Noob Questions
60715 62 1- Lyonz
- Member
- 114 posts
- Joined: Oct. 2009
- Offline
- Lyonz
- Member
- 114 posts
- Joined: Oct. 2009
- Offline
- Soothsayer
- Member
- 861 posts
- Joined: Oct. 2008
- Offline
- Lyonz
- Member
- 114 posts
- Joined: Oct. 2009
- Offline
SoothsayerLyonz
Had a look on the forum for a way to create smoothing groups like that in 3ds max am i correct to think that this carnt be done without splitting the modelling into millions of points ???
My feeling is that 3dsmax also splits them into millions of points, only it doesn't tell you.
I read the note you posted about using the facet sop but is it not for creating hard edges using the cusp option ?
If someone could give a basic example of the best way to smooth faces on an object that would be great.
- Soothsayer
- Member
- 861 posts
- Joined: Oct. 2008
- Offline
It's been a long time since I used max, but I'm pretty confident you can simulate everything the smoothing groups do with the facet sop and a group sop, and if needed a few expressions. In general, decide which faces you want to be smoothed, depending on color, or angle or whatever is needed.
Max's smoothing groups are unnecessarily complicated if you ask me. They hide the fact that they actually do very little apart from confuse the user. XSI has been living without it since forever and you can smooth any standard thing you want, with a little work. I think that if you play around a bit with the aforementioned sops you'll quickly get used to it and the need for max-style smoothing group will dissappear. (I used to have the same problem when I switched apps, desperately searching for smoothing groups in various apps until I realized I don't actually need them)
When you have hard edges you split the points, but if you look closely you will realize that the number of vertices stays the same because each face still has its own set of vertices and that won't change. Think of it as a convenient way of seeing how smoothing really works (check the normals!).
Max's smoothing groups are unnecessarily complicated if you ask me. They hide the fact that they actually do very little apart from confuse the user. XSI has been living without it since forever and you can smooth any standard thing you want, with a little work. I think that if you play around a bit with the aforementioned sops you'll quickly get used to it and the need for max-style smoothing group will dissappear. (I used to have the same problem when I switched apps, desperately searching for smoothing groups in various apps until I realized I don't actually need them)
When you have hard edges you split the points, but if you look closely you will realize that the number of vertices stays the same because each face still has its own set of vertices and that won't change. Think of it as a convenient way of seeing how smoothing really works (check the normals!).
--
Jobless
Jobless
- Lyonz
- Member
- 114 posts
- Joined: Oct. 2009
- Offline
I am currently trying to create the tread on a tyre and have uploaded an example. I am wanting the tread block walls, tops and bottom to have there own smoothing.
The image to the left has nothing applied to it and looks smooth, the image to the right has a group sop + facet with the option of unique points which gets the edge i want for the bottom and top.
It also removes the black lines from the left image and have checked that all the normals are facing the correct way so not sure why this is happening.
Problem with this is it splits the faces into double points and im wanting to mirror this a few times to create a seamless wheel. I have also looked close and the point numbers are not the same. And lastly i have tried to use cusp polygons/ cusp angle but even at 360 degrees it doesnt get the edge i want.
Thanks
The image to the left has nothing applied to it and looks smooth, the image to the right has a group sop + facet with the option of unique points which gets the edge i want for the bottom and top.
It also removes the black lines from the left image and have checked that all the normals are facing the correct way so not sure why this is happening.
Problem with this is it splits the faces into double points and im wanting to mirror this a few times to create a seamless wheel. I have also looked close and the point numbers are not the same. And lastly i have tried to use cusp polygons/ cusp angle but even at 360 degrees it doesnt get the edge i want.
Thanks
- Anonymous
- Member
- 678 posts
- Joined: July 2005
- Offline
- Anonymous
- Member
- 678 posts
- Joined: July 2005
- Offline
- Lyonz
- Member
- 114 posts
- Joined: Oct. 2009
- Offline
- jimc
- Member
- 295 posts
- Joined: Oct. 2008
- Offline
- ManDay
- Member
- 40 posts
- Joined: May 2010
- Offline
- jimc
- Member
- 295 posts
- Joined: Oct. 2008
- Offline
- silvina
- Staff
- 181 posts
- Joined: July 2005
- Offline
- ManDay
- Member
- 40 posts
- Joined: May 2010
- Offline
- Lyonz
- Member
- 114 posts
- Joined: Oct. 2009
- Offline
Can anyone tell me how to combine, an alpha texture over the top of a displaced object? I have tried using a few shaders like vex layered surface but this doesnt have the displace option.
I am trying to create a realistic light shown in the tutorial below, i would like to use a glass type shader, apply displacement and use an alpha texture over the top, wondering if i have to create a custom shader ?
http://www.dmmultimedia.com/3dtips_04b.htm [dmmultimedia.com]
I am trying to create a realistic light shown in the tutorial below, i would like to use a glass type shader, apply displacement and use an alpha texture over the top, wondering if i have to create a custom shader ?
http://www.dmmultimedia.com/3dtips_04b.htm [dmmultimedia.com]
- ManDay
- Member
- 40 posts
- Joined: May 2010
- Offline
- Lyonz
- Member
- 114 posts
- Joined: Oct. 2009
- Offline
I am wanting to have a glass shader with a displacement to get the bumps which i can do but I also want a texture map over that of that using an alpha.
In the file is a sphere using a glass vex shader and has a displacement applied to it. I am still unsure how to put a alpha texture over the top ?
The difference between opacity and alpha is that i dont want the hole image to be transparent only certain areas.
Also wondering if the setup is different for a none transparent shader?
Thanks
In the file is a sphere using a glass vex shader and has a displacement applied to it. I am still unsure how to put a alpha texture over the top ?
The difference between opacity and alpha is that i dont want the hole image to be transparent only certain areas.
Also wondering if the setup is different for a none transparent shader?
Thanks
- tamte
- Member
- 8595 posts
- Joined: July 2007
- Offline
if you use Glass from the Material Palette, there are options in Decal Tab to add an image with alpha on top of the glass
then just dive inside the material and add displacement shader and some displace properties to property shader if you need (like disp. bounds or true disp.)
then just dive inside the material and add displacement shader and some displace properties to property shader if you need (like disp. bounds or true disp.)
Tomas Slancik
FX Supervisor
Method Studios, NY
FX Supervisor
Method Studios, NY
- Lyonz
- Member
- 114 posts
- Joined: Oct. 2009
- Offline
tamte
if you use Glass from the Material Palette, there are options in Decal Tab to add an image with alpha on top of the glass
then just dive inside the material and add displacement shader and some displace properties to property shader if you need (like disp. bounds or true disp.)
Thanks for replying yes this is what i wanted still abit unsure how to get the true displace option though?
- ManDay
- Member
- 40 posts
- Joined: May 2010
- Offline
-
- Quick Links