Max does have smoothing groups but I was told that Poser will not read them. Do you use Max?
As that is my modeling program of choice. I do own Maya, Cinema 4D,  and  Max but my first package was Max so I feel way more adept at it. But which one do you use?
regards, tom

But if you got rid of the ngons in those side pieces Poser would treat the model a lot differently ;o).

Laurie

I only model quads which in reality is two triangles.
I still have issues with the corners.
The only thing I am trying to avoid is breaking a model out into huge amounts of parts.

Quote - I only model quads which in reality is two triangles.

I would imagine you do. Poser loves quads. However, not all quads are created equal. That model pjz99 showed has quads on the faces that lead into the corners. But the edges aren't all square. That makes a huge difference to Poser apparently. If instead of making the edge go from the corner of the inside part of the cube to the corner vert of the outside cube he had gone straight across and put a vert on each vertical and horizontal edge and met it there, it would have smoothed differently in Poser. I hope to hell that made sense...lol. Instead of bringing an edge across diagonally, there would be a square face in each corner.

Laurie

Are you thinking that I should have all relatively square quads?

Hmmmmmm

Quote - Are you thinking that I should have all relatively square quads?

I think Poser would just love that, but I don't see how that's even possible. ;o). I couldn't model with all square quads and don't know anyone who can...lol.

Laurie

So a trapazoid is a no no?

Quote - So a trapazoid is a no no?

Not in most modeling programs. Wings has no problems with them, with smoothing them, but in Poser, well...it has it's own way of interpreting things I'm finding. Most of the time it doesn't mind ngons when you think it should, but sometimes it does. It definitely doesn't smooth non-square edges correctly. That's probably because it's original intent was organic shapes, not architectural things where edges need to be crisp.

Another approach, while still in your modeling program (and remembering that I'm working in Lightwave, so YMMV) is to also have smoothing on in your materials in the modeling program, at comparable angles to those normally used in Poser. Wherever you see a smoothing artifact in your model, split the vertices. This is my first step in producing artifact-free models for Poser - I occasionally miss one or two, but it makes the transition a lot easier. Sure, it's tedious, but it pays off :-).

If I knew anything about smoothing groups I'd tell you to use those, but I know as much as you do ;o). That would be the best way, like BB said.

Laurie

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2800349

Normally I do selectively split verts in Wings and for the most part it works. But that's inconsistent as well.

Laurie

Quote - But if you got rid of the ngons in those side pieces Poser would treat the model a lot differently ;o).

Laurie

Are you talking to me? There are no ngons in my prop. Everything is a quad. The front face outer frame is 4 quads, partially welded to the four sides of the cube. The bevel is welded to the top and bottom quads on the front, and to each other, and to the center front quad.

There are 14 polygons, all quads, and 22 vertices. I could split them all, but then I wouldn't have anything to demonstrate with regard to welded polygons.

This model doesn't actually want smoothing, so there is no compelling reason to weld these. I could demonstrate one that requires some smoothing and some splitting if you like, and how to handle it.

no Bill.

you have 2 Ngons - the 2 verticals that are SIX edged  as you posted here http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/media/folder_10/file_455942.jpg

Yes, I was talking to you BB...shape of the face doesn't matter. You can have a square face and still have an ngon. If it has more than 4 edges and 4 verts, it's an ngon.

Laurie

v -0.0581395320669 0 0
v -0.0436046490502 0 0
v -0.0436046490502 0.116279064134 0
v -0.0581395320669 0.116279064134 0
v 0.0436046490502 0 0
v 0.0581395320669 0 0
v 0.0581395320669 0.116279064134 0
v 0.0436046490502 0.116279064134 0
v -0.0436046490502 0.101744181117 0
v 0.0436046490502 0.101744181117 0
v 0.0436046490502 0.0145348830167 0
v -0.0436046490502 0.0145348830167 0
v 0.0436046490502 0.0145348830167 0.0
v 0.0333269347053 0.0914664667722 -0.0102777143449
v 0.0333269347053 0.0248125973616 -0.0102777143449
v -0.0436046490502 0.0145348830167 0.0
v -0.0333269347053 0.0248125973616 -0.0102777143449
v -0.0333269347053 0.0914664667722 -0.0102777143449
v 0.0581395320669 0 -0.116279064134
v -0.0581395320669 0 -0.116279064134
v 0.0581395320669 0.116279064134 -0.116279064134
v -0.0581395320669 0.116279064134 -0.116279064134
vt 0 0
usemtl Box
f 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1
f 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1
f 9/1 10/1 8/1 3/1
f 2/1 5/1 11/1 12/1
f 13/1 10/1 14/1 15/1
f 9/1 16/1 17/1 18/1
f 10/1 9/1 18/1 14/1
f 16/1 13/1 15/1 17/1
f 17/1 15/1 14/1 18/1
f 19/1 6/1 1/1 20/1
f 21/1 7/1 6/1 19/1
f 22/1 4/1 7/1 21/1
f 20/1 1/1 4/1 22/1
f 22/1 21/1 19/1 20/1

Which of those faces is not a quad? 

Bagginsbill:

Quote - Adding thin edging polygons works, but that's not always the best choice.

"Best" has different meanings depending on circumstances (which I think you understand); there is "minimum of polygons" and "minimum of work to get the model looking correct".  Unfortunately they rarely intersect.  The examples you and Laurie showed about how phong angle interacts with smoothing are pretty clear, good examples.

They're all quads but they're not welded.  This is okay for Poser (and is what a few people have been saying about splitting edges) but not okay under Catmull-Clark subdivision, which will make this geometry go nuts.

edit: Oops too late.  Well I'll go google some cat pictures, brb.

Sorry I asked for help once again. Time to go elsewhere for help as a pissing match does not get anything accomplished except an empty bladder. :-)

I'm sorry, is a quad not defined by it's edges?? That's an honest question, btw ;o).

Laurie

I never said it was compatible with Catmull Clark. I said it has no n-gons.

Nor is any of this relevant to the reason for the artifacts, which is that the angles are sometimes below the crease angle and sometimes above, and that failure to know what the angles are causes a cognitive dissonance. It doesn't do what some expect simply because the angles are not what you think they are.

Quote - Sorry I asked for help once again. Time to go elsewhere for help as a pissing match does not get anything accomplished except an empty bladder. :-)

Don't be sorry ;o). Follow that link raven posted. Since you use Max and so does Stonemason, you might find something useful there.

Laurie

Quote - I never said it was compatible with Catmull Clark. I said it has no n-gons.

I didn't say otherwise, I'm explaining why most modelers (i.e. people) won't do that type of thing EXCEPT when dealing with Poser or other Reyes renderers.  It just doesn't occur to them.

Laurie, different applications may handle it in different ways, but OBJ format is vertices (points or "v" entries) and face declarations ("f" entries).

Quote - I'm sorry, is a quad not defined by it's edges?? That's an honest question, btw ;o).

Laurie

Yes. Please, just stop and answer your own question. How many edges does a quad have - four. How many edges are in each face of my obj file - four. There are no n-gons.

Just because some vertices are shared or not shared changes NOTHING with regard to the number of edges.

The prop has 14 polygons, every one connecting four vertices. If they were completely unwelded, there would be 56 vertices. But where any two vertices are the same value they can be welded, and nothing changes with regard to edge count.

I welded all the vertices as much as possible. Thus there are still 14 quads, but only 22 vertices.

I really don't appreciate all the drama. I never said anything other than every polygon is a quad - that's no trick.

If you build a prop out of Poser one-sided squares such that the vertices line up, and you export (or import) with the weld identical vertices option, you'll get the same thing.

Quote - > Quote - I never said it was compatible with Catmull Clark. I said it has no n-gons.

I didn't say otherwise, I'm explaining why most modelers (i.e. people) won't do that type of thing EXCEPT when dealing with Poser or other Reyes renderers.  It just doesn't occur to them.

Laurie, different applications may handle it in different ways, but OBJ format is vertices (points or "v" entries) and face declarations ("f" entries).

Well that's basically what I was telling Kaibach in PM - that not only did it not occur to him, but he refused to believe it was possible, and called me a smug bastard, and pointed out that I should listen to him because he's an experienced modeler.

The point I was trying to make was that experienced modelers are bounded by their belief systems to the point that they cannot understand a simple truth - there are no n-gons here.

I never once got huffy or rude, at least not in this thread anyway ;o). I said they were ngons, you said "What, are you talking to me?!"...that's all. If I'm wrong, I stand corrected. I apologize. But you don't always have to prove your superiority over me and everyone else all the time like it's some sort of gleeful fun for you.

I shall go back to my texturing now ;o).

Laurie

Oh one other thing. It is actually incorrect to say that this is not compatible with Catmull Clark. It actually is, so long as the partially welded objects are coplaner, and are not actually going to end up curved.

This is how I make my walls in my room generator script. I cut holes for windows and the resulting set of polygons use the fewest possible number of vertices. Some are partially welded but it doesn't matter because they are all in the same plane.

Subdivision does not apply or matter when polygons are arranged in a plane.

Quote - Just because some vertices are shared or not shared changes NOTHING with regard to the number of edges.

A minor detail: the edges aren't shared, they just look like they are.  Poser doesn't care about edges, only vertices and faces.  There are two edges there a modeling app, that's what I was showing in that pic - I pulled one of the faces (polygons) away from the other.  This doesn't change any of what you're saying, just it's a rather important distinction for the modeler (the person as well as the app).

Quote - I never once got huffy or rude, at least not in this thread anyway ;o). I said they were ngons, you said "What, are you talking to me?!"...that's all.

I shall go back to my texturing now ;o).

Laurie

Not you, Laurie - we cross posted. Kaibach called me a smug bastard in PM and a smug asshole in this thread. In fact, he has not posted in a long time because he was tired of the drama. He ended his self-imposed moratorium to scream at me that I don't know what I'm talking about, that this prop has n-gons in it, and that I'm a smug bastard.

Since the "education" I was receiving, and the dressing down, were both invalid and uncalled for, I made the suggestion that an apology was in order.

It doesn't matter - the prop has no n-gons. if that makes me smug - I guess we're just seeing words take on more new meanings that I have no use for.

Quote - > Quote - Just because some vertices are shared or not shared changes NOTHING with regard to the number of edges.

A minor detail: the edges aren't shared, they just look like they are.  Poser doesn't care about edges, only vertices and faces.  There are two edges there a modeling app, that's what I was showing in that pic - I pulled one of the faces (polygons) away from the other.  This doesn't change any of what you're saying, just it's a rather important distinction for the modeler (the person as well as the app).

Right - that was one of the things I said to Kaibach - that perhaps he would understand it if I exploded the prop. But I figured just posting the prop and letting you guys look at it would be more edifying. As you so aptly demonstrated. Instead of calling me a smug bastard.

Not so.  I'll refrain from pushing for an apology though :P

Basically if you have holes in your mesh (unwelded edges), even if they are infinitely small, they will be aggravated when you subdivide with Catmull-Clark, which is why non-Poser modelers don't think to do it.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. When I make a wall with a hole in it, why would it matter how I make that wall? It's all flat - no curves.

That pic is your test.obj subdivided 1x with Catmull-Clark, that's what I was getting at.  I might have lost track of who was saying what to who, but I thought the idea had been floated that splitting (or breaking, or un-welding, or whatever term you might have in mind, but at any rate what you did with test.obj) edges will behave similarly under Poser's polygon smoothing and Catmull-Clark subdivision - it won't, not a bit.  I'm not gonna go back and quote you, if we misunderstood each other then whatever, there's enough namecalling and arguing in the thread already.

But you quoted what I meant with the purpose of contradicting the statement, right?

I didn't say the prop was OK in Catmull-Clark. I said, and you quoted, "so long as the partially welded objects are coplaner". Clearly the partially welded objects in the test prop are not coplaner, so my qualification doesn't apply.

Leaving that aside, it is OK if the partially welded objects are coplaner - yes or no?

Quote - I didn't say the prop was OK in Catmull-Clark.

Sure looked like you did.  Yes if you have a set of polygons whose points are all coplanar (that is, all have the same exact value on one axis and form a plane) then it is OK to have unwelded edges.  That isn't what you demonstrated or what anybody else was talking about, even if it's good to be aware of.

edit: actually to be really hyper anally precise, yes they will end up being curved, just in two dimensions, so they won't appear to be at render time.
edit again: hmm actually I'm wrong, it will manifest in texture stretching as the UV is curved.

Ah I see where I gave an implication I did not mean. Actually, two.

First, when I said "incorrect to say this is not incompatible with Catmull Clark", by "this" I meant this technique of using partially welded polygons instead of n-gons. This was in reference to your statement " I'm explaining why most modelers (i.e. people) won't do that type of thing", by which I assumed you meant partially welded polygons.

The other implication that you tested but I had no intention of implying, was that you could further subdivide the mesh arranged with holes. I meant only that if you loaded this arrangement of polygons into a renderer that implements CC, versus REYES, it would not make any difference. I expect there would be a difference if you actually load that mesh in a modeler and change it via adding levels of subdivision.

I actually expected it to shrink in 2D - but you say only the UV moves? That seems wrong.

In any case, I'm talking about if you make a prop this way, with partially welded vertices, and render it in anything, it will look the same as in Poser even if it is a renderer that supports CCSD.

The first is four quads, completely unwelded. It is 16 vertices.

The second is also four quads, but identical vertices have been welded. The "this" we've been talking about. It is 12 vertices.

The third is two 6-gons and two quads, completely welded. It is also 12 vertices.

All three render identically in Poser, with or without smoothing enabled.

Do they behave the same in other renderers? 

This is 4519 polygons, 12498 vertices. Without the partial welding, it would be 18076 vertices.

With full welding in the CC style, it would still be 12498 vertices, but either quite a few bizarre n-gons, or a lot more polygons since the wall would have to be cut up a lot more.

Because the curves are welded, they render beautifully smooth in Poser with smoothing on. But where I don't want those artifacts produced by curved joings in the corners of the window pains, they are not welded.

The result is a great reduction in poly and vertex count, without any artifacts in Poser.

You wanted to know how to model for Poser - this is how and why.

Hi Tom,

I understand perfectly because I have been where you "are" right now.
I was not really serious about not "buyin'" any of your "stuff" because, I already have almost all of your most excellent products for Poser.  So, if you don't make any more for Poser, I can't buy any more for Poser unless I purchase something that I already have, n'est pas? (rhet)

That's all I was trying to "say."  If I offended, I apologize. :sad:

cheers,
dr geep
;=]

@ bb

Your renders are sheer "poetry."  Thanks for taking the time and effort to share.

cheers,
dr geep
;=]

That's all I was trying to "say."  If I offended, I apologize. :sad:

Hi Doc,
You have not offended me in the least. I just get tired of long winded answers that say, look at me and how smart I am, when all they really say is nothing.
All I was looking for when I started this thread was how to deal with 90 degree corners and all I heard was I am smart but I am not going to explain how to deal with 90 degree corners.

I will guess at it and if I say it in a forceful enough way maybe I win!

All in all, my  inspiration for doing large sets answered my question in another thread.
Smoothing groups is the way to go for me as I will not have to tear a model apart to get the job done. Did not know that Poser would allow smoothing groups or I would have been using that all along.Stone Mason is the man when it comes to these large sets.  He never disappoints when I look at one of his products. He has a great eye for detail!

If you read this sir my hat is off to you. You really have a gift!

When all things come out in the wash you have to be humble enough to admit that you don't know it all. I have been involved in graphic work in one way or another for more than forty years and I am still learning.

Some people here do not seem to be humble in any way shape or form, and that is very sad indeed. how does one learn anything if they are afraid to ask a question with the fear of being made the fool for doing so.

That is why I started this thread off with the question is it okay to ask about smoothing, after the last post I simply asked what is a good scale to export out of Max for Poser.
really got belittled there and that does not feel good at all.

So in answer to you statement it is not you at all my friend.

Kind regards,Tom

No - rather than try to express it in words, here's some pictures.  3x3 suare of square polygons.