Quote - http://www.zbrushcentral.com/showthread.php?71266-Pixologic-Release-3D-Print-Exporter

Right below the cobra is 8 more links to 3D Print threads.

I've never made 3D Prints my self.
It's my understanding if you need a smooth mesh
you need to raise the polycount high.
zBrush can have a billion polycount.
 
Yes a billion
http://www.pixologic.com/zbrush/features/HDGeometry/

3D Printers are very cool.
I wouldn't mind to have some of my meshes setting around the house as statues.
Then ya would need to paint them.
unless you spend a lot of time painting all the detailed textures.
ya would just paint it like marble or something.lose all the textures.
So I'm waiting till 3D Printers can copy the mesh and the textures.
For now posters on the walls.

---

Not that zBrush has been famous for good topolagy.

C4D supports nGones ,zBrush does not .So you half to make sure not to import nGones in to zBrush.

Even thou V4,V5 is 100% quads.
If you use the zBrush smooth brush over top a vertice that only has 3 lines attached
to that vertice it will raise that vertice a bit higher.so you half to be careful.

Well I'm not even really talking about topology subdivision as it is used for smoothing.  There's many uses for triangulated topology as it relates to structural aesthetics.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XTlZMYlPXa4/TvFFI5CfUXI/AAAAAAAAA9A/2cZur1s7aA4/s320/rapid+prototyped+shoes.jpg

Also Voronoi tessellation is very pleasing to the eye when it's used for structural purposes.  It provides a function (self-ventilating walls, for example), as well as interesting eye candy.  You really need to look at new parametric and generative modeling techniques to see what I mean, and why previously overlooked tessellation and subdivision methods in 3D are finding all sorts of new and interesting uses.

I would like to see a Vicky out fit in that style of the shoes would be cool.
I like about any thing that's original

Parametric and generative architecture would be cool also.
Ya don't see a lot of CGI parametric and generative architecture for sell.
Mapping & texturing them would be a adventure.

Maxxxmodelz this is all your fault
Now ya made me curious as to how to make
parametric and generative architecture & stuff.

So what software does one use to make
parametric and generative architecture & stuff ? Max n Plugs,CAD ?
For CGI.

Quote - Maxxxmodelz this is all your fault
Now ya made me curious as to how to make
parametric and generative architecture & stuff.

So what software does one use to make
parametric and generative architecture & stuff ? Max n Plugs,CAD ?
For CGI.

It's truly fascinating and addicting stuff, isn't it?  I've only begun to scrape the surface of what's possible myself.  My brother, who just recently joined Rosity, is taking a Level 2 Advanced modeling course for Graphic Design, and it's all based around parametric modeling for everything from Architectural structure to 3D printed sculpture.  Some abstract stuff too.  Really cool stuff I'd never seen done before he showed me, and quite like yourself, I was "locked" into the mindset that triangular meshes or trunicated vertices were the work of the devil.  I always though you needed perfect quad topology for any modeling process, if you wanted to model correctly.

However, my brother has totally changed my approach to modeling certain things, and taught me that keeping everything parametric, right up to the point of render, or whatever the end result may be, is not only efficient, but powerful.

Unfortunately, not every modeling application works with this procedural workflow in mind.  My brother's class is working on 3dsmax, which I've been using since version 3 myself, So I'll start by talking about that real quick.

The reason they are learning on Max in their class is because the entire modeling architecture and workflow in 3dsmax is, and has always been, designed in a  parametric nature.  You model things not only by adding and cutting edges and edge loops with direct polygon editing tools, but also by manipulating a mesh with various parameter-based modifiers, which are stacked on top of each other in a fully editable and procedural modeling workflow.  The "modifier panel" in 3dsmax, with all its secondary functions and interoperability; like instancing geometry, referencing geometry and sub-objects, parameter-linking between modifiers and geometry and so on, is what gives the app some mad CAD-like powers, and is a great benefit and a  great time-saver for hard-surface modeling in particular, and kind of unique to 3dsmax.  A lot of people who started on 3dsmax, like I have, simply don't want to use anything else.  Then again, others can not grasp the "stackable" workflow of the modifier panel, and would rather a different approach.

Also, with 3dsmax you benefit from a really vast community of very good modelers and professionals who create some interesting scripts and plugins for it as well that just take the possibilities of parametric and generative modeling to new levels:

Check these out for example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUQTDIaBvRc

http://www.scriptspot.com/3ds-max/scripts/superflow-elements

**
**If you're interested in doing things like this in 3dsmax, I can put you in touch with my brother.  He's been my coach and teacher recently, and is involved with some high level, complex modeling for sculpture and other areas of fabrication.

But it's not JUST 3dsmax you would need.  RHINO has an awesome plugin called Grasshopper that uses generative components to model some intense, and very complex mathematically based architectural stuff, as well as things like contemporary, "primitive shapes" clothing, etc.  See here:

http://www.grasshopper3d.com/

But if you just want to get your feet wet, and explore different ways to model using all kinds of different subdivision surface tessellations, then there's some free apps out there that are just amazing for this sort of thing.  See here:

http://code.google.com/p/topmod/

You can really create some crazy things with Topmod, just by exploring different remeshing/tesselation techniques:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/topmod/pool/

As you can see, a lot of those shapes would be very difficult to achieve if you were only working with 4-sided quad topology, and nothing else.

There's other apps that can be made to work similarly.  Wings3d can expand on it's excellent subdivision surface tools by using a suite of free plugins for it called "Manifold Lab".  You might wanna check that out eventually, but those tools are a little hard to get your head around, and require their own specific sort of workflow that is different than the way Wings3D does things natively.

I think Blender might have a few tools that could help too, but I'm not familiar with it, and haven't seen or heard of many people doing much parametric or generative type of works with it.  I've seen some cool sculpture stuff done with it, but not much architecturally that appeared to be of a parametric origin, like some of the examples I've been showing.

Oh, and Rorr, I would be REMISS if I didn't give a plug to my brother's awesome work.  Check out his gallery on Rendo here:

http://www.renderosity.com/homepage.php?page=3&userid=754880

He will KILL me if he finds out I'm "spilling the beans" about our relationship, but he does some really cool things in 3dsmax, and I'm proud of him.  He also does some cool, contemporary parametric architectural stuff; if you look at the entire gallery, you'll see some interesting structures.

Thanks for all the links.very helpful.
As time permits I'm going to check out the app's.
and learn to make parametric and generative architecture & all.
Seems like I all ways have 3 jobs do buy tomorrow.
or I go weeks with no jobs.

Your brother has a wicked kool gallery.
In the future I would like to make a lot of parametric and generative meshes
along with some props along this line.
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=2398723&user_id=754880&member&np
That's just not a living room ya have seen 10,000 times over & over again.

I would also need a efficient way to texture parametric and generative meshes.
Don't know if this is the best idea
but the only efficient way I can think of now is to burn shaders from zBrush.
Don't know how well UV Master would be accepted thou.

I have no objection to useing Max ,Rhino.
Every new App's I get ,it make me a better CGI Artist.
So far I've used LW ,XSI ,C4D ,zBrush.
I'll use what ever App gets the job done.

Nice for avant garde architecture and if you want to put modern artists out of work.

 I suspect people who take to this are the same birds of a feather as those who fiddles with 2D and 3D fractals and the like. But appart from this, I don't see the relevance to the tris vs quads topic. All examples, in its finished form, could just as well be made with quads. Compare with modeling with nurbs. Nurbs also allows you some amazing and powerful modelling but in the end, it must be converted to quads. If you are going to sell your model that is. All of us who live by selling 3D mesh must compel by this rules or die. The customer demands it.

Quote - But appart from this, I don't see the relevance to the tris vs quads topic. All examples, in its finished form, could just as well be made with quads. Compare with modeling with nurbs. Nurbs also allows you some amazing and powerful modelling but in the end, it must be converted to quads. If you are going to sell your model that is. All of us who live by selling 3D mesh must compel by this rules or die. The customer demands it.

Perhaps they could be made with quads, but it ould be very difficult in many cases to do it like that.  No one is suggesting nurbs aren't powerful modeling tools either.  In fact, I pointed to Rhino and a parametric modeling plugin called Grasshopper as an example.

With quads, it's easy for the artist to subdivide a mesh for smoothing. No one is questioning the significance of quad topology here.  The original topic of conversation is weather or not there is ever a need for a triangulated mesh.  I am proposing that the answer is a resounding yes.  It's very true that if you have a triangle among your quads, it can potentially introduce nasty artifacts, like pinching, once it's smoothed with certain subdivision techniques. No one is disputing that fact.  When you bevel or extrude, you'd usually want to have coplanar, multi-vertex polygons.

However, if you want to get really technical; underneath the hood of most every 3D software, all quads and Ngons are being broken down mathematically into triangles, because it is computationally impossible to create a non-planar quadrilateral.

maxxxmodelz I suspect this penchant for quads from the customers side has nothing to do how it subdivides or behaves in any other way. Instead it is the need for order and cleanliness for maintaining it over time. A finished model is not cast in stone in most cases it is changed and manipulated many time during its "life time". The UV maps, the material zones even the mesh itself is going to be fiddled with again and again. With quads you keep your sanity...

Quote - Nurbs also allows you some amazing and powerful modelling but in the end, it must be converted to quads. If you are going to sell your model that is. All of us who live by selling 3D mesh must compel by this rules or die. The customer demands it.

ABSOLUTELY AGREE.

Quote - I suspect this penchant for quads from the customers side has nothing to do how it subdivides or behaves in any other way. Instead it is the need for order and cleanliness for maintaining it over time. A finished model is not cast in stone in most cases it is changed and manipulated many time during its "life time". The UV maps, the material zones even the mesh itself is going to be fiddled with again and again. With quads you keep your sanity...

THE MOST TRUE STATEMENT.

Just my 2 cents... IMHO all what is done with tris can be made with quads putted in the correct way. ONLY for dynamics I keep supporting that some times and ONLY some times the tris are better.

regards

fabi

Quote - maxxxmodelz I suspect this penchant for quads from the customers side has nothing to do how it subdivides or behaves in any other way. Instead it is the need for order and cleanliness for maintaining it over time. A finished model is not cast in stone in most cases it is changed and manipulated many time during its "life time". The UV maps, the material zones even the mesh itself is going to be fiddled with again and again. With quads you keep your sanity...

 

 

Yep, I understand that aspect of it as well; i've been modeling for the better part of 10 years now, and have had moments of lost sanity to be sure. ;)

I'm only pointing out there's a lot more going on in the world of modeling, and the need for various re-meshing and subdivision procedures, which includes various subdivision and surface tessellation techniques, including triangularization, is a reality that extends beyond simply cloth simulation.  Modeling a triangular truss structure for a modular housing unit, for example, that consists of triangle shapes on it's "skin" is a lot easier to accomplish if you can simply triangulate a primitive object, then inset/intrude those triangles, remove the faces, and add thickness to the resulting edges.

If your modeling app, for example, didn't allow you to remesh an object like this, then you'd probably spend some time having to cut edges manually, wich isn't keeping things parametric, and doesn't allow much efficiency.

What that is needed is logarithms to convert to and from different mesh tessellation at will. I don't understand with so many brilliant mathematicians around why can't them solve this little problem?

But if we leave this for awhile, and talk about parametric modelling I have checked your links. It is a great technique sure, but people are overusing it IMO. It is ideal in architecture but only if you can blend it in with more normal buildings so that the seams are transparent, unnoticeable. Only then can the whole be pleasing. Instead, they are going over the top! Haven't they heard the old maxim, "kill your darlings"? They are making the same mistakes as the fractal guys that see what they do as a means of it own.

Quote - What that is needed is logarithms to convert to and from different mesh tessellation at will. I don't understand with so many brilliant mathematicians around why can't them solve this little problem?

But if we leave this for awhile, and talk about parametric modelling I have checked your links. It is a great technique sure, but people are overusing it IMO. It is ideal in architecture but only if you can blend it in with more normal buildings so that the seams are transparent, unnoticeable. Only then can the whole be pleasing. Instead, they are going over the top! Haven't they heard the old maxim, "kill your darlings"? They are making the same mistakes as the fractal guys that see what they do as a means of it own.

I think it all depends on "beauty" being in eye of beholder.  To me, I agree with you that sometimes these techniques are over the top.  However, I find so much beauty in it, that it's hard for me to care if they go over the top.  I find so much aesthetic beauty in mathematical and geometric shapes.

I think it will eventually calm down and blend in as you have said.  Right now things are still being discovered and experimented with.  I think my brother does a good job combining the design reformation theory with traditional technique and design.

...needs boobs.

Quote - What that is needed is logarithms to convert to and from different mesh tessellation at will. I don't understand with so many brilliant mathematicians around why can't them solve this little problem?

Oh, many 3d applications already do this.  You can quadrify a triangulated mesh, for example, in 3dsmax just by adding a single "quadrify mesh" modifier, and then back again by disabling it or deleting it from the modifier panel, or adding a subdivide modifier.  Other applications, like Topmod, and several others, can do it also automatically.  I'm just surprised at how many apps ignore this basic function.

If you see my video from june last year you'll see a conversion from Marvelous Designer's tri-mesh to Quad-mesh using both 3ds max and Maya.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9s7Yab4nqU

At that time I have already used that method for a year or so.
Today this method has been surpassed by the new QRemesher in ZBrush 4R5 which still leaves much to be desired.

1. The max method makes very ugly mesh. Unusable without laborsome editing.
2. ZBrush deliver better mesh but don't preserve the UV maps.

So the problem is not solved, far from it.

Quote - If you see my video from june last year you'll see a conversion from Marvelous Designer's tri-mesh to Quad-mesh using both 3ds max and Maya.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9s7Yab4nqU

At that time I have already used that method for a year or so.
Today this method it has been surpassed by the new QRemesher in ZBrush 4R5 which still leaves much to be desired.

1. The max method makes very ugly mesh. Unusable without laborsome editing.
2. ZBrush deliver better mesh but don't preserve the UV maps.

So the problem is not solved, far from it.

 

 

Interesting.  The delaunay triangulation definitely gave it some problems in your vid, but the result may not be totally unusable in some situations.  I've had success using it with regular tetrahedralized meshes.  However, for your need, I would simply use the retopology tools in the Graphite modeling panels.  You could retopo that mesh quite easily into quads with those tools.

The retopology tools should be all you need, but maybe try this plugin.  The resulting mesh is a perfect quad output with practically no effort.  It's intended to quadrify terrains, but it works for just about anything you need perfect quad topology with.

http://populate3d.com/products/terrain/

It's free, by the way. 

For manual retop I already have my favorite, Blender's bsurfaces. Still, I will have a look who knows what might come up? Thank you for the tip.

To quote the Joker .I have a name for my pain ,It's name is Topolagy n 2D UVMaps.

It's insain to think you can model a 3D mesh with 100% true quads.
In a True Quad Mesh ever vertice would have 4 lines attached to it.

It's insain to think you can lay a 3D mesh flat for UVMaps.

So all where really doing is makeing a mesh that's made of Tri's look 100% Quads.

...guess no one liked my poser related joke.

One of the things I like best with the Poser forum is that subtile sarcasm always go through so well.

Quote - ...guess no one liked my poser related joke.

Actually I was waiting on my brain to think of a funny remark to your boobies joke.
Where still waiting ,This may take a week or two.

I'm as about as good with jokes as Data.

Actually the problem with parametric architecture is not lack of boobs its too much boobs.

Quote - Actually the problem with parametric architecture is not lack of boobs its too much boobs.

 

I hope this isn't where this thread is headed.  I can accept your dislike of certain aesthetic choices, and I respect that.  However, I think it best to refrain from berating any kind of artistic genre.  My brother is a student in this field, and it's just really insulting to hear something like that.  Parametric architecture is still in it's infancy.  I'm sure there's a lot that has been done you don't like, but it's an exciting and developing artistic movement.  There's a lot of science, and even more experimental endeavors taking place, and no different than any artistic movement from eons past, there are many many talented people working in this that are struggling to get a break, and to make a real difference.  Keep an open mind, and maybe you'll come up with some ideas that could change the way buildings are made; to conserve energy, to resist elements, to provide less destruction and intrusion upon our environment, or to resist collapsing when a plane or bomb hits them, for example.  Many of  these issues are being investigated in this field, and just because some young artists are challenging the common, aged visual nature of architecture, which may not appeal to you, they don't deserve to be insulted for it.

:)

yawn.

While I find some of the models I've seen linked to be beautiful, I can't as yet imagine their usefulness other than as something to look at, at least not as applies to Poser users. I may be missing something tho, as I don't use modeling programs other than Poser to use finished models and render them, other than the occasional Luxrender or Kerkythea render (even then, still set up in Poser) ;). One could also argue tho, that a Poser render is no more than something to look at ;). But with Poser there is (normally) a purpose to the scene, whereas the purpose of those parametric models seem to be more of a challenge, an experiment, or just an object d'art, in which case I'd rather just make a vase. LOL

I know, I'm not thinking much outside the box, but in order for me to do that, I need a purpose other than "I can do this if I plug in this math equation". It's one of the reasons that my fascination with fractals was more or less just a passing fancy ;).

Laurie

I like GroBoto, though.

Guess ya could say tire tread are parametric and generative based .

Ya can make some kool parametric and generative based tire rims.

maxxxmodelz I am not trying to belittle your brother's work obviously he is very skilled. But it must be allowed to discuss new technology and how we should use it without being bothered. For example there is a lack of attractive fantasy/Science Fiction houses and buildings and castles. Recently I bought the Naboo collection from Luca Rodolfi that was very nice but that is just a drop in the ocean. I agrees with LaurieA in that new technology must be used to something that holds true regardless if you are a fan of abstract art or not.

So come on deliver us something which we can use in our renders I keep my credit card ready!

http://rodluc2001.blogspot.it/2012/11/3d-model-naboo-houses-pack.html

Or clothes!

http://www.marvelousdesigner.com/gallery/1378/project-young

I don't understand.  Are you guys suggesting the technology is useless unless it's applied to something in Poser?  Parametric technology is being used in the real world right now, for many things that are useful.  For example, they are using parametric building techniques to create self-ventillating structures that conserve heat, and provide shade without the use of fuel or expensive solar cells.  It's also being looked at as a means to increasing tensil strength of structures, and blending into natural environments.  A housing structure built on honeycomb shapes, for example, might be 10x stronger than one built on traditional squares or rectangles.

It's also quite beautiful if done right...

http://www.homedit.com/contemporary-studio-extension-for-a-new-jersey-church/

There's tons of jewelry and other items that serve only aesthetic purposes that are done parametrically too, just visit shapeways.

Do I think it's going to change anything for POser users?  Nah.  Not really.  Unless Poser users are into funky shapes, or need some modern contemporary props.  However, in the real world, there is more to it than just something to look at.

Contemporary Studio Extension For A New Jersey Church is a good example IMO.

Very nice! Illustrating EXACTLY what I meant.

I love the honeycomb paneling.  There's evidence that suggests a honeycomb-like structure has a much stronger tensil strength than rectangular or quadular structures, which would make it useful as a building scaffold.  This is where parametric thought might actually make a big difference in architecture, besides just visual aesthetics.

The use of minimal shapes, which is what my brother is learning about now in their class, can also be a useful building tool.  By minimal shapes, I mean mathematical surfaces that locally minimize their area.  They could be very useful building tools, because theoretically they wouldn't require as much surface area to build with, and could present a very strong foundation, resistant to all sorts of structural failures that current arch techniques suffer from.  This is being experimented with now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_surface

http://www.grasshopper3d.com/profiles/blogs/minimal-surface-plugin

You will notice that the minimal shapes, created in grasshopper for Rhino, are made  from all quads (squares).  However, a honeycomb (ngon) could be used too, which may possibly help to increase their tensil strength, if used in architectural structures.

"stronger tensil strength...wouldn't require as much surface area "

I couldn't care less about these engineer things what matters is that conventional architecture is BORING. Obviously they need new blood! Especially I cant understand why they cannot make the ROOF a little more interesting. Perhaps it hurts?

?

I like that New Jersey church extension. Looks kind of serpentile.

GroBoto looks cool... hadn't seen that before, I don't think...

Quote - "stronger tensil strength...wouldn't require as much surface area "

I couldn't care less about these engineer things what matters is that conventional architecture is BORING. Obviously they need new blood! Especially I cant understand why they cannot make the ROOF a little more interesting. Perhaps it hurts?

?

 

Ok, well that's what parametric techniques are trying to do.  It's Design Reform.  Trying new and interesting things visually and otherwise.  I care about the engineering part though... I wouldn't want a roof built from circles collapsing on my head, no matter how visually beautiful it looks. ;)

I'm absolutely NOT saying it's useles unless it's used in Poser. I'm saying I dont know what I would do with it. You are, after all, in a Poser forum. LOL.

I did say I appreciate the look of it if you recall. I have no idea tho, how I'd apply it in my own stuff is all.

Laurie

Quote - I don't understand.  Are you guys suggesting the technology is useless unless it's applied to something in Poser?  Parametric technology is being used in the real world right now, for many things that are useful.  For example, they are using parametric building techniques to create self-ventillating structures that conserve heat, and provide shade without the use of fuel or expensive solar cells.  It's also being looked at as a means to increasing tensil strength of structures, and blending into natural environments.  A housing structure built on honeycomb shapes, for example, might be 10x stronger than one built on traditional squares or rectangles.

It's also quite beautiful if done right...

http://www.homedit.com/contemporary-studio-extension-for-a-new-jersey-church/

There's tons of jewelry and other items that serve only aesthetic purposes that are done parametrically too, just visit shapeways.

Do I think it's going to change anything for POser users?  Nah.  Not really.  Unless Poser users are into funky shapes, or need some modern contemporary props.  However, in the real world, there is more to it than just something to look at.

Quote - I'm absolutely NOT saying it's useles unless it's used in Poser. I'm saying I dont know what I would do with it. You are, after all, in a Poser forum. LOL.

I did say I appreciate the look of it if you recall. I have no idea tho, how I'd apply it in my own stuff is all.

Laurie

I don't think the modeling techniques would come in handy for Poser stuff. However, if someone wanted, say jewelry for their character, or a unique look to some environment props, then some of the cool shapes that they use in parametric techniques could come into play.  Outside of this, there wouldn't be much use for these kinds of modeling techniques or whatever as it relates to  Poser content creation.  Maybe as a source of inspiration, but that's all.

Quote - I like that New Jersey church extension. Looks kind of serpentile.

GroBoto looks cool... hadn't seen that before, I don't think...

I've never used Groboto, but it works to build abstract shapes and models parametrically as well, it seems.  Although it's VERY unique in it's overall approach.  There was a Poser content creator a while back that may have used it to create all kinds of cool "alien" and futuristic fractal-like props and figures that were very well done.  I forget their name.  I've seen their stuff in many renders.  Not recently though.

The Moscow Kremlin in Russia from around the 1400's.
I guess ya would consider the ruffs parametric and generative based.
Rumor has it the royalty at the time killed the Architect that designed the Kremlin.
So there wouldn't be another building like it.
Guess the royalty never herd of parametric and generative.

Quote - The Moscow Kremlin in Russia from around the 1400's.
I guess ya would consider the ruffs parametric and generative based.
Rumor has it the royalty at the time killed the Architect that designed the Kremlin.
So there wouldn't be another building like it.
Guess the royalty never herd of parametric and generative.

You mean the "domes" of St Basil's Cathedral, on Red Square, towards the Saviour's Gate into the Kremlin?

Been there, back in the early nineties... it's an awesome building.

I have no idea what I mean.
If I google Kremlin.
If I google St Basil's Cathedral.
It's the same pic of the same building.

I think Russia Kremlin means same as USA Capital, I think.
So I guess St Basil's Cathedral is Russia's Capital.

One day I hope I'll get to see the other side of the world.

Quote - One day I hope I'll get to see the other side of the world.

I hope you get the chance to RorrKonn... I'm certainly very grateful for what travelling I've managed to do so far in my life...

Quote - The Moscow Kremlin in Russia from around the 1400's.
I guess ya would consider the ruffs parametric and generative based.
Rumor has it the royalty at the time killed the Architect that designed the Kremlin.
So there wouldn't be another building like it.
Guess the royalty never herd of parametric and generative.

The buildings you are talking about are awesome, and totally an incredible architectural as well as artistic achievement for sure.  I love their design, and they are very unique.  They do look like they were done parametrically, but I don't think the process was such.

Here's a good website to kind of get some info on what exactly parametric design is, and it shows some examples of parametric shapes used in designing furniture, etc.

http://www.parametriccamp.com/en/

It focuses mostly on Rhino software with the Grasshopper plugin it seems, but keep in mind that all parametric modeling is, in the end, is mathematically and geometrically influenced, parameter-driven design techniques where every element maintains a dynamic connectivity.  So if you have a modeling applicaiton where the modeling process remains procedural (or modular), and parameter-based throughout,  then that's parametric.

Here's a good example...

Look at it in terms of the Material Room in Poser.  The node-based material workflow IS, by nature, totally parametric.  We all know how powerful Poser's material room is.  So think of that, but in terms of a modeling tool, and you have what would essentially be considered a parametric and generative modeling tool in a nutshell.  Think of the flexibility and connectedness the node-based material room has on materials and shaders, and how hard it would be to duplicate some of those shaders, etc. without those tools, and then equate that to a modeling workflow, and you can start to see the potential, and why it's a pretty cool thing.

The way Poser morphs characters also, with parameter-driven dials, and other connected features, is also parametric and generative.  That's kind of how some of those designs are modeled in Grasshopper for Rhino, and 3dsmax, etc. too.  It's similar to building complex shaders in the Material room, as I mentioned, but with geometry, from the ground up.

Obviously, not everything you model would be parametric, and shouldn't be. You don't need it to be.  But if you wanted some highly complex, unique, and very difficult to model structures or whatever, then the parametric technology is really useful.  That's why it's used so much in contemporary architecture, sculputure, jewelry making, and now even clothing design, etc.

So like tree genrating software or some landscape software falls in this category?  If so I begin to see the usefullness and power of this idea. Coolness :)

Quote - So like tree genrating software or some landscape software falls in this category?  If so I begin to see the usefullness and power of this idea. Coolness :)

Exactly correct.  Those are usually based on fractal algorithms, but it's the same principal, yes.

Attached Link: PhilC's Create Props Plugin

http://www.philc.net/freestuff.php

Oh hell now I'm learning Russian and High End Maths.
I stopped paying any attention to teachers in second grade.
Was to busy drawing comics.

I know the professors can explain the entire Universe as a mathematical equation.
I know CGI App's have a lot of math in them.
Thank the Gods that the Mathematicians program them for us.
I know of the Golden Main ,Fractals ,Ratios ,Pi. etc etc.
But I'm use to looking at every thing from a Artist point of view.

So I tend to group patterns together.

Quote - So I tend to group patterns together.

That's what it's all about.  ;-)