are with the lattice deformation - selecting all points , shift clicking and moving the transform tool to the point of rotation at the boundary of the blur.

 

I wonder does raising subdivision at the junction of the bend you need help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Contributor

(...)

The best results I find are with the lattice deformation - selecting all points , shift clicking and moving the transform tool to the point of rotation at the boundary of the blur.

I wonder does raising subdivision at the junction of the bend you need help?

Hi Candy-floss Kid. I gave FFD deformer one more try and this is as close as I can get. The deformation is far from what I need and, because I had to compensate with translation, the length of the object has increased.

I don't know, perhaps I'm doing something wrong here.

Subdividing the junction doesn't seem to help.

Oh well... Maybe it wasn't such a good idea to attempt doing this kind of bends in 3D Coat. :unknw:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor

No adjustment of the "FFD Strictness"...? It makes some weird deformations without any adjustment. For joint bending, I like to use a value of 1. Plus, I would make my line selection where I want the gradient to start and where it should end > Move the Gizmo center to the center or that gradient.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

 

Oh well... Maybe it wasn't such a good idea to attempt doing this kind of bends in 3D Coat.

Looking at your issue more it strikes me that there is a vast variation on results depending on the falloff.

In other words it doesn't look like the falloff is suiting your needs.

 

In AbnRanger's recent video on the effects possible with pose falloffs to create bevel shapes, the clear indication is that

the falloff can drive all kinds of shaping/beveling variations.

 

I suspect - find your falloff and you'll achieve exactly what you want.

The permutations available with the pose tool can be a blessing and curse.

 

The pose falloff curve interface needs further contextual hints to what the curve itself represents.

These inputs should also be marked clearly on the curve diagram's y and x.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Contributor

I think I found a falloff curve that gives acceptable results (at least in this particular case).

curve_xml definition:

<One2DCurve>
 <Points>
  <wCurvePoint>
   <Pos.x>0.000000</Pos.x>
   <Pos.y>0.000000</Pos.y>
   <State>4</State>
  </wCurvePoint>
  <wCurvePoint>
   <Pos.x>0.200000</Pos.x>
   <Pos.y>1.000000</Pos.y>
   <State>1</State>
  </wCurvePoint>
  <wCurvePoint>
   <Pos.x>0.9</Pos.x>
   <Pos.y>1</Pos.y>
   <State>0</State>
  </wCurvePoint>
  <wCurvePoint>
   <Pos.x>1.000000</Pos.x>
   <Pos.y>1.000000</Pos.y>
   <State>4</State>
  </wCurvePoint>
 </Points>
</One2DCurve>
There are some steps that need to be followed in order to avoid unwanted deformation at the end of the falloff:

1. Drag the line selection a little bit beyond the object (not less than 10% of the line length).

2. Move the manipulator where the falloff begins. Depending on the object's resolution this point can be easily spotted or not. There will be a slight difference in object's shading at that point (press '1' and zoom in to see it better if you're using some fancy shader). You might also experiment with moving the pivot slightly up or down, depending on the direction of your rotation.

3. Rotate.

post-12523-0-79894400-1402863257_thumb.j

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

You did it!! Well done.

I noticed in his tutorial on beveling using pose falloff that AbnRanger also dragged the line clear of the form using grid snap to avoid the unwanted falloff range.

 

I wonder after your investigation - if you could you tell me the what the x y axis inputs are to better understand fine tuning the pose falloff graph?

It would be good to get a better user understanding of the pose tool.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Contributor

Actually it's pretty straightforward:

- X axis defines the position on the falloff where x=0 is the beginning of the falloff and x=1 is where the falloff ends.
- Y axis defines selection percentage. Y=0 means 0% selection, y=1 is 100% selection. Of course this affects deformation strength.

You can go beyond 1 on Y axis (probably on X axis too) by editing the *.curve.xml file. However I can't think of any benefits that it would bring other than increasing deformation amplitude, but the same can be accomplished within 0..1 range of Y axis.

post-12523-0-67207900-1402950695_thumb.j

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Contributor

I had some hard-surface objects that I needed to bend recently and I still had a rough time getting a decent result, even when using the curve from post #12. I don't know how many people will agree with me, but I think the pose tool really needs some of Andrew's attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor

I had some hard-surface objects that I needed to bend recently and I still had a rough time getting a decent result, even when using the curve from post #12. I don't know how many people will agree with me, but I think the pose tool really needs some of Andrew's attention.

If you can screen record the difficulty you are having and e-mail the link to the video to Andrew (support@3d-coat.com), I'm sure he'll either tell you how to do what you want to accomplish or try to improve the tool. Me and Digman did this recently, in order to get some improvement in the way 3D Coat deforms with the FFD lattice. It's how we got both the EDIT POSE FALLOFF and FFD STRICTNESS. I wish we could add as many segments along a single axis, as we want (4 just isn't enough in many circumstances) and most of all, we need the ability to better reshape the FFD cage BEFORE deformation. So that it conforms better to the object. Right now, the cage is only rectangular, and you can only scale/rotate/move the whole thing....not individual points or segments.

 

Eventually, what I would like to see is a basic rig for Posing...and name that tool, the Pose tool. And then rename what is currently called the Pose tool...the Advance Transform tool. That way, it eliminates any confusion for the new user and the Pose tool does just....well, posing. :D

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Contributor

Yeah, that's a good suggestion. I didn't want to write him just yet, because I bothered him A LOT with e-mails regarding some scripting issues a couple of months ago (which he fixed). This might be a good time to resume our correspondence though. :)

 

-- OFF-TOPIC --

 

I thought you're against rigging tools in 3DC? Anyway, I'd like to see that implemented too, but only if we could zero out the joints to their original rotation which would bring the mesh back to the binding pose. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense, I think.

 

But first - sculpting layers please!!!

 

Also, after drilling a hole in a winding mesh today and noticing that's in a wrong place several hours after the fact, I started to regret that 3DC doesn't have something like MeshFusion. So I could just move the layer containing the "hole" to a new location without too much consequences.

Edited by ajz3d
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor

I WAS against it at some point...because I thought it was taking the app too far into the territory/domain of major 3D Apps...which all have good rigging tools. But, I have come around to see how useful a simple rig like one has in Mudbox, could be. Mainly because of the current limitations in the Pose tool (those I just outlined), and because it's too easy to lose stored Pose Selections.

 

I also see that the name of the tool just doesn't fit anymore. Posing is just one small usage, and the name alone can make a new user think there aren't any usable model deformation tools in the app. Andrew did say he thought a basic rig might be a good idea, some time ago. So, yeah...after Sculpt layers. I'd like to see some more improvement in this area. Because 3D Coat is introducing a new modeling paradigm. The better the tools are for that purpose, the more people will be drawn to 3D Coat for modeling/sculpting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Contributor

The pose tool is the most multi-purpose tool of all from the voxel (sculpting? ;)) room. So yeah, its name is confusing as hell for new user when compared to what the tool really is capable of. Being a combination of a posing, transform and move tools it really should be named "Advance Transform tool" or at least something similar.

 

About the rest of discussed future features - the more non-destructive 3DC is, the better. So I'll just cross my fingers and wait for this awesomeness, like said sculpting layers, to come. :drinks:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Reputable Contributor

I like the idea of Layer Masks (on the layer itself) in the Paint Room, but IMHO....it's nowhere near the priority level Sculpt Layers (per object) should be. We can already mask paint layers very effectively and apply them before sending layers over to PS, to do any work there. I asked Andrew about creating masks on the layer itself, with a thumbnail as it is in PS. But it's more of a matter of convenience...not a necessity.

 

If someone tries 3D Coat for it's paint tools, layer masks is not something that will make or break their decision to use it. However, if an experienced ZBrush or Mudbox user tries out the Voxel Sculpting tools...the ONE thing that will immediately turn them off...is a lack of Sculpt Layers (per object)...with Masking of those sculpt layers. Both apps have had that capability for years and years. Having to go without that functionality is about like having to use another Image Editing application (other than Photoshop) that has no layers. You can only work with one layer for each image file. Doesn't matter a whole lot if it has numerous other bells and whistles. That's too big of a limitation to keep using.

 

So, if anyone else agrees with this, make sure to ask Andrew (e-mail) to move to Sculpt layers after he finishes Axial Symmetry. One reason it would make sense to do this BEFORE is...Andrew can work on Layers masks then for BOTH the Paint Room and Voxel Room. A sculpt layer needs masking capability as well, so it would be best if Andrew could do it for both workspaces in the same setting.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Contributor

(...)

So, if anyone else agrees with this, make sure to ask Andrew (e-mail) to move to Sculpt layers after he finishes Axial Symmetry (...)

Well then, we've got to act fast then and bombard Andrew with e-mails or other communication weapons we have at our disposal. That's because, IIRC, the next thing he'll be working on are Paint Room's layer masks. IMHO sculpting layers should have a priority, because of what you said - painting layers being nothing but a convenience and sculpting layers are a God-damn necessity!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

I really hope 3dcoats implementation of sculpt layers is more robust than Zbrushes, so many caveats and conditions to use them without blowing things up they are frequently a cause of headache unless you plan well in advance how you are going to use them and then bake down when you are done with them. Layers in Zbrush are so awkward in their implementation and unevenly supported across the feature set that I seriously wonder if there isn't a better solution.

 

 

post-38615-0-00646700-1405913711_thumb.j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • Member

Hi Candy-floss Kid. I gave FFD deformer one more try and this is as close as I can get. The deformation is far from what I need and, because I had to compensate with translation, the length of the object has increased.

I don't know, perhaps I'm doing something wrong here.

Subdividing the junction doesn't seem to help.

Oh well... Maybe it wasn't such a good idea to attempt doing this kind of bends in 3D Coat. :unknw:

That's what I did too.

I am still looking for a good way in doing beautiful bend too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...