Is it bad for me to ask a question about smoothing in  Poser?

What is the question?

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

 

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)

Is it okay to ask?

Can't imagine why it wouldn't be. Smoothing isn't a trade secret nor illegal in 36 of 50 states :-).

Is there a way for Poser to deal with 90 degree corners with out me modeling every single square corner as two individual surfaces?
Example:
1 create a cube in 3D Studio Max that is any size or scale
2 export it as an .obj file at what ever scale
3 import it into Poser and turn smoothing down to zero on the cube itself
4 there are issues with the corners because evidently Poser was not taking into account rigid models when it was designed I.E. smoothing default of 80* for human figures
5 Go back into Max and detach each of the 6 sides of the cube
6 select all six different models that are individual planes to comprise a cube
7 export them as an .obj file
8 import into Poser and set smoothing for that file to zero
9 render and viola no smoothing issues.
10 imagine having to do that with Fishers Warehousing.
So is there a work around with out all the extra work to make Poser see things differently?
By the way I just tried the example and there are not issues,
I modified the cube and did an inset on all six sides and then extruded inside a few units and then there is an issue on the main corners.
Regards, Tom

There's no way to get around the problem of Poser's smoothing other than splitting the model that I've seen unless you want to create a new edge on each face and slide it up tight and close the to corner edges. That works too, but that adds to the size of the mesh. Hopefully someone else knows another way.

FWIW, I hate it too ;o).

Laurie

Wait - what problem are you talking about? With a crease angle of 80, all joints are above that and no smoothing happens. A crease angle of 0 means all joints are considered hard edges, and that's exactly what I get with any geometry - no smoothing at all when crease angle = 0.

What is the problem you're referring to with the cube when you said "there are issues with the corners".  I don't see any issues.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

this

Odd, I don't see why you are having problems.  Maybe you are making things too complicated or this is a max issue.  I just made a simple cube, all one object with connected sides in hex. 

Could please you post an image of what's going on?

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

 

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)

I don't see a problem. It does what I expect.

Here are three welded cubes as you described.

The crease angles are 0, 80, and 91. Only the last shows smoothing, as expected since the joints are below 91 degrees, and are therefore not treated as creases.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Quote - this

That's not a cube with 6 sides, last time I looked up the words you used.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

here is one after I select all edges and ad a champher to them the the model goes from around 50 polygons to over two hundred.

Okay, that looks like a model problem and not a poser problem.

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

 

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)

Hey Bag. go back and read my first post and you will see that I already said there was not an issue with a simple cube so i modified it a little I am talking about a simple modification and then you will see the issue.
If I was going to model and texture cubes for a living I would be golden. :-)
I find that people want a little more than that, and that is where I run into problems.
Now what do you have as a constructive advice on how to deal with 90 degree corners.
Thanks all the replies guys!
regards, tom

Quote - Okay, that looks like a model problem and not a poser problem.

Hi Wark,
Go back into Hex and inset all six sides and then extrude them inward and then export.
That is what I did in Max.
Please post an image and see if you have an issue then?
Maybe it is Max.
Regards, Tom

Okay I tried your model and I'm having different issues.  Did you go into the properties tab of the prop and uncheck smooth polygons?

 

This is with smooth polygons unchecked.

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

 

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)

I have a semi-related question: can smoothing be set aggressively enough to turn a cube into a sphere? This is how I model / display / render low-poly humanoids in my preferred modeling program. I will eventually want to Poser rig them without subdividing which would increase poly weight. 

I know exactly what he's talking about BB and Winterclaw. I get it all the time with things exported from Wings and I have a friend who uses Hex and other programs and gets it as well. Poser makes the long edges and flat faces bow. Technically, they shouldn't because they are at 90 degrees, but they do ;o). And sometimes, even if you uncheck smoothing it still does it until you split all the vertices. WHY it does it I don't know. Poser just doesn't like sharp corners ;o).

Laurie

And this is with smooth polygons unchecked on the object.

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

 

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)

Laurie, now that you mention it, I remember you talking about that.

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

 

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)

I think it might be a good idea to try another export option out of Max. Or maybe a dirrent set up for the .obj e3xtension.
Be right back with another try.
Thanks Wark!
Tom

If it helps any, I always turn off smoothing for anything architectural that I make for Poser. If your cylindrical and spherical parts have enough sections, it doesn't really show.

Laurie

Just my $.02 ...

cheers,
dr geep
;=]

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

Quote - Hey Bag. go back and read my first post and you will see that I already said there was not an issue with a simple cube

We're going to keep having a problem if you keep making up new meanings for words. grin

I have much to explain to you, but first you're going to have to learn not to say "first" when you mean "third", and also not to say "90 degrees" when you actually mean less than 90 degrees.

LaurieA - pay attention. You, too, are about to be enlightened. You, also, are mistaken about this geometry. You said "Technically, they shouldn't because they are at 90 degrees"

Ready for some shouting? Everybody needs to understand this.

THOSE ANGLES THAT YOU THINK ARE 90 DEGREES ARE IN FACT MUCH LESS THAN 90 DEGREES.

I will explain shortly. I have to make some diagrams. Remain calm. I know you won't take my word for it, so I have to show you.

Once you understand what the angles actually are, you will stop making incorrect assumptions, and then smoothing will always do what you expect.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

I'm waiting with great constipation!
:-)
really have an open mind about this as I am to the point of stopping the Poser versions of my products.

Hey Wark,
Is Hex a free program?

Quote - I'm waiting with great constipation!
:-)
really have an open mind about this as I am to the point of stopping the Poser versions of my products.

If you stop makin' 'em*, I'll stop buyin' 'em*, kabish? :biggrin:

*(the Poser ones, that is)

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

> Quote - 3 import it into Poser and **turn smoothing down to** zero on the cube itself

Don't ever do that, that's a silly setting.  What difference does it make if you get dumb results with a dumb setting?

Poser uses Reyes polygon smoothing.  It is different from Catmull-Clark subdivision.  They sound kinda similar but they work differently.  Catmull-Clark always moves all points inward a bit and makes points on the mesh behave like points on b-splines.  Reyes polygon smoothing never moves points inward, and makes points on the mesh behave like Akima splines.  The proper way to deal with this is to bevel sharp areas, and you tend to need to use more polygons on highly detailed models than you might with Catmull-Clark.  There is usually not any reason to set phong angle away from default of 80 degrees, and never to zero.

Plus you have the option of turning off polygon smoothing by prop/figure anyway.  If you have a 6 poly object like a cube and you want its edges to be razor sharp, just disable it, why bother smoothing it?

Winterclaw I don't think your test objects are properly welded, they seem to have split faces.

above are some boots rendered with phong angle at the default of 80.

My Freebies

and a wireframe, model like this and you work WITH smoothing.

My Freebies

Hi Dr.
I have spent the last six weeks working on a new product and it is not worth the effort to me to make it work for Poser, when I can get the same thing done in about 2 weeks for a Vue version as I have never run into smoothing issue in Vue, and when I say never I mean never.
textureing in Vue is much simpler for me as well.
But if I can get this thing worked out in a relatively easy way I will continue.

Learn to model for Poser in the first place if you want it to render well using Poser's polygon smoothing mechanic (or Pixar's, because they use the same mechanic for smoothing, read the Reyes article).

My Freebies

Depending on how complicated your model is, and keeping in mind that I work in Lightwave rather than any of the other products, can you select groups or materials for the areas that need to retain sharp corners, and simply unweld or split those vertices only? You might even be able to get what you need by opening the model in UVMapper and splitting the vertices there. It adds to the vertex count, not the poly count.

pjz99, I never did anything to dissocate the edges.  I selected all the edges, extracted around them to make smaller squares in the center, and extruded inwards.  If you'd like to inspect the welding, change the attached file back into an .obj.

Dreamland, hex is not free.  It's okay but daz isn't updating it anymore to my knowledge.

WARK!

Thus Spoketh Winterclaw: a blog about a Winterclaw who speaks from time to time.

 

(using Poser Pro 2014 SR3, on 64 bit Win 7, poser units are inches.)

Or just disable smoothing for the prop (uncheck it on Parameter Dials -> Properties before saving it to the Poser library).

My Freebies

Quote - Depending on how complicated your model is, and keeping in mind that I work in Lightwave rather than any of the other products, can you select groups or materials for the areas that need to retain sharp corners, and simply unweld or split those vertices only? You might even be able to get what you need by opening the model in UVMapper and splitting the vertices there. It adds to the vertex count, not the poly count.

Hi **ptrope,
I tried the method you suggested but Poser will not like it unless I actually make separate objects out of the separated polygons.
I.E. back to my original or excuse me my third post. :-)
At this point I am trying to avoid blowing up a model with 80 or 90 thousand ponlygons in it as it really make texturing a drag.
Oh if only I had the guts to pull the trigger, my troubles would be over.....
:-)
**

I suggested adding extra edges earlier in the thread. Except for splitting verts, it's the only thing I know that works. Everyone keeps stressing the cube when really we are talking about more complicated models, but since a cube is the easiest to illustrate, I'll use it here:

The image is rendered in Poser 8. Smoothing is still on. The edges are razor sharp. The inset is what I did to the cube in Wings. This DOES work for making sharp edges in Poser - however - the downside is that it adds many faces to the model. What should be a 6 face object is now 54. If it were just one or two objects, you might be able to get away with the higher density, but in one of Tom's enormous models, then it begins to add up real quick ;o).

Laurie

These are getting smoothed because they form angles less than 80 degrees.  You can turn down phong angle in a case like this if you are dead set against adding polys or really, just turn off polygon smoothing for an object this simple.

My Freebies

Quote - I suggested adding extra edges earlier in the thread.

exactly

My Freebies

The problem I see with turning smoothing to zero is that in a model that has many different types of shapes, such as moldings which have some curved surfaces as well as sharp corners, the curved surfaces will show and will look faceted. That's not really ideal ;o).

Laurie

Hi Pjz99 would you mind posting a render of the same model with the smoothing turned off as you suggest? I have done that and still see what I see in your image.
regards, Tom
By the way what is your name?

 I'm just here waiting for BB's reply (and to make sure I get an ebot from it ;) )

FREEBIES! | My Gallery | My Store | My FB | Tumblr |
You just can't put the words "Poserites" and "happy" in the same sentence - didn't you know that? LaurieA
  Using Poser since 2002. Currently at Version 11.1 - Win 10.

Finally finished it. I had to write a bunch of code to produce the models with precision.

Here is the wireframe of my cube with a bevel in the front face.

I will show you this with various angles on the bevel.

The arrows depict the surface normal on the angled faces.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

maybe dream was bothered by the shading artifacts caused by long narrow triangles
produced by boolean operation.  that's a poser smoothing problem, but as pj said,
it requires modelling the thing for poser, as opposed to something other than FFRender.

So here is the front with a cutout. All the angles are indeed 90 degrees. The angle between the "bevel" faces is indicated by the angle between the arrows - 90 degrees.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

But what if the cutout or bevel only slopes in by 10 degrees, instead of 90? 

Are those corners 90 degrees? Not at all. Are they 10 degrees? Nope. Something in between.

The angle between the normals (the arrows) here is about 14.1 degrees, with a 10 degree bevel.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

So what is the case with a 45 degree beveled cutout?

The angle between the adjacent bevel faces is 60 degrees.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

In the previous render, my crease angle was 30. Both the 45 degree and the 60 degree angles were above that, and shown as sharp edges.

Here I set the crease angle to 50 degrees. So I'd expect that the vertical/horizontal edges, which are at 45 degrees, would be smooth shaded. And I'd expect that the diagonal edges that are at 60 degrees would be hard shaded. And so they are.

There is no surprise here.

What may be surprising is the shape of some of the shading artifacts. Why is the top/bottom different from the left/right? Because of the way I made the frame. Go back and look at the wireframe. You'll see that some points cannot be welded to adjacent polygons because of how I made it. As a result, there are strange compromises being made by the shader.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Note that the previous render did not have smoothing on. This isn't just about polygon smoothing. It's about the interpolation of surface normals, which happens even if you turn off smoothing for the whole object.

If I turn on smoothing, then I get bowed things as well.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Quote - So here is the front with a cutout. All the angles are indeed 90 degrees. The angle between the "bevel" faces is indicated by the angle between the arrows - 90 degrees.

My point exactly.
So what is the resolve?
Your render does not seem to have an issue with the smoothing.

I was never talking about anything other than a 90 degree corner.
So how is it that when you say it is 90 degrees it is okay but if I say it is 90 degrees you say I am wrong.
Would you please clearify?
regards, Tom

So what are the solutions?

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

Splitting the vertices works every time and costs very little if you do it only where you need a crease. Extra vertices are not expensive - polygons are. And, in fact, welded polygons are more expensive to render than unwelded polygons. So the net result of splitting vertices is a performance increase in all cases.

The third option, though more complicated, is the most sophisticated and optimal. Set up different smoothing groups. Poser will treat adjacent polygons in different groups as if they were not welded. This solution produces the smallest memory footprint, and the highest performance.

But this technique is only for sophisticated modelers and not required for your typical models, like a chair or a low-poly gun.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Quote - > Quote - So here is the front with a cutout. All the angles are indeed 90 degrees. The angle between the "bevel" faces is indicated by the angle between the arrows - 90 degrees.

My point exactly.
So what is the resolve?
Your render does not seem to have an issue with the smoothing.

I'm afraid you're not reading. Read again. The angles YOU THINK are 90 are not 90. I shouted this. Was it not clear?

There is no issue with 90 degrees. There are issues when you think the angle is 90 but it is 60.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

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.

I could come damn close in the stuff I do. Here is an example image. Even the trees are quads as they are just crossed planes with tree textures on them. The window trim is segmented to avoid large polygon counts. The doors are all quads. The curved bird houses are all quads. So if I try to keep away from 45 degree miters as in the images posted above I will not have an issue in Poser? I can for sure deal with that. Seems then the only issue would be the 90 degree corner issue. This render was done in Vue so you should not see any smoothing issues....

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

Stonemason says he uses smooth groups in Max on his models in this thread.

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.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

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

to show you Bill the Ngons we're talking about.

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

Oh this is gonna be good. You owe me an apology.

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? 

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

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.

My Freebies

> Quote - Which of those faces is not a quad? 

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.

My Freebies

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.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

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).

My Freebies

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.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

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.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

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.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

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).

My Freebies

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.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

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.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

> Quote - 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.

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.

My Freebies

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.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

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.

My Freebies

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?

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

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.

My Freebies

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.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Here is a test prop that has three walls each with a window.

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? 

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

This is what it looks like in Poser.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Here is a section of wall with an arch in it - one of the room components I generate from a script. Every polygon is a quad - everything - the arch frame, the all parts, the baseboard, and the crown molding. But every possible common vertex has been welded. This results in lots and lots of partially welded polygons. But in each case, I was careful to only do it if they are coplanar.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

It renders like this.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Here is a larger assemblage of pieces. Note that the 4-panel door is constructed very much the same as the first simple test prop I uploaded.

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.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

The render.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Here is a closeup wireframe of the window. I have marked it with red X's to indicate places where edges or vertices are NOT welded, and green circles to show where edges *are* welded.

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.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

A render of that area.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

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
;=]

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

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

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

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

My Freebies

Subdivided 1x with Catmull-Clark.  The outer corners are an overlay of the original geometry, the inner is the actual geometry.

My Freebies

And with the center polygon un-welded from the others.

My Freebies

Quote - 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.

Several people gave you advice on how to deal with this actually.

edit: it actually kinda boggles me that you come here, ask a question in kind of a confrontational tone ("is it okay if I ask?"), are given a lot of helpful information, and then say you didn't get any answers.  wtf dude, read the thread, you got handed 4-5 ways to deal with this.

My Freebies

Yes and I was the one that first told you about smoothing groups.

I'm really amazed at what's going on here. The confrontation over n-gons had nothing to do with you, DM, but certainly made the conversation unpleasant, I'll grant you that. I'm pretty upset that two people who know me really well refused to believe the object was made of quads. I'm pretty upset that people who know me insisted that I don't know what an n-gon is and told me to go read the definition of the word, instead of counting up the vertices in my prop. And I'm pretty upset about being called a smug asshole.

I don't argue techincal points like what the angles are or how many sides are in my polygons because I like to be superior. I argue because people are trying to understand things, are saying incorrect things, and are departing from the truth instead of arriving at it. This isn't about ego. It's about subjective reality, instead of fantasy. As long as people keep insisting on falsehoods, I keep talking.

Now you say "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 never gave any opinion of your intelligence or any other aspect of you as a person, and frankly you seem pretty whiny when you say shit like that. I said that you (and others) have wrongly assumed the corners are 90 degrees when they are not. I said that you guys would not believe me without some illustration of the situation. I spent an hour producing illustrations to show that they are not 90 degrees. You still think they are 90 degrees despite the evidence before your eyes.

We have people who still think my prop has n-gons, and you still think the corners are 90 degrees, and you still think there is a problem with 90 degree corners. None of those things are truth. They are an invitation to further discussion, as far as I'm concerned. If my repeated explanations seem "long winded", it's only because you're not getting it.

I'm not making any judgement about why you still believe the mitered corners are 90 degrees. I'm stating a simple fact, with evidence. Despite whatever you insist on believing, they aren't, just like my quads are not n-gons. I make predictions about what works, I try those things, and then I demonstrate those things. Whatever prediliction you may have for avoiding confrontation, that's fine, but if you're going to ask for information and reject it when truth is presented to you, then you're going to remain confused. Not stupid, just confused and unable to produce what you want when you want.

Your attitude is preventing you from seeing the truth. Regardless of how you think the information is delivered, it is the truth. As long as you ignore it, you'll be unable to understand what is happening.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Quote - 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.

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

Your'e the one that refuses to learn the angles at the corners. It doesn't matter how long you've modeled. Those are not 90 degrees, and you could say otherwise after 4000 years of modeling and all that shows is that you're not humble enough to admit that you don't know it all.

What an impossibly obnoxious thing to say to me. I have never claimed to know it all. I claimed to know the angle of that corner. You claim it is 90. It isn't.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Quote - And with the center polygon un-welded from the others.

I see what you're showing me, and acknowledge that the steps you're taking to alter the mesh result in it being ... altered. But that's not the essence of my question.

What I was asking boils down to this: When you render a rectangle in whatever program it is you're using, does it look like a rectangle, or does it get rounded like you're showing here?

When you render four rectangles arranged in the three ways I uploaded above, do they look like my render or do they not look like rectangles anymore?

I am suspicious that my understand of the term Catmull Clark is incorrect. But if it is incorrect, and a CC-enabled renderer will round the corners off any un-welded edge, including the outer edges of the simple 3x3 group you showed, then I don't understand how people get rectangles to show up in such renderers. To get a simple rectangle, do you have to use edge loops?

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

OMG...it's not like Tom comes in here and posts all the time asking questions. And yet ya'll are still acting like dicks. It really reminds me how much I hate this place anymore. Too many egos and it's so miserable I can't even read a fucking thread anymore without getting a headache. We all just want information when it comes right down to it. Why can't we get just that anymore? Nope, has to be served up with a side of self righteous, sanctimonious fucking "Look at ME, look at ME!!!"

Yep, I'm pissed. Can you tell? I'm sick of it.

Laurie

Ok...now that I've vented...

What does it matter who told him what as long as he got the info he was looking for? I mean, really? Isn't that why this forum exists? So that ppl can ask questions and get help?

And for those who are keeping track: BB mentioned smoothing groups - that's true - but did not explain how they are accomplished. raven was the one who pointed Tom to a thread where Stonemason apparently DID explain them. Just in case you were keeping track.

If I may make a suggestion...

Let's all park our massive egos at the door when someone genuinely needs and asks for help and not belittle them or make them feel stupid while you're doing it. This would be a much happier place.

Laurie

"We're all ignorant, except on different subjects"

• Will Rogers

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

Because Max can export smooth-groups to an obj-file and Poser is able to understand this, I've tried to find something about smoothing groups in this document: http://local.wasp.uwa.edu.au/~pbourke/dataformats/obj/

Seems that having a group tagged with "s 0" stops smothing this group (e.g. anything following until "s 1" occurs).  I don't have Max, so I'm not able to explore an obj-file written by Max.

But if this is correct, a python-script can alter an obj-file while identifying named groups ("g noSmoth") while adding "s 0" right under this "g"-entry. All other group definitions needs a following "s 1" if I understand the document correctly.

(untested hack to get the point):

fh=open("original.obj")
fhout=open("copy.obj","w")<br></br>for line in fh:
  print >> fhout, line<br></br>  l=line.strip().split(None,1)
  if l[0]=="g" :
    if l[1] == "noSmooth":
      print >> fhout, "s 1"
    else:
      print >> fhout, "s 0"    <br></br>close(fhout)
close(fh)<br></br>

---

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2800349&page=2

adp001, on the second page of the thread (see link) Stonemason posts a Max .obj with smoothing groups if you want to take a look.

@raven: Seems to be exactly as I guessed :)

<pre style="white-space:pre-wrap;">
g Sphere01
usemtl wire_227153153
s 1
f 1/1 2/2 3/3 
f 1/4 3/3 4/5 
...

<span style="font-family:Arial;">There is a "usemtl" between "g" and "s", but the order after "g" shouldn't matter.</span><br></br>

 

---

 Here is the important part from the OBJ-Definition:

s group_number

    Polygonal and free-form geometry statement.

    Sets the smoothing group for the elements that follow it. If you do
    not want to use a smoothing group, specify off or a value of 0.

    To display with smooth shading in Model and PreView, you must
    create vertex normals after you have assigned the smoothing groups.
    You can create vertex normals with the vn statement or with the
    Model program.

    To smooth polygonal geometry for rendering with Image, it is
    sufficient to put elements in some smoothing group. However, vertex
    normals override smoothing information for Image.

    group_number is the smoothing group number. To turn off smoothing
    groups, use a value of 0 or off. Polygonal elements use group
    numbers to put elements in different smoothing groups. For
    free-form surfaces, smoothing groups are either turned on or off;
    there is no difference between values greater than 0.

---

Sorry, I have no Poser here yet. Can't explore how Poser deals with the defined groups at the moment.

---

Problem solved, at least for Poser 7/8.

I called a friend of mine and he did some tests.

The "Smoothing Group ID" is just a number to identyfy a seperate group. You can not define a certain "crease angle" for one of this group.

What you can: Define a crease angle to a prop/actor "exept for one or more groups". The exepted groups are set to 0. Sharp edges (based on normals) are defined for each defined group.

Load a sphere as a prop.
Open the group-editor.
The whole sphere is defined as one group.
Now create an empty new group and select it.
Mark some facettes to become part of the new group.
Give this group a "smothing group ID".
Repeat to get another group with another smoth-group-ID.
Close the group-editor.

The preview will show you the groups without the common ugly black-shading.

That means:

It is possible to create "sharp edges" directly from within Poser (tested with 7/8). This is good for simple props.

Or we can create obj-files with each modeler able to define standard-groups. A script like the one I posted already can change defined groups to entries Poser is able to use for (not) smoothing.

Extend the script with 

...
  if l[0]=="g" :
    if l[1].startswith("groupID_"):
      groupid=l[1].split("_")[1]
      print >> fhout, "s %d" % int(groupid)
...

With your modeller create some groups with name "groupID_1", "groupID_2", "groupID_nnn".  
With a modified script it's also possible to use material-zones insteed of groups.

Sorry, can't explain it better because i'm not good with the english language.

---

Another "trick" from within Poser:

If you need "sharp edges" for an area with a seperate material, you can use the group editor.
Define a new group and click the button "add Material". Select the material you want and give the new group a "Smoothing ID".

---

This thread has finally become informative and worth reading. Thank you :o). I'm actually learning something ;o).

Thank you adp...raven :o).

Laurie

Hey Laurie,

All good things come to those that ..... keep reading ...... :biggrin:

It has been said ...

When you get to the end of your rope ...
... tie a knot and hang on.

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

Quote - Hey Laurie,

All good things come to those that ..... keep reading ...... :biggrin:

It has been said ...

When you get to the end of your rope ...
... tie a knot and hang on.

Well, sorry for popping off like that. Was not very classy. I apologize to the forum ;o). I didn't lie when I said I was sick of it tho...lol. I just could have worded it better.

Laurie

Laurie,

No prob ..... I don't blame you.  I think you said a few things that I was thinking, also.
I was getting a little miffed at the way this thread was headed (without regard to anyone in particular) but I am glad that things got toned down.  Less than pleasant words never really accomplish anything other than (usually) escalate tempers.

Ok, off my soapbox now.

Thanks Laurie, you're beautiful.

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

All vertices are welded.

The obj on the right will render fine in Poser (with smoothing turned on)
The obj on the left will not.

exactly (Laurie showed that earlier too).  Poser and other Reyes renderers really require different modeling techniques if you want to make use of polygon smoothing with a minimum number of polygons.

My Freebies

> Quote - All vertices are welded. > > The obj on the right will render fine in Poser (with smoothing turned on) > The obj on the left will not.

i didnt read teh whole thread. so i dont know if i missed something.

why would turn on smoothing for this object?

i modeled this and crease angle is 80.

 Now I could test by myself. At first a model, crease angle 80, Preview P7

---

 Now the same model rendered.

---

 Same model but with "magic s groups" (smoothing ID).

---

 ... and rendered with smooth ID

---

Awesome :)

Something I've been getting headaches over for years and it's that simple? Unbelievable...lol.

Laurie

Quote -
 Something I've been getting headaches over for years and it's that simple? Unbelievable...lol.

There is a good chance this method can't be used with P5/6. Anybody able to test this? And can DAZ Studio handle "s"-tags in an obj-file?

---

I know for a fact that you can assign smoothing IDs in Poser 6. Not sure about anything earlier than that.

Laurie

This smoothing business doesn't arise in DAZ|Studio because it doesn't do Reyes polygon smoothing, it does Catmull-Clark subdivision.  I don't know whether it reads smoothing groups in or whether D|S subdivision cares about them (I bet Stonemason does though).

My Freebies

Quote - All vertices are welded.

The obj on the right will render fine in Poser (with smoothing turned on)
The obj on the left will not.

Question - isn't the artifact here related to the ambiguity due to poles? On the left there are poles at the corners with 6 faces sharing a vertex. I've read that 3-poles and 5-poles cause trouble in Catmull Clark. Perhaps 6-poles cause trouble in REYES.

I will grant that all the apparent unwelded joint angles are 90 here, but joint crease angle is not the only thing that causes unwanted smoothing artifacts in a REYES renderer.

The n-pole problem is extremely obvious with the newest Poser Primitive cone. It isn't because they are long thin triangles on the cone. It's because there is a huge n-pole at the top.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Quote - I know for a fact that you can assign smoothing IDs in Poser 6. Not sure about anything earlier than that.

Thanks, Laury.

It's a shame - I've used P6 for years and don't remember.
The truth is, I never have had a problem with this (same workflow since P4), because I didn't count facettes ;)

---

Quote - I've read that 3-poles and 5-poles cause trouble in Catmull Clark.  

Not at all.  In fact they're straight up unavoidable for all but the simplest models - this topic doesn't really have anything to do with poles.  The smoothing bulging thing isn't an artifact either, it's just how Reyes renderers handle polygon smoothing.

My Freebies

Quote - I know for a fact that you can assign smoothing IDs in Poser 6. Not sure about anything earlier than that.

Laurie

You can't assign smoothing ID in Poser 5 (and earlier).
BTW Blender does export smoothing groups.

Le cinéma substitue à notre regard un monde qui s'accorde à nos désirs. - André Bazin

Quote - What I was asking boils down to this: When you render a rectangle in whatever program it is you're using, does it look like a rectangle, or does it get rounded like you're showing here?

When you render four rectangles arranged in the three ways I uploaded above, do they look like my render or do they not look like rectangles anymore?

I am suspicious that my understand of the term Catmull Clark is incorrect. But if it is incorrect, and a CC-enabled renderer will round the corners off any un-welded edge, including the outer edges of the simple 3x3 group you showed, then I don't understand how people get rectangles to show up in such renderers. To get a simple rectangle, do you have to use edge loops?

If you render a rectangle with Catmull Clarc, you get a rounded shape. In some modelers, you have the choice to make an edge hard, which means CC subdivision will not smooth it. But I don't know if every renderer honors this. There should not be a difference between modeler and renderer. 

Catmull Clark subdivision is a whole different beast then Reyes subdivision. It's made for modeling and morphing organic surfaces with only a few controll points. Reyes subdivision is just helping to smooth small areas.

At least that's what I know about this. I'm sure that your unwelded wall would not work with CC subdivision - you would get holes in the model. 

A ship in port is safe; but that is not what ships are built for.
Sail out to sea and do new things.
-"Amazing Grace" Hopper

Avatar image of me done by Chidori. 

Quote - > Quote - I've read that 3-poles and 5-poles cause trouble in Catmull Clark.  

Not at all.  In fact they're straight up unavoidable for all but the simplest models - this topic doesn't really have anything to do with poles.  The smoothing bulging thing isn't an artifact either, it's just how Reyes renderers handle polygon smoothing.

OK - I'll skip any more discussion of CC, since 1) I don't know it and 2) this thread is about REYES smoothing anyway.

So if we assume the pole has nothing to do with it, then why does the mitered corner (trapezoids) matter? After all, in that particular mesh, every shared edge angle really is 90 degrees. Why does the renderer think some of those edges are less than the default crease angle of 80?

Note: I tested that particular topology and found that it renders sharp and no bows with a crease angle of 30. I didn't have time to try other values and narrow it down. Why is the renderer measuring the crease angle at between 30 and 80 when the trapezoids are present, bot not with box corners, where there is a 3-pole there instead?

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

which OBJ was this again?

My Freebies

Nobody posted the obj, but bevans84 showed this very interesting comparison.

I had to make my own. The one on the left shows bowing and shading artifacts unless the crease angle is set to much lower than 80. I did not build and test the one on the right - I'll take bevans' word that it renders correctly.

In both, all vertices are welded, there are no holes like in my partially welded props, and all the faces meet at 90 degrees, but the one on the left (with the 6-pole corners) produces a different outcome.

I don't model either of these ways - in all the models I've made, my corners are 3-poles, or they are not welded. When I make a door, the four side pieces making the edge of the door face are all rectangles, partially welded or not welded at all.

When I make a picture frame, the corners are mitered (as on the left) but they are not welded in the corners - just across each piece.

I do the various shapes according to the shapes of the real pieces of wood used to make such things. I UV map them so that wood grain looks like the real objects. Doors are not mitered. Picture frames are.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

And don't forget the question about the cone - the n-pole at the apex is a problem. Why? Crease angle should take care of it.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Guess what, they ***both*** render sharp with 80 degree phong angle.

My Freebies

Unless you're in Poser 7 or earlier. (edit: yes, this is a surprise to me, long habit of modeling for poser 7 - so I guess it was a bug and I guess it's been fixed, sneaky Stefan)

My Freebies

I'm gonna hazard a guess that old versions of Poser judged whether to smooth or not based on edge angles, not face angles.  The left object has 45 degree edge intersections vs. all 90 degree edge intersections on the right.  I think somebody we all know has a working relationship with Stefan and can simply ask ;)

My Freebies

Perhaps size matters? I get bowing in Poser 8 and Pro 2010.

Here's the prop I built. See what you get.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Rendered in Poser Pro 2010, smoothing on, crease = 80.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

This is a very strange thing. I did not change the geometry at all, but I changed the order of the faces.

Before the top was bowed. Now it is the left, back, and right sides.

This is not logical. The topology is identical.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

Hmmm, is there ANYthing logical about Poser?

How many peeps?   ... How many hours? ... I rest my case. :lol:
(it wuz gittin' purdy tired anywho)

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

well oops, I guess camera angle somehow comes into play.  At any rate the rearmost object is what bevans84 (and laurie, earlier) showed, at left and foreground are the "mitered" version with 45 degree edge intersections.  I still kinda think it's the 45 degree edge intersections rather than face angles, ask Stefan.

My Freebies

I've been noticing something disturbing lately...

Putting UVMPro into my workflow sometimes creates the bowing problem.

For example, I make a door. I set up the hard edges in Wings. If I bring the door straight from Wings to Poser, Poser respects the hard edges and renders well. If I run it thru UVMPro and do any mapping, material zones - anything where I have to resave the model in UVM, then when I bring that into Poser, there's problems. If I do all the uvs and material zones in Wings to Poser, no problems. I suppose it's wiping out the hard edges I created in Wings.

Laurie

Were you doing that in wings by splitting the edges, or what method?  If you're splitting edges maybe UVmapper (which I don't use) is re-welding them on import or export.

My Freebies

Laurie,

Have you contacted:

** support@uvmapper.com**

:blink:

cheers,
dr geep
;=]

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

Quote - Were you doing that in wings by splitting the edges, or what method?  If you're splitting edges maybe UVmapper (which I don't use) is re-welding them on import or export.

Wings has a command whereby you can call an edge hard or soft. I'm not sure if it's selectively splitting the edges or not (I do not believe it does but Poser might be interpreting it that way). I just know that Poser recognizes them - unless I run them through UVM, which seems to wipe them out ;o). I don't tell UVM to weld or split either. I'm thinking it just doesn't keep that particular information. Not that it really matters...it'll be easy enough to eliminate UVMPro from the workflow. What I can do in that I can in Wings, just not quite as easily. I mostly used UVM not to do the uvs but to assign the material zones.

Laurie

Quote - Laurie,

Have you contacted:

** support@uvmapper.com**

:blink:

cheers,
dr geep
;=]

I have. Others have. Mr. Cox hasn't answered anyone in ages ;o).

Laurie

Ok, maybe he is on vacation.

Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"

cheers,

dr geep ... :o]

edited 10/5/2019

Quote - Wings has a command whereby you can call an edge hard or soft. I'm not sure if it's selectively splitting the edges or not (I do not believe it does but Poser might be interpreting it that way). I just know that Poser recognizes them - unless I run them through UVM, which seems to wipe them out ;o). I don't tell UVM to weld or split either. I'm thinking it just doesn't keep that particular information. Not that it really matters...it'll be easy enough to eliminate UVMPro from the workflow. What I can do in that I can in Wings, just not quite as easily. I mostly used UVM not to do the uvs but to assign the material zones.

Laurie

  Maybe Wings does export the 'magic' s 0/s 1 information, like Blender does. UVMapper strips this smoothing information from the object file.

Le cinéma substitue à notre regard un monde qui s'accorde à nos désirs. - André Bazin

I just checked. Wings 1.2 does indeed write out smoothing groups when exporting OBJ files. I know when I started using Wings, it didn't do that, causing some grief.

Of course since smoothing groups are defined in terms of polygons, not edges, Wings can only create smoothing groups for regions that are completely enclosed by hard edges. If one, for example, makes a cube and defines a single edge as hard, that information will be lost on export.

-- I'm not mad at you, just Westphalian.

i thought that poser doesnt use smoothing groups.

Quote - i thought that poser doesnt use smoothing groups.

What I know is that it doesn't interpolate normals across smoothing groups. That's why I had to remove all smoothing groups from Antonia's object file for Poser rendering. They produced sharp edges in shading where there weren't supposed to be any. At least that was the case for Poser 6.

After some experimenting just now, I doubt that they help make Poser's polygon smoothing behave any better, though. It seems to me that it's more about edge angles, as bagginsbill suggested.

-- I'm not mad at you, just Westphalian.

I'd imagine the hard edges would be better suited to architectural things rather than organic things anyway ;o).

Laurie

Quote - I'd imagine the hard edges would be better suited to architectural things rather than organic things anyway ;o).

Laurie

With Catmull-Clark subdivision, a ring of hard edges can help keep boundaries in place. The ring gets smoothed out as a whole, but doesn't grow or shrink. So I used hard edges to define the outlines of areolea, nails, pupils and such.

-- I'm not mad at you, just Westphalian.

Okay, I admit I pretty much got lost - or just my eyes glazed over - in all the technical discussion, so maybe this is addressed somewhere in all of that ...

I just started using PP2010, as well as Lightwave 9.5, because I had to replace my PC and had to install new software anyway. So I'm getting used to both of them, but this strikes me as something that should have a simple answer, but isn't turning out so: I'm trying to make a relatively simple display base, 20-sided with some details, mostly flat surfaces, and I've split ALL the points in it. It doesn't have any polys with included angles - it's really basic. But when I import the OBJ into PP2010, all of my split vertices seem to be for naught, because even with smoothing turned completely off, it's smoothing the piss out of all my flat surfaces, even where one material butts up against another. I can't get a decent flat surface anywhere on the model, and where there is an inset that is surrounded by 20 separate vertical surfaces and then 20 separate flat polys on a slightly higher level, PP2010 is acting like the upper level is one solid poly and the inset vanishes completely. I'm stymied!!

Lightwave:

PP2010 Preview:

PP2010 Render:

Can you let me see a copy of this?  PM me.

My Freebies

I'm using Poser 8 and have been doing lots of tests on this and so far the only consistent thing I've been getting from Poser are inconsistencies ;o).

Laurie

Quote - Can you let me see a copy of this?  PM me.

Done :-)

So far, the best solution I've found is to import the model, apply as many settings and materials as it requires, then save it as a prop. Once it's saved, I run GeomStripper on it to split the mesh from the PP2 file, then change the pointer to the original OBJ file that I've put in the Geometries folder. As near as I can tell,  the import process may be rewelding the vertices.

Okay, there are two things going on that Poser makes sound like one thing: [Phong Shading](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phong_shading) [Reyes polygon smoothing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reyes_rendering)

You do have polygon smoothing disabled for the prop.  Is this pic the thing you're talking about?

My Freebies

Looking at your prop in my modeler I can see that edges are split, but certain points are welded (like shown in that pic above).  I pulled that underyling polygon way out, and you can see that the long edge is split, but the point is welded.

My Freebies

Stuff like this corner, where all the curved faces have edges that all join at a single point in that little triangle, this will give you chronic problems with phong shading.  Not saying that triangles or n-gons are especially bad, just that having angles like this usually provokes bad phong shading in Poser (and not in other apps).

My Freebies

Same spot in Cinema, looks flat with the same phong angle you have set in Poser (15).  Why is Poser different?  Good question, but at any rate it is, so you pretty much have to work around it or live with it.

My Freebies

I just cleaned things up a little, but the only surfaces that should have welded points are the trim around the screens, and the inset areas (not the flat back piece, but the actual inset areas - I welded those points so they would smooth correctly inside the corners). If anything else is welded, I need to correct that - I just uploaded an updated version with the vertex corrections to ShareCG. That point above where the gray outer surface meets the purplish inset should not be welded between the surfaces - there should be 3 separate points: 1 for the inset, and one for each facet of the outer gray surface; that's how the model currently stands.

What troubles me the most is the smoothing artifacts I continue to get on the flat uper floor surfaces; those polys are all split, from each other and from the gray vertical surfaces, but I keep seeing smoothing artifacts along the edges between some of the polys, and where they meet the corner of the gray facets. Yeah, it's driving me a little nuts ;-).

And how do you you work around it?  I modeled a structure kind of like yours (on left) then with a single bevel, and then with a bevel + extrude inner.  There is no phong angle that will work with the left and middle objects, but the right object actually works with the default of 80 degrees.  It is higher poly than the others though.

My Freebies

BTW, I discovered I didn't have those inset curves (shown in pjz99's shots above) tripled, so those are also split in the latest version - but those corners aren't where I'm getting the smoothing issues.

Frankly, I have more problems of more varieties with PP2010 than I think I've had with any previous version, all based around simple stuff that they 'fixed' at least 3 versions ago; that's what's so frustrating. Phong or Reyes shading - these issues weren't issues in 6 and 7 (at least not for me), and now I'm not sure what approach to take to make the model work in this more 'advanced' version, where apparently even turning smoothing off doesn't really turn it off at all.

BTW, can you show those 3 examples above in wireframe?

Quote - What troubles me the most is the smoothing artifacts I continue to get on the flat uper floor surfaces; those polys are all split, from each other and from the gray vertical surfaces, but I keep seeing smoothing artifacts along the edges between some of the polys, and where they meet the corner of the gray facets. Yeah, it's driving me a little nuts ;-).

That's a big confusing thing about Poser and seems to have been a "user friendliness" design choice.  The documentation mixes the concepts of polygon smoothing, and phong shading.  They are not particularly related at all.  I don't mean to sound pedantic about this, but the distinction is very important, and the docs leave it extremely muddy.

I think your particular model is the kind of complexity where breaking edges and disconnecting faces may be more trouble than just adding some edges to kill these wonky phong blemishes, which are not your fault, they only appear in Poser.

My Freebies

> Quote - BTW, can you show those 3 examples above in wireframe?

here you go

My Freebies

here's an export from poser of all three (single OBJ)

My Freebies

Thanks! Yeah, that really does bloat the poly count, doesn't it? ;-)

Another approach to working around this is as other people have been mentioning, set up smoothing groups, but the more complex the model, the more work that is. Since Poser behaves differently from pretty much everything else with how it applies phong shading, it's hard to predict exactly where these blemishes will appear, so a lot of trial and error may be needed.  Not saying one method is "better" than the other but for me, I'd rather not dick around with setting phong angle for these 5 polys and a different angle for those 8 etc.

My Freebies

Quote - Thanks! Yeah, that really does bloat the poly count, doesn't it? ;-)

Yes it does - it comes down to which is more important to you in a given project: lower poly count, or less work building the model.  Keep in mind the typical Poser character is 60 THOUSAND polys, so I don't think many people are going to hate you for adding a few hundred to your model in order to make it render well.

My Freebies

That's one of the reasons I've set up the materials in the way I have - it makes it easier to select "ConsoleINsets" and "Screen Trim" as groups to smooth, while leaving everything else alone. Of course, I just need a modeler or UV mapper that creates smoothing groups ;-).

Cinema + Riptide can do this, and I understand 3ds Max and Blender can do it also, although I expect there may be some care needed for import/export options.

My Freebies

Hello, sorry, coming in late for this thread.

Some of the native Poser stuff has the smoothing problem as well, just load the
"Dresser" prop from "The Pad" of Poser 7 content and turn on smoothing. It looks
like exploding.

The way I get around that which helps in most cases is to load the props into blender,
and apply a modifier "EdgeSplit". As long as you do not press the "Apply" button,
your original geometry will stay low-poly. For .obj export, there is an option to apply
this on the fly during export. Please see attached image.

When you export multiple objects into one .obj file, Poser will load them into a single prop.
The "Edgesplit" can be applied to objects in Poser selectively (or even to selected "sharp"
edges only). This way you have great control on where this is applied and can keep smooth
object parts as well as sharp edges.

Hope this helps,
   Michael
 

Hello,
what I learned from earlier posts is that certain topology might be more or less suitable
for the different types of smoothing. As Poser uses a different smoothing than Carrara,
it looks like the statement "exchangeable content (apart from materials / shaders)"
might be a myth. :-(   Unless I have misunderstood the prior posts completely.

Best regards,
    Michael

 

Generally, for low-poly models, they need to have things done to them for Poser that don't need to be done for other apps - depending on what is actually done, the model can look very close to the same in a variety of apps, but yes content can be interchangeable.  The trick of breaking edges leaves you with geometry that isn't suitable for use with Catmull-Clark subdivision (what most other apps use) but that doesn't mean you can't render it just as it loads.  For high poly content (most Poser character and clothing items) this usually isn't a big concern.

My Freebies

I just recently switched to Poser 8, and I am finding that alot of the props I have modelled in wings are seriously bloating with polygon smoothing turned on in Poser. The amount of warping is far worse than anything I have seen in this thread. Parts of the model will bloat out as far as the total width of the box. These same props looked fine in Poser 6, and because they are so low resolution turning off polygon smoothing is not really an option. These props will warp pretty badly even with the polygon smoothing as low as 10 degrees. In Poser 6 I would crank them up to 180 with acceptable results. Is there a work around or fix for this?