Topobuild to create polys Fail

   2579   27   2
User Avatar
Member
166 posts
Joined: March 2014
Offline
Hi,
I'm trying to grasp modeling in H16, using Topobuild to simply create a polygon Outside of the actual geometry and this is a fail case for me…
What tool am I supposed to use for that kind of job ? ;-)

Attachments:
MDP_shoot_170518-095901.jpg (131.3 KB)
MDP_shoot_170518-101316.jpg (109.7 KB)

User Avatar
Member
1467 posts
Joined: March 2014
Offline
Judging by how you started your post, I reckon that you don't need a solution to a current problem, so my advice to you is to wait when Houdini's modeling toolset is more complete before trying to model something complex. In your example, “polyknit” should've been the solution, but that tool needs a re-write ASAP and hopefully we'll get one in the next version, along with other modeling tools and features.
https://www.artstation.com/artist/mcnistor [www.artstation.com]
metaphysical wildcard
User Avatar
Member
236 posts
Joined:
Offline
which other software that allows you to do this directly? how can it know where to place the vertex in 3 dimensional space?i think u can extrude an edge or create a new polygon by connecting 2 edge and then subdividing that edge and move the new point….
User Avatar
Member
236 posts
Joined:
Offline
or else the software it self need a geo to be base mesh then u can do that thing creating point and poly with topobuild..
basicly topo build needs another 3d geo as the base mesh for projecting the points…
User Avatar
Member
1467 posts
Joined: March 2014
Offline
patar
which other software that allows you to do this directly? how can it know where to place the vertex in 3 dimensional space?i think u can extrude an edge or create a new polygon by connecting 2 edge and then subdividing that edge and move the new point….

For the the first question: Softimage.
For the 2nd: the point should be placed in the plane defined by the other three points.
When there are only two points created, i.e. the point to be created is the 3rd not the 4th like in NNois' image, the point should be created in a plane parallel to the screen and is at a certain distance from it, passing through the middle of the edge created by the original two points.
https://www.artstation.com/artist/mcnistor [www.artstation.com]
metaphysical wildcard
User Avatar
Member
166 posts
Joined: March 2014
Offline
patar
which other software that allows you to do this directly? how can it know where to place the vertex in 3 dimensional space?i think u can extrude an edge or create a new polygon by connecting 2 edge and then subdividing that edge and move the new point….

Hi,
No, my post is not about knowing exactly how to place it, it's about I just can't place one point OUTSIDE anywhere…

patar
or else the software it self need a geo to be base mesh then u can do that thing creating point and poly with topobuild..

Well, you should be able at least to place a point or a poly, like… where you actually click ?

patar
basicly topo build needs another 3d geo as the base mesh for projecting the points…

yup that's the point of a topo build tool, that's why I need to access I think the polyknit tool but I can't find it !
Edited by NNois - May 19, 2017 06:33:51
User Avatar
Member
166 posts
Joined: March 2014
Offline
McNistor
… before trying to model something complex.

Something simple you mean ?
User Avatar
Member
1467 posts
Joined: March 2014
Offline
No, I meant it like I said it. Model something simple by all means, but I don't recommend starting modeling something complex, like a car, a robot or a character of any kind.
Just to be clear, we're talking about suggestions and recommendations here, each user does what he or she wants with their time. Oh, and traditional modeling. We're talking about that - the hereof problem is about that.
Edited by McNistor - May 19, 2017 10:13:39
https://www.artstation.com/artist/mcnistor [www.artstation.com]
metaphysical wildcard
User Avatar
Member
3771 posts
Joined: June 2012
Offline
NNois
that's why I need to access I think the polyknit tool but I can't find it !

Yep, it seems to be removed for some reason:

“PolyFill SOP replaces the deprecated PolyCap. Intelligently fills holes in polygonal models with triangles or quads. Together with TopoBuild it replaces PolyKnit as well.”

http://www.sidefx.com/docs/houdini/news/16/geometry [www.sidefx.com]
User Avatar
Member
1467 posts
Joined: March 2014
Offline
aRtye
Together with TopoBuild it replaces PolyKnit as well."

I really hope this is a temporary thing.
https://www.artstation.com/artist/mcnistor [www.artstation.com]
metaphysical wildcard
User Avatar
Member
257 posts
Joined: Jan. 2015
Offline
Hi McNistor,
yes Houdini could do with a few more manual modelling tools.
BUT: Modelling complex stuff is possible and actually i love it. It took me a while to get my head around doing everything procedural. Sometimes it needs VEX or VOPs.
I have a selfmade tool here that produces very complex scaffolding and frameworks, with miter cuts and loads of bevels.
In any other software or manually i would never get anywhere near this complexity.
I also think organic modelling (Plants and animals) useing VDBs and meshing produces great objects and this is something i have not seen like this in any other software.
Classic hard surface modelling or quad modelling manually needs more tools, but when you create HDAs that create for example a fender, a rim you have a parametric, reusable adjustable asset. Of course this takes longer than manually modelling something but you get a HDA that produces loads of rims.
I love procedural modelling in houdini.

Olaf
User Avatar
Member
1467 posts
Joined: March 2014
Offline
Olaf, I'm glad you're enjoying yout time in Houdini, I do too when working within certain areas
Unfortunately, not talking about some shortcomings is a sure way to stagnation. And we're talking about a type of modeling that's still weak in H. Of course you can model complex stuff in H - I've seen amazing things modeled through a command line (remember the old AutoCAD?) - but I don't see how's that relevant. I'm talking about efficient, in time and effort modeling, not what could one achieve with current Houdini traditional modeling tools had they lost a bet.

Traditional modeling tools are still used extensively in the industry, even though the concept/brain storming phase is dominated by sculpting apps like Zbrush and 3dCoat. And while one can get away with using only those apps if you're building a 100% organic model, as soon as things get more complex, i.e. props, clothing, hard-surface features will come into play, apps like Houdini (well not Houdini yet, but like Houdini) will come into play for either doing retopo on some parts and even building them from scratch based on the 3d sketch for others. The sculpting apps are still not the best option for working in low to mid (SubD domain) and I don't think they'll ever be should they keep their current approach.
Given that “hero” models in film, an industry where Houdini is almost omnipresent, are rarely built with a procedural approach, having a strong trad-modeling toolset would greatly benefit Houdini's user base.

So, I too love procedural modeling, yet this is not what we're discussing about here.
Edited by McNistor - May 22, 2017 12:42:51
https://www.artstation.com/artist/mcnistor [www.artstation.com]
metaphysical wildcard
User Avatar
Member
257 posts
Joined: Jan. 2015
Offline
McNistor,
you cant discuss one without the other. When expanding the houdini toolset i think it is of upmost importance to not break the “houdini way”.
If you want to do speedy subD manual modelling there is plenty software out there to do just that. I dont see why you cant import the results into houdini and work from there. And there is special software like marvelous designer for clothing, i dont want all that stuff in houdini. Or rhino/grasshopper for nurbs…

Houdini is all about procedural workflows. It does not need to be a swiss army knife that does everything a little bit. When working in teams it needs to integrate nicely, so data import and export are very important. And the FBX exporter etc. are far from perfect. Mantra needs more attention, the new terrain tools need more attention etc etc etc.

I dont see why manual modelling tools need to be high up in the feature request list? Why is this so important to you?
I see however a need for more procedural modelling tools also in connection to sub-d modelling.

I used to be a 3ds max user and i loved PolyBoost, which became Graphite Modelling tools.
Do you want something like that?

regards

Olaf
User Avatar
Member
1467 posts
Joined: March 2014
Offline
Excuse my brisk answer to you, which it's very likely to be interpreted as hostile, especially considering the limitations of text communication, but I don't think “you get it”
https://www.artstation.com/artist/mcnistor [www.artstation.com]
metaphysical wildcard
User Avatar
Member
257 posts
Joined: Jan. 2015
Offline
You are right i dont get it. Thats why i asked a question or two.
But never mind…
User Avatar
Member
1467 posts
Joined: March 2014
Offline
No… it's deeper than you think.
https://www.artstation.com/artist/mcnistor [www.artstation.com]
metaphysical wildcard
User Avatar
Member
257 posts
Joined: Jan. 2015
Offline
its deep like a fire burning deep in my soul
User Avatar
Member
1467 posts
Joined: March 2014
Offline
https://www.artstation.com/artist/mcnistor [www.artstation.com]
metaphysical wildcard
User Avatar
Member
1467 posts
Joined: March 2014
Offline
Olaf, check this link [sidefx.com] to see how how deep, or fundamental if you prefer, current Houdini's transformations limitations are.
I for one won't touch Houdini's modeling with a street light pole until those issues are resolved.
Upon superficially browsing through the issues I've presented there I realized I haven't mentioned something else I've just encountered regarding an imported object with the geometry way off the center of the world and the hoops one has to go through to have a transform gizmo where you need it, i.e. in the center of the geometry.
Filing a RFE right after I submit this post.
https://www.artstation.com/artist/mcnistor [www.artstation.com]
metaphysical wildcard
User Avatar
Member
1467 posts
Joined: March 2014
Offline
And here's the RFE I've submitted should anyone care to read it:

Hi,
There are a few fundamental issues within Houdini regarding transformations, many of which have been discussed and filed RFEs for. Hopefully with this one included, they're all there is to discuss about Houdini's transformations and gizmos.

The issue at hand is how transform gizmos positioned when dealing with multiple objects selected, at scene level or when importing a model that has its pivot in the center of the world but its geometry way off.
First, let's consider the latter situation - when activating the rotate tool, the gizmo is at the world center and to have it where you need it, i.e. the center of your geometry one has to RMB>snap to>centroid. Mind you, the RMB has to necessarily be on the gizmo, because if it's not you won't get the menu you need and this is a problem in its own, especially after you've framed (space+F) the object to see where it's at.

In Softimage I have to do one click. Or two If I opt to toggle it through the RMB menu, the RMB itself and then LMB. Ah yes, very important - it's called CoG-center of geometry (not the important part) and it's a toggle (the important part). Toggle ON, gizmo is in the center (centroid in H) of my geometry, toggle OFF, gizmo is at the world origin. Simple concept, easy to work with, no hunting down through a menu, no necessity to do it for each object.

Multi-selection comes into play - the CoG concept in Softimage is relevant for multiple selected objects too. It's akin to Houdini “Global Control” (which is still buggy regarding translation - RFE submitted a long time ago, bug/behavior is still there) which moves the gizmo between the objects (not sure if at the mid distance between their centroids or other algorithm is used).

To recap, one feature in Softimage - CoG - solves both these issues, with a single click.
In Houdini there are two different features, one of which is buggy/badly implemented an the other is hard to use.

If you have trouble understanding any of the issue I've presented here, please let me know and I'll try to present it in a clearer manner as well as make use of images if necessary.
Thanks.
-
McNistor
https://www.artstation.com/artist/mcnistor [www.artstation.com]
metaphysical wildcard
  • Quick Links