3D-Pangel

The only information on GeoGen I found (though I did not check every possible social media outlet) was that 10 seconds of video (the rest was sound effects). From the frame that was captured, I saw an interesting feathering to the smoke that was not typical of your standard fluid simulation (the area in question was circled in red ellipse). Again, being guided by only that 10 seconds of animation which started with a voronoi fracture and transitioned to a neat smoke effect, I took a guess. Not sure if that smoke feathering effect to particles was part of GeoGen or already native to Embergen (I even said as much), I threw caution to the wind and hoped that it was a means to get large scale fluid simulations - something that (to date) is really only found in Houdini.

Getting the particle meshing right is a huge step into realistic fluid simulations at all scales and I must add that I found this animation very nicely done. Not sure even Houdini could show results like these in real time. Had the animation not jerkily shifted viewing angle during the playback I would not have realized that this was real time viewport performance (maybe even the developers were in awe and forgot move the viewport while recording the demo). So again, kudo's to that plucky little development team at Embergen going head-to-head with the PhD's at Houdini (Full disclosure: at one time I recall an interview where Side Effects was touting the number of PhD's on staff though I could find nothing to substantiate that claim on the web). Now, with that said, and a quick check on the Embergen site for current pricing, I found a reference to Geogen with a beta video released 6 months ago but promised for 2023. You have to give it a bit of time to play out but at the one minute mark, you will see this frame on the left: So I sincerely hope that GeoGen provides a little bit more than just another Voronoi fracturing solution and takes a step at achieving large scale fluid simulations. That would be huge. To do that in REAL TIME would be mind blowing (IMHO). Dave

I have a love/hate relationship with both books and tutorials. Books are great because you can proceed at your own speed in a very linear fashion. You don't have to hit pause and rewind to review a point. This is especially true if shortcuts are used as sometimes in a video tutorial you will get a rapid barrage of short cut commands being blasted at you by the instructor (Ctrl U, then swipe left, then LMB and select ALL, followed by Ctrl C.....on and on). When reading a manual, that sequence is usually written down for you to see. The downside is that should your results differ, there was no visual feedback provided as you follow the written sequence to tell you where you went wrong. The better video tutorials put every command on the screen as they executed including short cuts. So, nothing is lost but there is a lot of pausing. Video tutorials are great because there is only so much you can describe in words and as a visual learner, I like to see what is being taught as it is being taught. That overcomes the problem mentioned above of not being able to determine where you went wrong with written instructions. But sometimes the instructor is proceeding under some misconception that shorter tutorials are more marketable, so they just blast through the subject matter. "Hey....go fast because the student has a pause button" Honestly, overuse of the pause button as you watch a video 10 seconds at a time can quickly create attention fatigue as the forest is quickly lost through the trees when you have to watch in such small bites. I could never get into modo because 3DGarage videos were that way plus it was all shortcuts and they were not displayed on the screen. Now, both written and video tutorials are horrible if a detail, step, command option is left out. Sometimes that happens in both and when that happens you do lose confidence in the instructor and the book or video. You simply stop following that instructor when you realize you wasted a lot of time only to end up at a dead end. Overall, I favor video tutorials especially those where the instructor is proceeding at a moderate pace and the shortcuts and commands are printed on the screen as they are speaking. The best video tutorials also show where you can go wrong, why one method is better than another, and a little bit of the logic behind the command and/or how the tool works. That part I love because once you internalize what the program is doing you can quickly master the function. Bob Walmsley at Insydium is that type of teacher --- one of my favorites. Too bad he did not teach modeling. My other favorite is Hrvoje. Great instructor. Too bad he no longer has anything to do with the forum. 🙄 Now with all that said, not sure about a modeling book using a different application (in this case modo). It all depends on how the book is structured. If it focused purely on common problem-solving techniques (e.g., how to resolve an edge loop issue on an interior curve with a triangle in the corner) in a step-by-step visual manner without describing the commands, that may be a good resource. You just have to hope that your program has the capability to match some of those steps or you will get lost going from A to B in the instructions. But at $48, I am not willing to take that risk. Better to just buy MILG 11. Dave

So much for Meshroom:

Really loving this thread. For example, I never would have known that Particle Illusion is now available as a free download for its standalone version. While you can't use it for anything outside of playing with the emitters, that alone is enough for me because it is just soo much fun to use. I also like finding out about all the new software that essentially is using AI to completely remove the more mundane aspects of the VFX pipeline: camera tracking, motion tracking, rotoscoping, etc....the list goes on. But as mundane as those tasks are, they did make you appreciate the effect that much more simply because you realized how much work went into it. Now, you just sit back and press three buttons and you are done. So, while AI won't be the death of the VFX artist (though it does raise the bar on creating standout effects) your appreciation of a VFX scene will change. Think about how we were all blown away by that opening shot in The Empire Strikes Back of the camera move down on the running Taun Taun over the Hoth snowscape. No camera tracking software was used, just sheer artistry, ingenuity and back breaking work. If that shot was done today, we would not give it a second thought because tracking software is so mature and readily available. Oddly enough, I also wonder if AI will change how we appreciate the people who develop software that we use. To continue with my theme on camera tracking, will we still marvel at camera tracking software that can create flawless tracking shots of scenes shot out of focus, or with rack focus changes in poor light, lots of motion blur and no discernable stable points to use as tracking markers when we know that some AI algorithm did all the work? Sure, we may marvel at the AI algorithm itself, but AI is just becoming this ubiquitous monster that gives the impression that the software created itself through its own learning algorithm. Scientists, mathematicians and software developers sitting down and cranking out the math, building the logic flow and iterating for days and even years to refine the software to a stable piece of magnificent code are now upstaged by an AI algorithm that did all that work in 3 minutes. While we all may marvel at AI, I think it just cheapens the whole effort of creating anything digital: from software development to finished image. There used to be an old cartoon of scientists reviewing a pretty poor algorithm on a chalkboard that I have updated below to emphasize this point: Enough said...go render something..... .....before it is done for you by your AI surrogate. Dave

I was knocked out with the polar bear ads from long ago. The painterly effects were very good (NPR of live action scenes), but too subtle and little too jittery in some cases (IMHO). So subtle that you barely noticed them in some shots but that may have been the point because they were trying to match the realistic work of the great masters. As for me, this scene from "What Dreams May Come" still knocks my socks off....and it was done 25 years ago: Advancements in optical flow technology (tracing the flow of each pixel in a moving image) was the groundbreaking science to make this scene possible and ultimately earning the movie the Oscar for best VFX. Read more about it here. Dave

Any latency in the mouse or the keyboard is not acceptable to me....let alone 10 seconds of latency. Is it wired or wireless? My one big knock against Logitech wireless mice and keyboards is that their unified receivers can be a bit buggy particularly on their M720 mouse and K850 keyboard that can support up to three different computers. Using their unified receivers, I had to keep a wired keyboard and mouse around just to get myself out of jams should everything hang. They have been working to improve their software stability, but I remain doubtful. No issues with using a Bluetooth connection though but they can only support one out of the three PC's with that connection type. If anyone knows of a more a VERY ROBUST wireless mouse/keyboard combination that can support more than one PC, please let me know. With all that said, you have more patience than I do if you can live with 10 second latency. Speaking from experience, that type of issue would drive me crazy super quick. Dave

Apart from having a nostalgic fondness for 30-year-old 3D software (I come from the tueSpace days), there are other indications of how age is affecting your work that you need to watch out for.....case in point: Wow....it is cold in here? Where is my sweater!!!! Dave

That VFX breakdown provided a treasure trove of reference images. Great stuff. I understand that while Picard had mixed reviews, the final episode in Season 3 made it all worth it. Not enough of a payback there (IMHO) to warrant such an investment from me in terms of time and money to catch this series on Paramount+ streaming...but happy that fan service was ultimately done. Dave

I agree and also disagree at the same time. It was a big task and a gamble to create Harold Ramis digitally because if it was off, it would pull you out of the story at what was supposed to be a very emotional point at the climax of the movie. Now that would be the same risk as hiring an actor and using make-up to do the same thing - the difference being that you can only go so far with an actor but you can go all the way (given enough time and budget) to do it digitally. Given the importance of having Egon appear to his children at the end of the movie, I think it was a smart move to try and do it 100% perfect digitally. It sold me and supported the movie the way it was meant to from a story standpoint. Story points aside, the choice between using actors or digital doubles can be hit or miss either way. Case in point, the recreation of Peter Cushing as Grand Moff Tarkin at the end of Revenge of the Sith. Long before the days of perfecting digital doubles, they used an actor in make-up, and it was just a bit off: But as he only had one small scene and no close-ups, they could get away with it but still when I saw it my immediate reaction was "the make-up is slightly off". Now some would argue that his digital recreation in Rogue One was also a bit off but (IMHO) it was a far better recreation and faced the additional challenges of having dialogue and the acting that goes with giving that dialogue that Egon did not have in Ghostbusters. Remember that up until Rogue One, most digital doubles did not have that much dialogue or were not required to carry important story points forward. They just walked on....mostly silent (like in Blade Runner 2049 or Logan) and that was it. Just my 2 cents. Dave

I am 62. I have no use for any social media outside of the Core4D. Now....get off my lawn!!!! 😀 Dave

....hit play..... Cool!!!! Dave ....what time is it? 😀

Honestly, it is all crap unless they show you the mesh for the simple reason that someone has to still texture the model. Even with human intervention, I would want to see the quality of the finished product (that is the mesh) simply because I don't think it is physically and financially possible to find, hire and retain enough skilled modelers to take the mind-numbing job of fixing bad geometry with enough quality at a fast enough rate to make money. You just can't outsource Cerbera to a machine. Just not possible. Dave

I thought I would provide an update to this extremely old thread. The whole project of modeling the Death Star Equitorial trench got a bit sidetracked by a C4D's shiny new feature: pyro. That was hard to resist. So, I got a little crazy and went off and dived into something a bit way above my skill level and took on replicating the City Destroyers emerging from a fiery cloud from 1990's Independence Day. You may have seen that thread. Well....with fluids out of my system (for the moment....), I went back to my Death Star WIP. Like the Independence Day scene, doing hard surface modeling on essentially something the size of a small moon was also a bit crazy. Definitely punching above my weight class again. Well...here is the update WIP: Still lots more to do and many adjustments to be made, but I think it is coming along better than I personally thought possible (trust me...there were many times I wanted to give up). Dave

I would agree....

Well....I wish I could provide the same instructional benefit to you as you have provided to me but the only areas of expertise where I would presume to be able to offer advice would be in electronics manufacturing. Relative to software, then definitely Microsoft Excel and a better than average knowledge of other MS tools I use at work like Smartheets, Powerpoint, Word, etc. I also have a pretty good knowledge base into the history of VFX up through the early 2000's buy then the rapid growth of CG techniques just became too fast to keep up with. But that's it! Which is probably all pretty useless to a CG professional such as yourself. So thus, my enduring appreciation. Dave

It is evident from those short tutorials that you are extremely busy and were making those tutorials from what limited free time you could squeeze from your schedule (BTW: Now it is Sunday 😁) But....they do make a huge difference to me and I am sure to others. They don't need to be long because as I said you packed more useful information into those short tutorials than I have seen in over half the tutorials out there. So I am sincerely appreciative for whatever you can provide in the time that you have. Dave

There was more information packed into that 9 minutes than I have seen in full hour tutorials. These need to become a permanent part of Core4D. Can they be added to the Videos section please? Thanks, Dave

Gold....pure gold. Amazing how something becomes obvious ONLY AFTER it is shown to you. All I can say is "Duh!!!" at that point and slap my forehead in disgust. Thank you and I look forward to more!!!! Dave

The humble padawan will throw himself at the mercy of the Master and attempt to answer 1. Do we need to worry about the complex poles remaining, both before and after the bevels ? Complex poles can lead to problems but in some cases are unavoidable. So, the questions that need to be considered is whether or not the complex poles preserve good edge flow? Are any of those poles made up of polygons that are not quads? In short, quads and edge flows are the goals to be achieved at the base polygon level before you apply bevel modifiers. If you can achieve that goal but create some complex poles in the process, then that is a good trade-off. 2. If not, why, and if so, why ? See answer to 1. 3. If we do wish they weren't there, what can be done / is already being done about them ? Well, that is where your genius comes in. You need to visualize the result in your head and think in 3D what is the solution. Then you have to figure out the most efficient way to get their using the modeling tools you have. Being able to visualize abstract problems in 3D is a function of genius thinking (according to Mensa). Not everyone can do it. But as you are also a mighty fine composer then it is pretty well established how well your brain is working. For us mere mortals, that is sometimes not so easy. In some cases, I have had to throw out the model and start all over again when I get into those situations. But a question for you: I don't quite follow your explanation of the first step: My approach would have been to start with a cylinder as you did, then save a selection of all interior edges. Select all the faces and run the "Poke Polygon" command. Deselect everything and re-select your tag of saved interior edges and hit dissolve. Now, while quicker, I will admit that your solution looks better in that your diamonds have edges that are equal lengths on all sides which will never happen with the poke polygon command. So how did you do it? Plus running the loop cut with quantize subdivision fixed at 1 (to give you 50%) and bidirectional set to off does work but then, as you get to the end, the cutting goes all wonky How did you get around this? Did you have to start making specific selections and restrict the cut to only those selections or is there some other setting I am missing? And I still have no idea how you got to here while still preserving the curvature of the glass: Yes...now you know why I am amazed...especially as it only took you 15 minutes to both visualize the solution and to execute it ((it took me over 90 minutes just to figure out most of what you did)!!!!!!! Dave

I missed the fact there were ngons in that model. You are right that as the SDS was very forgiving, their impact was not clearly evident in the final render. But I am even more amazed. Here is why: Gaining an understanding of as many of these modeling techniques as possible is gold to me!!! Dave

Wow! Just wow...on so many levels. Perfect topology, Curved surfaces, Undercuts. Honestly....just wow! Dave P.S. I would like to thank Jay's parents for the use of his baby picture in this post..... ....just kidding. ...that is actually Igor.😆

Very nice. Thank you. Please note that this generator is also good for making cheese!!!! Dave