EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

 

Go Back   EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire > EverQuest II > General EverQuest II Discussion > General Gameplay Discussion
Members List Search Mark Forums Read

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-28-2012, 08:50 PM   #31
Tharx

Loremaster
Tharx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Finland
Posts: 11
Default

Gilasil wrote:

Tharx wrote:

I used 3ds max for many years, but after trying blender (after the catastrophe that was 3ds max 2012) there's no going back. I just can't understand why people pay ~4000-5000 dollars for those horrible softwares that Autodesk offers. Luckily student versions were/are free. I know Blender has some weaknesses, but overall it's more than good enough for modeling stuff for games and doing animations etc, and it has more useful features than 3ds max. Autodesk has the magical skill to turn everything they touch from gold to ...well, something else.

Blender's ui has improved a lot since the earlier days, so if it's been a while since you tried it you might want to give it another go, though Lightwave is quite decent too. Or so I've heard.

Actually, Lightwave is probably better then decent.  Among the professional artists I know it's considered comparable to 3DS or Maya.  Cost is a bit over $1000 so it's pricy but nothing like those other packages.  As with the others it's considered a complete package which lets you model, add effects, rig, animate, and render.

It's been used a lot for professional 3-D effects in TV and movies.

Finally, some people mentioned using student versions of Maya or 3DS.  You better research it a bit -- both the license and SoEs guidelines.  It's very likely against the license of those apps to use those versions for commercial applications which EQ2 most certainly is.  Autodesk wants you to pony up the $8000 for the regular version.

I may yet give Blender another try, just to see if they really did fix up that UI.

Yeah you aren't allowed to sell stuff made with student versions of autodesk softwares. I only have them because we have to use 3ds max in university.  Luckily I can use Blender instead quite often.

But yeah if this player studio will ever be available in Europe, I'll definitely try to model something for the game in blender. I have to say though that I don't really see any reason to use other software than Blender, as it doesn't cost anything and you can do everything 3ds max does and much more. (sculpting, various simulations like water, smoke, rigid /soft body etc... compositing and much more SMILEY but that's enough of advertising.)

But gotta say it'd be interesting to hear why SOE uses Maya as it's generally considered to be horrible at modeling. Good for animation though. Or so I've heard.  I guess they have some custom tools to fix the inferior modeling system.

Tharx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 08:59 PM   #32
Rahatmattata

Loremaster
Rahatmattata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,232
Default

Gilasil wrote:

some people mentioned using student versions of Maya or 3DS.  You better research it a bit -- both the license and SoEs guidelines.  It's very likely against the license of those apps to use those versions for commercial applications which EQ2 most certainly is.  Autodesk wants you to pony up the $8000 for the regular version.

SOE has no way of knowing or caring what modeling software you use or the details of your software license (or lack of).

__________________


A Cure For Cancer
Rahatmattata is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 09:04 PM   #33
redwoodtreesprite

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 266
Default

[email protected] wrote:

Gilasil wrote:

some people mentioned using student versions of Maya or 3DS.  You better research it a bit -- both the license and SoEs guidelines.  It's very likely against the license of those apps to use those versions for commercial applications which EQ2 most certainly is.  Autodesk wants you to pony up the $8000 for the regular version.

SOE has no way of knowing or caring what modeling software you use or the details of your software license (or lack of).

Uh, yeah they will care.  And it is important to respect the legal agreements one makes when buying student software.

redwoodtreesprite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 11:22 PM   #34
Merker

Lord
Merker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 55
Default

[email protected] wrote:

Gilasil wrote:

some people mentioned using student versions of Maya or 3DS.  You better research it a bit -- both the license and SoEs guidelines.  It's very likely against the license of those apps to use those versions for commercial applications which EQ2 most certainly is.  Autodesk wants you to pony up the $8000 for the regular version.

SOE has no way of knowing or caring what modeling software you use or the details of your software license (or lack of).

From what I have been told, the student (academic) version of Maya embeds information into the geometry output that identifies itself as an academic version. Obviously with certain formats this info can be stripped out if the user knows how to edit the files directly, but using it commercially is illegal if the licensing forbids it.

__________________
Merker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 11:42 PM   #35
Merker

Lord
Merker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 55
Default

Gilasil wrote:

Tharx wrote:

I used 3ds max for many years, but after trying blender (after the catastrophe that was 3ds max 2012) there's no going back. I just can't understand why people pay ~4000-5000 dollars for those horrible softwares that Autodesk offers. Luckily student versions were/are free. I know Blender has some weaknesses, but overall it's more than good enough for modeling stuff for games and doing animations etc, and it has more useful features than 3ds max. Autodesk has the magical skill to turn everything they touch from gold to ...well, something else.

Blender's ui has improved a lot since the earlier days, so if it's been a while since you tried it you might want to give it another go, though Lightwave is quite decent too. Or so I've heard.

Actually, Lightwave is probably better then decent.  Among the professional artists I know it's considered comparable to 3DS or Maya.  Cost is a bit over $1000 so it's pricy but nothing like those other packages.  As with the others it's considered a complete package which lets you model, add effects, rig, animate, and render.

It's been used a lot for professional 3-D effects in TV and movies.

Finally, some people mentioned using student versions of Maya or 3DS.  You better research it a bit -- both the license and SoEs guidelines.  It's very likely against the license of those apps to use those versions for commercial applications which EQ2 most certainly is.  Autodesk wants you to pony up the $8000 for the regular version.

I may yet give Blender another try, just to see if they really did fix up that UI.

Lightwave is well worth the money. I think the price is very meager for the quality of the product and it's output. Now, with that said, the product you need should always be dictated by what you wish to actually accomplish.

I often stay away from complete packages because I am a modeler, plain and simple lol. I don't wish to animate or use all these other bells and whistles unless they make my modeling job easier. All I need is a mesh 3D modeling program, a UVmapping software (unless one is built into the modeling software), a vector illustration software for creating complex splines and for doing designs for textures, a raster graphics software (Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop) for texturing and baking normal maps and a good old fashion text editor for editing my OBJ files. Most of those can be gotten as freeware or for a very low cost. Trust me, if I didn't have to UVmap and texture my models myself, I'd be happiest just to remain in my modeling software pumping out models all day hehe.

__________________
Merker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 11:45 PM   #36
Gilasil

Loremaster
Gilasil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 907
Default

Tharx wrote:

Gilasil wrote:

Tharx wrote:

I used 3ds max for many years, but after trying blender (after the catastrophe that was 3ds max 2012) there's no going back. I just can't understand why people pay ~4000-5000 dollars for those horrible softwares that Autodesk offers. Luckily student versions were/are free. I know Blender has some weaknesses, but overall it's more than good enough for modeling stuff for games and doing animations etc, and it has more useful features than 3ds max. Autodesk has the magical skill to turn everything they touch from gold to ...well, something else.

Blender's ui has improved a lot since the earlier days, so if it's been a while since you tried it you might want to give it another go, though Lightwave is quite decent too. Or so I've heard.

Actually, Lightwave is probably better then decent.  Among the professional artists I know it's considered comparable to 3DS or Maya.  Cost is a bit over $1000 so it's pricy but nothing like those other packages.  As with the others it's considered a complete package which lets you model, add effects, rig, animate, and render.

It's been used a lot for professional 3-D effects in TV and movies.

Finally, some people mentioned using student versions of Maya or 3DS.  You better research it a bit -- both the license and SoEs guidelines.  It's very likely against the license of those apps to use those versions for commercial applications which EQ2 most certainly is.  Autodesk wants you to pony up the $8000 for the regular version.

I may yet give Blender another try, just to see if they really did fix up that UI.

Yeah you aren't allowed to sell stuff made with student versions of autodesk softwares. I only have them because we have to use 3ds max in university.  Luckily I can use Blender instead quite often.

But yeah if this player studio will ever be available in Europe, I'll definitely try to model something for the game in blender. I have to say though that I don't really see any reason to use other software than Blender, as it doesn't cost anything and you can do everything 3ds max does and much more. (sculpting, various simulations like water, smoke, rigid /soft body etc... compositing and much more but that's enough of advertising.)

But gotta say it'd be interesting to hear why SOE uses Maya as it's generally considered to be horrible at modeling. Good for animation though. Or so I've heard.  I guess they have some custom tools to fix the inferior modeling system.

Actually, Maya is used a lot.  Last I heard it tends to be used more for movies then for games, where 3DS tends to dominate.

But even if it is better for animation then modeling there's an awful lot of animation which has to be done for EQ2. 

However they do it, EQ2 has some really good looking graphics which have stood the test of time.  So whatever they're doing it works.

If you're going to be using a modeling package full time to make a living from it, a few thousand bucks isn't all that big a deal. Look at how much a typical full time professional 3D artist is paid.  The modeling package could very well be the primary tool he spends his time in.  If the free alternative is clunky and hard to use (from the perspective of the artist) it means productivity and possibly quality of work goes down and more money is lost from the artist not working to his full potential that was saved initially.  Going with a tool on the basis of price is a false saving.  At least for the price ranges involved here.

Besides, a company would probably build their content pipeline around specific tools.  Changing that is NOT to be done lightly.

For professional work you do not want to skimp on your tools. 

Merker wrote:

Lightwave is well worth the money. I think the price is very meager for the quality of the product and it's output. Now, with that said, the product you need should always be dictated by what you wish to actually accomplish.

I often stay away from complete packages because I am a modeler, plain and simple lol. I don't wish to animate or use all these other bells and whistles unless they make my modeling job easier. All I need is a mesh 3D modeling program, a UVmapping software (unless one is built into the modeling software), a vector illustration software for .

I had very specific reasons for buying Lightwave. I will eventually need to model, texture, animate, and build all sorts of maps for my programs (parallax mapping etc. all the usual things you have to do nowadays for competitive graphics) So I researched all the professional quality packages and Lightwave was the obvious answer.

Believe me, if Blender had had a reasonably standard Windows interface I'd have given it a much closer look. 

I looked at several second tier packages, some of which looked to be quite good for what they did, but none of them did everything I needed and getting them all to work together would have been a major headache.  Most likely I'd have spent at least as much on several second tier packages then I would on the one top tier package.

Short answer:  for me a single integrated package makes sense.  If you can work well with some lower tier packages and produce good results that's great.  It's the end result which counts.  For me another route worked better.

Gilasil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2012, 12:34 PM   #37
Merker

Lord
Merker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 55
Default

Aye, I can certainly understand the need for a complete package if animation, fluid dynamics, particle effects, etc are required by a job. But as for me, I don't need all of those things. My models are generally handed off to those who do all of the other stuff, whether it be for illustration work or animation. For me, having a full package is like giving me a lift on an airplane when I only need to travel a couple blocks down the road lol.. it's overkill for me. I have Cinema 4D but hardly ever use it and I have used Maya but it's not too user friendly for modeling at least not for what I am accustomed to. But I won't ever say that I won't use a complete package; if it's modeling tools make my job easier then I will certainly give it a shot.  And after looking at Blender and it's newer interface I may give it a test drive sometime this weekend.

__________________
Merker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2012, 09:56 PM   #38
Merker

Lord
Merker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 55
Default

Looks like Daz3D's download server for the free programs is down. I went ahead and sent a notice to their tech staff but I bet it won't be fixed until sometime tomorrow since it is the weekend.

Also, I noticed that the version of Hexagon they have listed as free is a newer updated version. The one I had purchased was v. 2.5.0.0, this new release is v. 2.5.1.79. I have been using it off and on throughout the day and I must say this version is a winner. It is much more stable than the prior version. Although I used the prior version a lot, I was always adamant about saving because you never knew when it would lock up or crash. You also couldn't import another model into the same scene for whatever reason, but all that seems fixed now. I love Hexagon and now that the bugs are fixed I am sure to love it that much more ;o)

__________________
Merker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2012, 06:59 AM   #39
Nightshade
Server: Lucan DLere

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 314
Default

No, please do not promote the use of absolutely incorrect software for this endeavor. I have been a member of the Daz community for years, just to get that out of the way.

Hexagon and Bryce have both been left out of proper development for a very long time now. They are the abused children of Daz3D.

If you want a free, powerful piece of software with strong backing that can do pretty much everything you need to do to get involved with this new EQ2 promotion -- Use Blender: http://www.blender.org/ . I'm being honest here, Blender has become a very real competitor with Maya and 3D Studio Max -- it's powerful and it's perfectly suited to this task.

Hexagon and Bryce are simplistic pieces of software that you use to generate objects/scenes for the premade-content you pose in Daz3D. No 3D modeller in their right mind would recommend trying to create production level content in these pieces of software, it's possible to an extent but just downright inefficient and masochistic.

Folks can of course feel free to try out the Daz products, but I guarantee 99.9% of the time better results will be found using Blender, if professional software like Maya, 3DS Max or Cinema 4D or Zbrush  is not available. This is insofar as modeling is concerned -- if you just want to take a pre-made model and pose them in a scene with pre-made content, Daz3D is great.

*EDIT*

Oh and I know I sound like some zealous Blender representative here, but I'm not...

Blender already has all the fancy bells and whistles -- fluid dynamics, cloth dynamics, animation, etc. It's all there. Very little of that will be useful in the aforementioned EQ2 project, but it's there.

This is just one big example of how very much Daz has disappointed its userbase and left it with deprecated software that should certainly not be promoted to any newcomer into the 3D modelling scene.

__________________
Nightshade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2012, 11:40 AM   #40
feldon30

Fansite Staff
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,424
Default

[email protected] DLere wrote:

No, please do not promote the use of absolutely incorrect software for this endeavor. I have been a member of the Daz community for years, just to get that out of the way.

Hexagon and Bryce have both been left out of proper development for a very long time now. They are the abused children of Daz3D.

If you want a free, powerful piece of software with strong backing that can do pretty much everything you need to do to get involved with this new EQ2 promotion -- Use BlenderNo 3D modeller in their right mind would recommend trying to create production level content in these pieces of software

I'm curious why players need an ultra modern professional 3D modeler to create inanimate items for placement in houses?

The Blender UI has proved to be a big turn-off to people. Can you sugggest a free alternative?

[email protected] wrote:

I'm not going to DL anything until I know what they want us to use or if they are going to provide thier own 3d modeling tool for the studio thing.

I don't want to get good with something like Blender or Daz and then find out that the Studio has it's own program I'll have to learn all over again.

From the official PlayerStudio FAQ:

Following is a list of useful third party art tools for helping to create in-game items:

3D Modeling:

I'm 99% certain SOE is not developing their own 3D modeler. There are already numerous choices on the market from free to $10,000.

feldon30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2012, 12:01 PM   #41
Merker

Lord
Merker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 55
Default

[email protected] DLere wrote:

No, please do not promote the use of absolutely incorrect software for this endeavor. I have been a member of the Daz community for years, just to get that out of the way.

Hexagon and Bryce have both been left out of proper development for a very long time now. They are the abused children of Daz3D.

If you want a free, powerful piece of software with strong backing that can do pretty much everything you need to do to get involved with this new EQ2 promotion -- Use Blender: http://www.blender.org/ . I'm being honest here, Blender has become a very real competitor with Maya and 3D Studio Max -- it's powerful and it's perfectly suited to this task.

Hexagon and Bryce are simplistic pieces of software that you use to generate objects/scenes for the premade-content you pose in Daz3D. No 3D modeller in their right mind would recommend trying to create production level content in these pieces of software, it's possible to an extent but just downright inefficient and masochistic.

Folks can of course feel free to try out the Daz products, but I guarantee 99.9% of the time better results will be found using Blender, if professional software like Maya, 3DS Max or Cinema 4D or Zbrush  is not available. This is insofar as modeling is concerned -- if you just want to take a pre-made model and pose them in a scene with pre-made content, Daz3D is great.

*EDIT*

Oh and I know I sound like some zealous Blender representative here, but I'm not...

Blender already has all the fancy bells and whistles -- fluid dynamics, cloth dynamics, animation, etc. It's all there. Very little of that will be useful in the aforementioned EQ2 project, but it's there.

This is just one big example of how very much Daz has disappointed its userbase and left it with deprecated software that should certainly not be promoted to any newcomer into the 3D modelling scene.

Before Daz updated Hexagon it was true that Hexagon was fairly unstable, I believe I mentioned that above somewhere. Not sure about Bryce as I don't use it.

However, you CAN model anything in Hexagon that you can in any other software. I have been modeling for over 12 years and I use Hexagon as one of my staples. I go between Hexagon, Rhino 3D and Cinema 4D, but when it comes to simply doing my job as a modeler, Hexagon allows me to work much much faster as it's tools are very powerful and there is no clutter to get in my way when being creative (even when it still had bugs, it still allowed me to output models at a faster rate than any other sofwtare I have used. I just had to save alot. Not to mention it was easier to create clean geometry right from the start rather than having to go back and spend long periods of time cleaning it up). The new updates has fixed all the bugs that I had noticed in the prior versions.

For the Player Studio projects, there is no need for fluid dynamics, particle effects, physics etc etc. The Player Studio is for model submissions. The game engine handles the physics of the game as well as any other effects (fluid dynamics, cloth simulations, figure animation, lights, particle effects, etc etc). With that said, all other software would be overkill for this endeavor really. Let me be explicit here for any doubters, you can create ANY model in Hexagon that you can create in Blender, Lightwave or even Maya. It doesn't matter to me what software anyone uses to create their models, but for newbs, Blender is going to have a much higher learning curve and it will take them a very long time to get what's in their heads onto the screen and be a workable acceptable model (same goes for 3DS Max, Maya, Cinema 4D, Lightwave etc ect (I have used most of them, but I don't need them). Hexagon is very user friendly in this respect. I am not promoting any software for DAZ or anyone else, just giving people options. Try it for yourself, it's free after all, what do you have to lose?

You be the judge... Here's an example of some items made in Hexagon just yesterday. During the creation of these the program worked flawlessly and the geometry is nice and clean and low poly (suitable for games). I'll also post some images of higher rez items created in Hexagon so you can judge for yourselves.

__________________
Merker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2012, 12:19 PM   #42
Merker

Lord
Merker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 55
Default

Tipi created maybe 2 years ago or more in Hexagon. I wasn't having much luck doing this quickly in Cinema 4D and Rhino wasn't cutting it either so I fell back on Hexagon (as I often do) and finished the model (start to finish) in a couple hours. UV mapping andt texturing, of course, was another thing. Although I think it fair to mention that Hexgagon does have powerful UVmapping (including direct painting) features built in. I don't use those because I am old school and am used to simply using a commercial version of UVmapper by Steve Cox ;o)

Since this was a marketing image, I censored some of the descriptive marketing stuff because this is not the forum for such things.

__________________
Merker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2012, 12:21 PM   #43
Gilasil

Loremaster
Gilasil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 907
Default

Never mind, while I was typing this reply you posted the above.

While Lightwave has some very powerful tools for UV mapping that go way beyond simple unwrapping and painting directly on the model, it could well be that Hexagon has enough.  Is UVunwrapper that $20 package?  (I looked at it once if it is).  And free definately trumps $1000 let alone $8000.  Although those tipiis don't look like they'd be that hard to map. 

Of course where it really counts is when the geometry is more complex (more then a cone).

For my own project I have to go way beyond that (so many maps....) but this might be good enough.

People can decide for themselves of course.  I personally would recommend people try a couple different packages before settling on one.   Most have some sort of free trials.

Gilasil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2012, 12:48 PM   #44
Merker

Lord
Merker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 55
Default

Gilasil wrote:

Never mind, while I was typing this reply you posted the above.

While Lightwave has some very powerful tools for UV mapping that go way beyond simple unwrapping and painting directly on the model, it could well be that Hexagon has enough.  Is UVunwrapper that $20 package?  (I looked at it once if it is).  And free definately trumps $1000 let alone $8000.  Although those tipiis don't look like they'd be that hard to map. 

Of course where it really counts is when the geometry is more complex (more then a cone).

For my own project I have to go way beyond that (so many maps....) but this might be good enough.

People can decide for themselves of course.  I personally would recommend people try a couple different packages before settling on one.   Most have some sort of free trials.

I agree, people should try whatever software is out there and decide which works best for them for what they need to accomplish. Someone who needs all the bells and whistles and needs to animate and create film type elements is certainly going to lean more toward a complete solution. Those who strictly create models (and perhaps pass those off to another team for UV mapping , texturing, rigging and animating) are going to be more concerned with what is going to get the job done most efficiently so they can pump out models as quickly as they can; if they do use a complete package, they are apt to use a small toolset within that package.

Here is another commercial model created in Hexagon:

This model was created in Hexagon while it was still buggy, but as you can see, it still did the job and extremely well.

 Bow alone probably consists of roughly 25-26,000 Polys. Leaf textures are applied with a transparency map to square planes.

The draw morph on the bowstring (and bend on the bow when the string is pulled) was accomplished using the awesome tool found in Rhino 3D called "Flow Along Curve" ( I can't overstate how awesome that tool is!)

__________________
Merker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2012, 01:21 PM   #45
Merker

Lord
Merker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 55
Default

Gilasil wrote:

Never mind, while I was typing this reply you posted the above.

While Lightwave has some very powerful tools for UV mapping that go way beyond simple unwrapping and painting directly on the model, it could well be that Hexagon has enough.  Is UVunwrapper that $20 package?  (I looked at it once if it is).  And free definately trumps $1000 let alone $8000.  Although those tipiis don't look like they'd be that hard to map. 

Of course where it really counts is when the geometry is more complex (more then a cone).

For my own project I have to go way beyond that (so many maps....) but this might be good enough.

People can decide for themselves of course.  I personally would recommend people try a couple different packages before settling on one.   Most have some sort of free trials.

The tipi wasn't too hard to map, but because of the actual taper of the cone from top to bottom and because it is skewed from front to back, it was tricky mapping it to prevent textures from distorting from top to bottom/ front and back, but otherwise it wasn't too bad. I have created some complex models requiring several UVmaps (for detailed resolution purposes) and know what you mean. It can be a hair pulling experience. To be honest, I absolutely hate UVmapping and texturing although I can do it. On occasion I work with others who do that stuff for me and then I am in my element. I love love modeling but hate the tediousness of everything that comes after lol. I have never done any rigging or the like and wouldn't even know where to start.

I'm not familiar with UV Unrapper but UVmapper is a small program that allows you to, obviously, map the UVs of your models LOL.  I think newer versions are more robust than the old version I have. I believe you can even link it with Photoshop and/or Paint Shop Pro so you can work seamlessly between the two and one updates the other as you work. If you Google it, it should come up in a search. It is created by a guy named Steve Cox and I think it is around $50-60.

__________________
Merker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2012, 01:30 PM   #46
Merker

Lord
Merker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 55
Default

A sample of a UV unwrap in UVmapper Pro. I need to definately update my copy LOL. It used to be a nightmare long ago to UVmap a head uniformally like this, but the tools of the trade have come a long way in the past 10-15 years. Although it looks like the map in this image still needs a bit of tweaking especially as you get down toward the lips (lips are a bit stretched and narrowed) and chin/neck region (looking a bit pinched). Otherwise it's a pretty good start to work with.

__________________
Merker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2012, 01:43 PM   #47
Merker

Lord
Merker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 55
Default

It should be noted, while we are on UVmapping, that Hexgon does do something weird when capping (closing) some geometry. I have noticed this more than once . When closing a model with a cap for some reason the UVs fall completely out of range (fall off the grid so to speak). It is easy to rectify, but worth noting. Take the same model, uncapped, and the UVs are properly in range... weird.

__________________
Merker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2012, 06:36 PM   #48
Merker

Lord
Merker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 55
Default

Was just informed by a DAZ rep that they are aware of the problems with downloads from their site and are working to resolve it. Although, I just checked and downloads seem to be working now for me.

He did mention that some customers (not all) found that clearing their cache and cookies in their web browser helped.

__________________
Merker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2012, 10:26 PM   #49
feldon30

Fansite Staff
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,424
Default

In the coming weeks/months, I intend to provide useful resources, guides, and assistance to aspiring modelmakers for PlayerStudio on EQ2Wire. I think the information in this thread will be invaluable.

feldon30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 08:39 AM   #50
Vannya Kaji

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6
Default

Alright, I am going to attempt to be as unbias as possible here.First off, I am a pro Max user for 12 years now, but that is because it was what I was introduced to all those years ago...

Over the years I have had to become advanced in several other packages as well (Max is my only mastery and I work in it over 90 hours a week... every week... ).

_____

Primary_____

3ds Max - Ultimately, this would not be my recommendation... I have been using this as my primary package for a very long time and I still do, but sadly, it is incredibly popular due to marketting and the readily available tutorial resources. It can also slide into just about any pipeline without issues. As mentioned in multiple previous posts... it is quite expensive and im subscription advanced... so I dont intend to change anytime soon. The following packages are those I have had to use on other projects in-house.

Maya - I think Maya is a much more stable solution and it has quite a bit of tutorial resources available as well.

Cinema 4D - more than capable of creating assets for player studio. There are some tutorial resources, but not nearly as many as other Autodesk products. Don't hold middle mouse to pan the camera either... (maybe someone will get that).

Lightwave - Unfortunately, I have not had as much experience in Lightwave as I would like, but from what I have seen it is clearly one of the best options. However, it has a strong learning curve for a Max-user.

Blender - Blender was removed from our pipeline due to .obj conversion issues (I have no experience with blender outside of the .obj handoffs I was given). Blender seems to handle polygonal data in a strange manner, so the conversion process is a pain. I would highly suggest that this be tested and an export tutorial be provided step-by-step. Geometry always comes into Houdini, Maya, and Max as duplicated polygon data or "entirely coplanar faces"; this creates a lot of z-fighting and impossible to UV map outside of Blender.

Softimage (XSI) - Unfortunately, this package is not AS widely used and tutorial resources are not as readily available, but personally, I think this package is very stable (if not the best). I find a lot of our pro animators use Softimage and I actually use it for it's smoothing algorithms in my own workflow.

Houdini - My rising star... there is not much this package can't do. I am not sure I would recommend it for this particular project, but the node-based workflow makes everything much easier. There are not as many resources available, but this IS definately my favorite package right now. 

______

Sculpting______

Zbrush - Very nice for generating normals and decimating meshes for game engines, but I find painting meshes much easier in Mudbox.

Sculptriss - No experience with this, but I believe it is free by pixelogic (same company as ZBrush).

Mudbox - Personally, I think anyone could pick up this sculpting package and use it without issue. Mudbox is extremely easy to use and lots of resources available.

There are very important guidelines that must be met in order to use sculpting packages in your workflow for a project like this and I will be making general videos for this later. -not for player studio specifically

My workflow, generally, consists of Max (base mesh) -> Zbrush -> Softimage (relaxing mesh) -> (I cycle through these 3 until my base mesh is perfect) -> Mudbox (painting, I do not edit geo in mudbox and I will tweak maps in Photoshop as needed and create mipmaps from there if requested) -> Max (Material setups, DX setups, render elements, lighting, stage, etc.. etc.. and final rendering/export)

That's just for static meshes; animated is quite a bit more complicated.

If any of this is of any use, I can update further later, but for now I have to go to work or go to Max, whatever....

Vannya Kaji is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 04:21 PM   #51
Vannya Kaji

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6
Default

Merker wrote:

It should be noted, while we are on UVmapping, that Hexgon does do something weird when capping (closing) some geometry. I have noticed this more than once . When closing a model with a cap for some reason the UVs fall completely out of range (fall off the grid so to speak). It is easy to rectify, but worth noting. Take the same model, uncapped, and the UVs are properly in range... weird.

I have never used Hexgon, but this function/result is not uncommon. 

Capping geometry seems to use the same function in most 3d apps.

It creates new geometry, not exactly the same as extruding or bridging from the geo we already have as common sense would suggest. When the cap is created it does not have predifined UV coordinates, as your pre-existing geo does and is, therefore, automatically generated.

99% of the time, the automatic UV coordinates default to planar or box mapping in an app. That cap's UVs "should" appear blown up, but still fit snug in the 0-1 UV grid window... overlapping every single other UV in the process... . That part will be innate to Hexgon though. It is possible they seperate (or "fall off the grid") as a way for the application to keep the original UV data seperate from what it thinks is "new geometry".

Vannya Kaji is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:04 AM.

vBulletin skin by: CompleteGFX.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All threads and posts originally from the EQ2 and Station forums operated by Sony Online Entertainment. Their use is by express written permission.