אתה משתמש בדפדפן מיושן. יתכן והאתר הנוכחי יוצג באופן שגוי, כמו כן אתרים אחרים ברשת.
אנא שדרג את הדפדפן או השתמש בדפדפן חילופי.
אנא שדרג את הדפדפן או השתמש בדפדפן חילופי.
יש סקר חדש - הצביעו והשפיעו
- פותח הנושא eldarinn
- פורסם בתאריך
med in polys?
what´s the supposed to mean? hidden favoritism to nurbs? you should also add subdivision surfaces, though i dont imagin many use the pixar/maya ones in here. anyway, polys are just as strong as nurbs in fact they give more control over nurbs.. 100% free to do what u want unlike nurbs. wont get into it though, will be long to detail each pros/cons
what´s the supposed to mean? hidden favoritism to nurbs? you should also add subdivision surfaces, though i dont imagin many use the pixar/maya ones in here. anyway, polys are just as strong as nurbs in fact they give more control over nurbs.. 100% free to do what u want unlike nurbs. wont get into it though, will be long to detail each pros/cons
הצחקת אותי! (פעמיים!!)
קודם כי לא הבמת את הבדיחה (עדיפויות "בישול" של בשר על האש DUH) ושנית כי פוליגונים נותנים שליטה יותר טובה מנרבס?!?!? לא קיים! למה לדעתך מעצבי מוצר מחוייבים לעבוד בנרבס? כי יש להם שליטה מוחלטת על כל נקודה במשטח, על ההשפעה על נקודות אחרות הקשורות אליה ועל TANGENCY כמובן שכ"כ חשוב. נ.ב. אני אוסיף את ה SUBDIVISION כהמלצתך.
קודם כי לא הבמת את הבדיחה (עדיפויות "בישול" של בשר על האש DUH) ושנית כי פוליגונים נותנים שליטה יותר טובה מנרבס?!?!? לא קיים! למה לדעתך מעצבי מוצר מחוייבים לעבוד בנרבס? כי יש להם שליטה מוחלטת על כל נקודה במשטח, על ההשפעה על נקודות אחרות הקשורות אליה ועל TANGENCY כמובן שכ"כ חשוב. נ.ב. אני אוסיף את ה SUBDIVISION כהמלצתך.
ok u asked for it
nurbs have less control than polys because: u can not control their continuity wherever u want, in polys you can pick any area u want, just delete,refine vertexes/faces how ever u want. in nurbs you cant do that with affected the area of that cv u want to change. the only reason product designers use nurbs is because it can be specific measurements accuret by it´s surface curves as object edges. meaning, u can feed the machine the math of the curves and let the factory make an exact duplicate. that´s really THE reason why product designers use it. polys are much more flexible with modeling and texturing. with nurbs u cant apply the same texturing procedures u can on polys. u are stuck with nurbs UV texture coordinates as u make them, meaning you have to plan how you are going to build your model. will give u a quick example on why polys have much more control and abilities, take my mclaren model.. http://www.3dluvr.com/galr/images/portfolio/page2.JPG overall this could be done with nurbs at 1/10 of the modeling time that it took me with polys(yes nurbs are faster), BUT all of the object´s bevels couldnt have been made like this with nurbs unless i would put 2 extra patches before/after the bevel of each surface.. that would be insane, not to mention raise the polycount from 160k(which is not) to something like 500k, which is also an issue with nurbs.. u cant control specific area tesselations.. just the general tesselation of the object, meaning u gets tons of vertexes in areas u dont even need, if u have lots of details in small patches..have to raise tesselation value. for relativly big smoothed objects nurbs is a much faster/cleaner choice. but for intense small ACCURET details, polys is a better choice cause u cant just refine that area all u want and add the details.. with nurbs u would have to affect the whole model, or affect that certain patch/patches.. but then u would have an issue with continuity and later on seamless tesselations. can be done, but it will end up more work than with polys.. with much higher poly count. btw no offence or anything, but i find u saying "product designers use it so must be best" shows kinda.. that you dont really know everything behind the 2 aspects. i may be wrong though.
nurbs have less control than polys because: u can not control their continuity wherever u want, in polys you can pick any area u want, just delete,refine vertexes/faces how ever u want. in nurbs you cant do that with affected the area of that cv u want to change. the only reason product designers use nurbs is because it can be specific measurements accuret by it´s surface curves as object edges. meaning, u can feed the machine the math of the curves and let the factory make an exact duplicate. that´s really THE reason why product designers use it. polys are much more flexible with modeling and texturing. with nurbs u cant apply the same texturing procedures u can on polys. u are stuck with nurbs UV texture coordinates as u make them, meaning you have to plan how you are going to build your model. will give u a quick example on why polys have much more control and abilities, take my mclaren model.. http://www.3dluvr.com/galr/images/portfolio/page2.JPG overall this could be done with nurbs at 1/10 of the modeling time that it took me with polys(yes nurbs are faster), BUT all of the object´s bevels couldnt have been made like this with nurbs unless i would put 2 extra patches before/after the bevel of each surface.. that would be insane, not to mention raise the polycount from 160k(which is not) to something like 500k, which is also an issue with nurbs.. u cant control specific area tesselations.. just the general tesselation of the object, meaning u gets tons of vertexes in areas u dont even need, if u have lots of details in small patches..have to raise tesselation value. for relativly big smoothed objects nurbs is a much faster/cleaner choice. but for intense small ACCURET details, polys is a better choice cause u cant just refine that area all u want and add the details.. with nurbs u would have to affect the whole model, or affect that certain patch/patches.. but then u would have an issue with continuity and later on seamless tesselations. can be done, but it will end up more work than with polys.. with much higher poly count. btw no offence or anything, but i find u saying "product designers use it so must be best" shows kinda.. that you dont really know everything behind the 2 aspects. i may be wrong though.
lots of errors
cant-can, and..i guess u´ll understand the rest. this forum isnt really made for english, quite annoying to write in like this.. oh well.. just another important issue i forgot to mention. wireframe. also the patch´s border edge directions will control the general flow of the wireframe inside. meaning, if u want to say bend one edge in some direction to make another patch of details right after it in some way, the wireframe will also bend , which is a problem. because.. clean/flowing wireframe is very important for few reasons. 1. when u´ll render, if the object is reflectivy or have high big specular values, any irregular in the wireframe will show, causing the reflection/spec to dent. which u cant have in u´r final render. 2. animation deformation, if the model will flex in that area.. the wireframe will determine how it will bend and if it´s not flowing right, a sharp edge will show in most cases, or it will simply to bend right. for example take a human face and make it´s wireframe a 100% aligned checker looking wireframe. in animation, when u will bend the jaw for example, the edges of the weighting u did on it, will show a checker bump in that area. ofcourse all is relative to how much and what kind of motion.. not saying it WILL be fuck everytime, but it is a risk/problem one must think of when modeling/animating
cant-can, and..i guess u´ll understand the rest. this forum isnt really made for english, quite annoying to write in like this.. oh well.. just another important issue i forgot to mention. wireframe. also the patch´s border edge directions will control the general flow of the wireframe inside. meaning, if u want to say bend one edge in some direction to make another patch of details right after it in some way, the wireframe will also bend , which is a problem. because.. clean/flowing wireframe is very important for few reasons. 1. when u´ll render, if the object is reflectivy or have high big specular values, any irregular in the wireframe will show, causing the reflection/spec to dent. which u cant have in u´r final render. 2. animation deformation, if the model will flex in that area.. the wireframe will determine how it will bend and if it´s not flowing right, a sharp edge will show in most cases, or it will simply to bend right. for example take a human face and make it´s wireframe a 100% aligned checker looking wireframe. in animation, when u will bend the jaw for example, the edges of the weighting u did on it, will show a checker bump in that area. ofcourse all is relative to how much and what kind of motion.. not saying it WILL be fuck everytime, but it is a risk/problem one must think of when modeling/animating
אז אתה לא מבין כנראה את ההבדלים!
לגבי טקסטורות - קניתי, פולי יותר פשוט. לגבי מודלציה פשוטה - קניתי - פולי יותר פשוט. פולי זה אוסף של משולשים וריבועים לא אחידים ביניהם, לא ניתן לשלוט במשטח כמו בנרבס שבעקומה לכל נקודה יש השפעה על הנקודות שמסביבה (שמעת פעם על מודלצית עקומות בדרגת 5 ודרגה 7??? נראה לך שמישהו ייעצב מכונית ע"ב משולשים???) כל נושא המודלציה הפוליגונלית באה במטרה אחת בלבד: לחסוך זמן רנדר. מדברייך הבנתי שאתה גם לא מבין כנראה את יתרון ה NURBS ואת חוסר הקשר ל"פרטים קטנים" שהרי כל הרעיון ב NURBS שהן עקומות מתמטיות ולכן לנושא ה"גודל" בהתייחסותך לפרטים קטנים - אין בכלל משמעות אלא לצורה בלבד. כשמגיעים לנושא של דיוק - זו ה-סיבה היחידה שמעצבי מוצר משתמשים בנרבס או במקרה הגרוע בסוליד! כנראה שאין לך בכלל מושג במה מדובר בליצא קובץ ל CNC או STL. נראה לך הגיוני לייצא מודל לייצור מפוליגונים?? כשאתה מדבר על "בלתי אפשרי" ו"לא ניתן לשלוט" - אתה כנראה לא מודע למצב השוק. מקס זו לא התכנה היחידה בשוק וגם היא בסיסית מאד ב NURBS. יש תכניות ייעודיות לNURBS שגם אם מקס תעשה סאלטות באויר היא לא תגיע לרמת ביצועים ודיוק שלהן. מקס זו תכנה ייעודית למודלים גרפיים ואנימציות ותו לא (ולא לתכנון) ולכן הכלים שלה ב NURBS הם ממש צעצוע. נ.ב. נא לרשום בעברית.
לגבי טקסטורות - קניתי, פולי יותר פשוט. לגבי מודלציה פשוטה - קניתי - פולי יותר פשוט. פולי זה אוסף של משולשים וריבועים לא אחידים ביניהם, לא ניתן לשלוט במשטח כמו בנרבס שבעקומה לכל נקודה יש השפעה על הנקודות שמסביבה (שמעת פעם על מודלצית עקומות בדרגת 5 ודרגה 7??? נראה לך שמישהו ייעצב מכונית ע"ב משולשים???) כל נושא המודלציה הפוליגונלית באה במטרה אחת בלבד: לחסוך זמן רנדר. מדברייך הבנתי שאתה גם לא מבין כנראה את יתרון ה NURBS ואת חוסר הקשר ל"פרטים קטנים" שהרי כל הרעיון ב NURBS שהן עקומות מתמטיות ולכן לנושא ה"גודל" בהתייחסותך לפרטים קטנים - אין בכלל משמעות אלא לצורה בלבד. כשמגיעים לנושא של דיוק - זו ה-סיבה היחידה שמעצבי מוצר משתמשים בנרבס או במקרה הגרוע בסוליד! כנראה שאין לך בכלל מושג במה מדובר בליצא קובץ ל CNC או STL. נראה לך הגיוני לייצא מודל לייצור מפוליגונים?? כשאתה מדבר על "בלתי אפשרי" ו"לא ניתן לשלוט" - אתה כנראה לא מודע למצב השוק. מקס זו לא התכנה היחידה בשוק וגם היא בסיסית מאד ב NURBS. יש תכניות ייעודיות לNURBS שגם אם מקס תעשה סאלטות באויר היא לא תגיע לרמת ביצועים ודיוק שלהן. מקס זו תכנה ייעודית למודלים גרפיים ואנימציות ותו לא (ולא לתכנון) ולכן הכלים שלה ב NURBS הם ממש צעצוע. נ.ב. נא לרשום בעברית.
על מה אתה מדבר בכלל?
who the heck is talking about max? i am talking in general. did u not read what i said? u said nurbs is used for product design because of it´s mathematical ability to export the data in the most accuret way i never said polys are, plz read before u reply! and about rendertime, it IS NOT the reason. i told u, tesselation on nurbs will be higher than a poly model because u cant control single areas to tesselate, only the entire object.. that means u get more polycount in nurbs than polys in most cases.. PLZ READ and try to think about what i said before replying. by the way i was refering to maya, why dont u just read carefully what i said before just attacking with issues i didnt even try to prove. and poly modelling with tris is a bad idea, i dont.. i model with quad polys true in maya,(made out of tris in max) if u didnt know. also, the so called "industry" you talk about, is not just product design.. in fact that´s not even really relevant to this.. this is more of the artistic usage of the applications.. they are not really meant for product design., got other utils for that. so u need to understand that the real goal industry here is feature film and broadcasting. and there the whole math issue is irrelevant. and the fact that polys dont affect their neighbores on the entire patch surface is my point! if u want to make small details in a dense area, the cvs will affect each other, smoothen out the details u made, and for that not to happen you have to insert more isoperms/cvs.. which increases polycount(in tesselation). you dont see what i´m saying do u? that´s where polys are a stronger tool, u´r wireframe in the end for high detailed objects will be smaller in most cases. so what u said about rendertime, i just showed u the opposite of what you tried to prove. anyway, i dont know how/what you model, but i am talking from personal experience and that´s how i prove my self, plz just dont attack and claim stuff if you cant prove or atleast show how u are basing u´r statements. by the way, i am not attacking you. i just dont like it when ppl state things to the general public which are not proven
who the heck is talking about max? i am talking in general. did u not read what i said? u said nurbs is used for product design because of it´s mathematical ability to export the data in the most accuret way i never said polys are, plz read before u reply! and about rendertime, it IS NOT the reason. i told u, tesselation on nurbs will be higher than a poly model because u cant control single areas to tesselate, only the entire object.. that means u get more polycount in nurbs than polys in most cases.. PLZ READ and try to think about what i said before replying. by the way i was refering to maya, why dont u just read carefully what i said before just attacking with issues i didnt even try to prove. and poly modelling with tris is a bad idea, i dont.. i model with quad polys true in maya,(made out of tris in max) if u didnt know. also, the so called "industry" you talk about, is not just product design.. in fact that´s not even really relevant to this.. this is more of the artistic usage of the applications.. they are not really meant for product design., got other utils for that. so u need to understand that the real goal industry here is feature film and broadcasting. and there the whole math issue is irrelevant. and the fact that polys dont affect their neighbores on the entire patch surface is my point! if u want to make small details in a dense area, the cvs will affect each other, smoothen out the details u made, and for that not to happen you have to insert more isoperms/cvs.. which increases polycount(in tesselation). you dont see what i´m saying do u? that´s where polys are a stronger tool, u´r wireframe in the end for high detailed objects will be smaller in most cases. so what u said about rendertime, i just showed u the opposite of what you tried to prove. anyway, i dont know how/what you model, but i am talking from personal experience and that´s how i prove my self, plz just dont attack and claim stuff if you cant prove or atleast show how u are basing u´r statements. by the way, i am not attacking you. i just dont like it when ppl state things to the general public which are not proven
Copyright©1996-2021,Tapuz Media Ltd. Forum software by XenForo® © 2010-2020 XenForo Ltd.