Hi :)

I am helping my daugther to learn to model and we ran into a need that I never had before... we need to convert a mesh that is formed by squared polys into the same but with diagonal crossing cuts... so all the mesh must be compouind by triangles. I have an app for making a simple triangulation but it leaves the mesh divided in 2 symmetrical parts with the triangles oriented as in a mirror. We need some kind of "double triangulation" and not this... can somebody helps us or tell us what progs/software can do different triangulations or subdivisions?

thanks!!!!!!

 

fabi

Fabi @FKDesign

One in some place under Southern Stars...
Don't tell me that I am wrong if I say I saw pointed ears this morning, in my mirror... they are there.

I think MeshLab might do that for ya Fabi ;).

Laurie

http://sourceforge.net/projects/remesh/

Might take a look at this one as well ;).

Laurie

What software can you use?

In modo there is a command for that and in Blender too, you can convert a mesh to triangles without splitting it.

Paolo

https://www.preta3d.com
FB: https://www.facebook.com/RealityPlugIn
Tw: @preta3d
G+: https://plus.google.com/106625816153304163119
The Reality Gallery: https://reality-plug-in.deviantart.com

well got the MeshLab... something is bad with me I think LOL... cannot get my silly mesh doing nothing there LOL

Fabi @FKDesign

One in some place under Southern Stars...
Don't tell me that I am wrong if I say I saw pointed ears this morning, in my mirror... they are there.

Blender is free and it has a triangulation modifier. It also has and adjustable decimate modfier.

____________________________________________________

"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination".

Albert Einstein

I think Blender may be the way to go (I never could figure out MeshLab...always found it incomprehensible ;)).

Laurie

yes Laurie, is like chinese LOL... Blender, got it, yes, but you see, when you are so used to your fav progs, to learn others is just annoying... will try it :)

Fabi @FKDesign

One in some place under Southern Stars...
Don't tell me that I am wrong if I say I saw pointed ears this morning, in my mirror... they are there.

Here is the quick guide on how to triangulate in Blender:

• Import your OBJ model from the File | Import menu

• Press A to unselect all objects in the scene

• Right click on the model to select it

• Press TAB to go in edit mode

• Press Ctrl-F to call the Face menu

• Select Triangulate Faces

• Done!

• Press TAB again to finish edit mode

• Use File | Export to export your triangulated OBJ

Hope this helps.

Paolo

https://www.preta3d.com
FB: https://www.facebook.com/RealityPlugIn
Tw: @preta3d
G+: https://plus.google.com/106625816153304163119
The Reality Gallery: https://reality-plug-in.deviantart.com

You could always try this:

Open OBJ in Poser

Save as 3DS

New Poser and open your 3DS object. It will be triangulated. If you resave as an OBJ the triangles remain in the new OBJ.

Simple and free. I do this to triangulate quad meshes for use in the cloth room.

pdg

Great, thank you!!!!

Did it, and it does the same than the proggy I have...

will show what is what I need in the image:

As far as I know, I haven´t found any prog that makes this... that is what I need, but not sure how can be done unless editing each poly and cutting it by hand.

Fabi @FKDesign

One in some place under Southern Stars...
Don't tell me that I am wrong if I say I saw pointed ears this morning, in my mirror... they are there.

OH!! Hexagon does that, under Vertex Modeling/Free Tesselation/Triangular Tesselation (Free Tesselate (X)) ;). And it's free right now :P

Here I've applied it to one face on this smoothed cube so you can see it's an X ;).

Laurie

excellent... I have it, opened now, I have the mesh and found the command... and is done... but not sure idf I am doing something bad... the uvs are lost :S the object was mapped and now after the subdivision is not mapped anymore...

Fabi @FKDesign

One in some place under Southern Stars...
Don't tell me that I am wrong if I say I saw pointed ears this morning, in my mirror... they are there.

awww...that stinks :(

Laurie

That is correct. As you create new vertices the old UV map doesn't match anymore. You need to re-UV map the model based on the new geometry.

Paolo

https://www.preta3d.com
FB: https://www.facebook.com/RealityPlugIn
Tw: @preta3d
G+: https://plus.google.com/106625816153304163119
The Reality Gallery: https://reality-plug-in.deviantart.com

Tried tesselation in Wings3D, no luck.

You can triangulate from quads in this fashion in Carrara; Model:Tesselate:Vertex to center...

Dang!!!! when I do subdivision in the normal way, I mean, doing 4 squares from one, the uvs are preserved, at least on Anim8or that is what I use all the time... I will have to remember this for the next time, map the thing after the subdivision and not before... weird!!!!!

thanks to all, now I know how to do it...

Fabi @FKDesign

One in some place under Southern Stars...
Don't tell me that I am wrong if I say I saw pointed ears this morning, in my mirror... they are there.

oops cross post with Laurie...

The triangulation/subdivide tool in the Poser Tool Box preserves UV's, groups and materials.

http://www.philc.net/PTB_page2.php#geometryTools

Quote - will show what is what I need in the image:

UVMapper Pro does this, and also preserves the mapping.  

CTRL-Shift-T will give you this ^

Phil: will check it now, thanks :)

EnglishBob: I had about 4 intents to contact the owner of UVMapper pro for to buy the program and never got an answer... I keep using the Classic just because that... do you know the owner, maybe can you help me to contact him?????

Fabi @FKDesign

One in some place under Southern Stars...
Don't tell me that I am wrong if I say I saw pointed ears this morning, in my mirror... they are there.

Don't think there is much support for UVMapper Pro anymore... Probably the best bet would be a workflow through a modeler that has these geometry functions and also has a diverse UV'ing tool set.

I would recommend Blender but the interface, coordinate system, and need to learn a million keyed shortcuts is daunting (at least, last time I checked).

Hex, which you seem to have, is another Route. Although, depending on which version you are using has some serious stability issues.

Silo is pretty good, from what I hear. BUT, development for this app seems to have fallen off.

Then you get into the more pricey software packages...

I personally like a combination of Wings3d and Carrara for modeling and mapping, depending on what I'm doing. I also use UVMapper classic for alot of things.

I figured out how to do what ya want in Blender'. Hit tab to go into edit mode. select all the faces (a key). On the side bar scroll down untill you find extrude individual. Hit the extrude button but don't move faces. Scoll down a bit and hit merge and select collapse on the menu it brings up. That should do it.

____________________________________________________

"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination".

Albert Einstein

In no universe would that ever be correct topology.
So you all are learning bad topology.

I would suggest not to ever Tri a mesh like that.

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

She didn't ask about topology. She asked about performing a specific function. Don't assume we do not know what good topology is.

____________________________________________________

"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination".

Albert Einstein

Quote - In no universe would that ever be correct topology.
So you all are learning bad topology.

I would suggest not to ever Tri a mesh like that.

I'm sure she has a reason and if ANYONE knows what they're doing, Fabi does.

Laurie

OK ,what's the reason ?

 

Quote - > Quote - In no universe would that ever be correct topology.

So you all are learning bad topology.

I would suggest not to ever Tri a mesh like that.

I'm sure she has a reason and if ANYONE knows what they're doing, Fabi does.

Laurie

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

You can try PoseRay.

https://sites.google.com/site/poseray/

Load the obj, go to obj output tab, and export using a different name. All models read into the program are automatically split into triangles. UVs are kept. 

 

good luck,

 

FlyerX

Quote - OK ,what's the reason ?

 

Quote - > Quote - In no universe would that ever be correct topology.

So you all are learning bad topology.

I would suggest not to ever Tri a mesh like that.

I'm sure she has a reason and if ANYONE knows what they're doing, Fabi does.

Laurie

I really have no idea. It's not my project and I'm not privy to the information. Why do you care? Is she making it for you? Right.

Laurie

Quote - OK ,what's the reason ?

Quote - In no universe would that ever be correct topology.So you all are learning bad topology.I would suggest not to ever Tri a mesh like that.

Quote - I'm sure she has a reason and if ANYONE knows what they're doing, Fabi does.Laurie

Quote - I really have no idea. It's not my project and I'm not privy to the information. Why do you care? Is she making it for you? Right.Laurie

I'm for ever learning to be a better CGI Artist by other CGI Artist.
I'm just trying to be helpful.

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

Well, they could be making something dynamic. Triangles work better for that. And the more pivot points (vertices) the better. Could be her preferred way for dynamic cloth. Or, she could just be teaching her daughter what NOT to do (she said she was teaching her daughter). I wouldn't second guess her.

Laurie

Quote - > Quote - OK ,what's the reason ?

Quote - In no universe would that ever be correct topology.So you all are learning bad topology.I would suggest not to ever Tri a mesh like that.

Quote - I'm sure she has a reason and if ANYONE knows what they're doing, Fabi does.Laurie

Quote - I really have no idea. It's not my project and I'm not privy to the information. Why do you care? Is she making it for you? Right.Laurie

I'm for ever learning to be a better CGI Artist by other CGI Artist.
I'm just trying to be helpful.

 

then think about how you sound. seriously. you made a blanket statement which many automatically think is an aggressive move. don't be surprised if someone then slaps you for it. also your statement suggests nothing at all about being helpful at all.

Still just trying to be helpful

Lets say we made a dynamic flag
If we tri'ed the quads in to 2 tri's then that would be correct.

If we Tri'ed the flags quads by 4 and had that vertices in the center of all the Tri'ed quads
then when we blew wind at it.

That vertices in the center of all the Tri'ed quads ,would bubble.

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

prove it. in another thread. lets not derail this one.

Quote - Still just trying to be helpful

Lets say we made a dynamic flag
If we tri'ed the quads in to 2 tri's then that would be correct.

If we Tri'ed the flags quads by 4 and had that vertices in the center of all the Tri'ed quads
then when we blew wind at it.

That vertices in the center of all the Tri'ed quads ,would bubble.

Would bubble? In Poser? I beg to differ. LOL

Laurie

You're talking about the ridges....well....Poser will make those ANYWAY. Even when the cloth is all quads. The simulation turns the quads into triangles with a vertex in the center...just the way Fabi wanted them triangulated. It normally does better with delaunay triangles.

Laurie

Quote - EnglishBob: I had about 4 intents to contact the owner of UVMapper pro for to buy the program and never got an answer... I keep using the Classic just because that... do you know the owner, maybe can you help me to contact him?????

Steve Cox is the man you want - his user name here is ... Steve Cox. You could try a PM. He does post in the UVMapper forum sometimes - last time was in December.

http://www.renderosity.com/homepage.php?Who=Steve%20Cox

As for the question of triangulating dynamic cloth, off-topic as it may be, hopefully this thread will nail that question:

Dynamic cloth - the cloth room For Compleat Dummies

This is why I know about the triangulation facilities in UVMapper, in fact. I can't get a Delaunay mesh, and the centre-vertex triangulation is the next best thing.  

 

 

 

 

 

What we should do is to go together and petition Snarlygribbly to include this centre-vertex triangulation in his subdivider. It really is a good compromise.

 

 

 

OK boys and girls, I think I owe you some explanations on why I posted this...

I must say that ALL of you have good points and are right in part LOL, this seems to be a not so common things so we should celebrate it :)

RorrKonn: Yes I know about topology :) but this is not an object where it really counts too much... actually I was showing my daugther the many ways to do a Dynamic clothing and the different ways she can make a mesh and get alternate drapings, so the topology wouldn't be so important in order that she finally will get the same piece of cloth but collided and draped over a given object.

I'm sure she has a reason and if ANYONE knows what they're doing, Fabi does.

Laurie

Laurie: I love you dahhhling :)

Quote -
RorrKonn:
If we Tri'ed the flags quads by 4 and had that vertices in the center of all the Tri'ed quads
then when we blew wind at it.

That vertices in the center of all the Tri'ed quads ,would bubble.

That's correct, gives a weird folding appearance. What was exactly what I wanted to show my daugther. We finally did the mesh using Hex and NOT mapping again untill we are sure it behaves like we want... and it didn´t caused for that center vertex... at least for THIS piece of fabric. So we now know how to do that with other meshes that we are developing and could be better with those cuts.

Quote - What we should do is to go together and petition Snarlygribbly to include this centre-vertex triangulation in his subdivider. It really is a good compromise.

That is certainly a fabulous idea and I will second it :)

EnglishBob: Thank you so much for the info, I will contact him right now :)   BTW, I take the opportunity and say you have been one of my first gurus and I still use your fantastic morphing props, all the time... so Chapeau Monsieur :)

 

So well... all of you have been helpfull and my girl Lucila has readed this the same as me and learnt from all you. Let me say thanks again and see you around, designers :)

 

fabi

Fabi @FKDesign

One in some place under Southern Stars...
Don't tell me that I am wrong if I say I saw pointed ears this morning, in my mirror... they are there.

Good luck Lucila ,We wish you a very prosperous CGI career

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

Quote - Good luck Lucila ,We wish you a very prosperous CGI career

She has a good teacher. :)

Laurie

Quote - In no universe would that ever be correct topology.
So you all are learning bad topology.

I would suggest not to ever Tri a mesh like that.

Rubbish.

Parametric/Generative Design

---

Tools :  3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

Quote - OK ,what's the reason ?

 

Quote - > Quote - In no universe would that ever be correct topology.

So you all are learning bad topology.

I would suggest not to ever Tri a mesh like that.

I'm sure she has a reason and if ANYONE knows what they're doing, Fabi does.

Laurie

Um, for one, thinking OUTSIDE the "quad". 

Rethinking BIM Not everything is 4 sided. There's literally 5 good reasons I can think of offhand why you would want to triangulate a mesh; but this is POSER universe, so I digress. You realize there's at least 10 other remeshing techniques that come in handy in 3D. Not everything in 3D is intended for character animation. What about Doo-Sabin subdivision?

---

Tools :  3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

Quote - Um, for one, thinking OUTSIDE the "quad". 

Rethinking BIM Not everything is 4 sided. There's literally 5 good reasons I can think of offhand why you would want to triangulate a mesh; but this is POSER universe, so I digress. You realize there's at least 10 other remeshing techniques that come in handy in 3D. Not everything in 3D is intended for character animation. What about Doo-Sabin subdivision?

Some of the best CGI Artist are venders here in the Poser universe.

All the app's do not have Doo–Sabin.
Wish they did.

So it would be best to use Catmull–Clark.
Catmull–Clark rule is Your mesh should all ways be 100% quads.
For character ,cars ,architecture, etc etc
Genesis is a good exsample ,D/S Studio uses or works just like Catmull–Clark.

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

Quote - > Quote - Um, for one, thinking OUTSIDE the "quad". 

Rethinking BIM Not everything is 4 sided. There's literally 5 good reasons I can think of offhand why you would want to triangulate a mesh; but this is POSER universe, so I digress. You realize there's at least 10 other remeshing techniques that come in handy in 3D. Not everything in 3D is intended for character animation. What about Doo-Sabin subdivision?

Some of the best CGI Artist are venders here in the Poser universe.

All the app's do not have Doo–Sabin.
Wish they did.

So it would be best to use Catmull–Clark.
Catmull–Clark rule is Your mesh should all ways be 100% quads.
For character ,cars ,architecture, etc etc
Genesis is a good exsample ,D/S Studio uses or works just like Catmull–Clark.

Point is, you said there's no reason to triangulate a mesh.  Not only is there a reason, but your statement made no sense.  Again, you quote only POSE- universe examples. "Genesis", "DAZ", whatever.  Quads are definitely useful, and should be used almost always in character modeling, etc.  However, there's a LOT more to 3D and modeling than just subdivision surfaces.  A lot more.  Catmull-Clark is best for subdivision surface modeling.  That's a large, but tunneled view of modeling possibilities.  Look into Topmod, and the upcoming world of 3D printing.  You'll find a dwindling use for Catmull-Clark subdivision.

Why wish for a subdivision method that utilizes bi-quadratic uniform B-splines if you believe in ALL quads all the time?

---

Tools :  3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

Quote - Point is, you said there's no reason to triangulate a mesh.  Not only is there a reason, but your statement made no sense.  Again, you quote only POSE- universe examples. "Genesis", "DAZ", whatever.  Quads are definitely useful, and should be used almost always in character modeling, etc.  However, there's a LOT more to 3D and modeling than just subdivision surfaces.  A lot more.  Catmull-Clark is best for subdivision surface modeling.  That's a large, but tunneled view of modeling possibilities.  Look into Topmod, and the upcoming world of 3D printing.  You'll find a dwindling use for Catmull-Clark subdivision.

Why wish for a subdivision method that utilizes bi-quadratic uniform B-splines if you believe in ALL quads all the time?

I never said never use Tri's.I like dynamic cloths & games.
I said it's bad topology to turn a quad in to 4 Tri's with a vertice in the center of the quad.
Not my rule but The rule is
If you Tri a Quad you would turn the Quad in to 2 Tri's not 4.

When I model games meshes
I follow Game meshes Rules.
There 100% Tris.

Catmull–Clark rule is Your mesh should all ways be 100% quads.
Not my rule ,Catmull–Clark rule.
I'm just following Catmull–Clark rules.

If I was modeling for Doo–Sabin.
I would follow Doo–Sabin rules.

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

Quote -
I never said never use Tri's.I like dynamic cloths & games.
I said it's bad topology to turn a quad in to 4 Tri's with a vertice in the center of the quad.
Not my rule but The rule is
If you Tri a Quad you would turn the Quad in to 2 Tri's not 4.

When I model games meshes
I follow Game meshes Rules.
There 100% Tris.

Catmull–Clark rule is Your mesh should all ways be 100% quads.
Not my rule ,Catmull–Clark rule.
I'm just following Catmull–Clark rules.

If I was modeling for Doo–Sabin.
I would follow Doo–Sabin rules.

"In no universe would that ever be correct topology.
So you all are learning bad topology.

I would suggest not to ever Tri a mesh like that."

---

***Those are your words.  My point is, there's more going on in the world of modeling than GAMES or POSER.  Look up BIM or even 3D printing for everything from clothing to sculpture.  My point is that there's a HUGE need for triangulated mesh in the world of 3D nowadays, because 3D has expanded far beyond CGI for movies and games, and is now a huge part of fabrication and design.  What was once "bad topology" in 3D is no longer relevant in many areas of 3D modeling.  The "rules" you are playing by are only relevant in CG as it applies to the traditional world of 3d modeling (ie games and subdivision surface character modeling).  People are now using Voronoi tessellation, for example, as a means to an end so to speak, for designing an end product, like building structures, and 3D-printed clothing; things you can touch and feel, and hold in your hand.  There's now a reason to use 10 different remeshing techniques in a modeling process.  Mathematics are making a huge comeback in the world of 3D art.

---

Tools :  3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

Even Architecture no longer depends on traditional quad-based subdivision techniques for creating design.  Modeling has gone parametric, and it's being embraced everywhere you look.

http://www.scoop.it/t/parametric-architecture-and-design

What you are saying is fine if you're modeling for Poser, but the world of 3D isn't all about modeling a human or a car anymore.

http://www.wblut.com/

---

Tools :  3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

Quote - but the world of 3D isn't all about modeling a human or a car anymore.

YEAH absolutely agree on this !!!!

I even have crazy dreams of holograms flowing from small cubes or so with our models going to life and as much lifelike we want them then we need new technologies and mathemathical procedures to get those meshes realistic and interesting.

Poser is just one Universe where many of our fantasies have a playground but although I am a 110% Poser person I keep thinking that this is just one step of a very large ladder.

I used Catmull-Clark and Doo-Sabin manipulating the way the loops and rings are positioned and then making subdivisions. I must say that the modeller I used is always the same and the differences between one and other system IMHO is simply the amount of smoothing applied. Maybe my experiences have been short on this... but I have did many meshes untill now :)

About Tris and Quads: Tris are GOOD enough for some dynamic meshes, not ALL. Quads give better models for mapping but that is a rule that many times is not needed to have on account. If you will use procedurals then you don´t need super perfect mapping, that is known.

I have did dynamics with tris and quads and must say that I never am sure what type of polys I will define as final untill I do a simulation and see how it drapes. No rules at all, at least to me regarding dynamics. The only system that I really don't like and never use is Delauney. To me it always gives a crushed and strange appearance.

For other purposes, tris are commonly NOT the full taste of Poser engines. Often you can see holes when rendering, the AO settings (that are slowly being left out of the scene but still not dead) could produce weird things on the tris, and if you have the very bad luck that have a tri that is not 100% facing backwards or forward then you sure will have a crystal edge or a black spot so you will need postwork or Poser's Morph tool editing...

Yeah but this is all about Poser, I know.

As said, I dream with other worlds, just that still am here on Poser LOL.

Thanks to all for the fabulous and so interesting info and feedback :)

 

fabi

Fabi @FKDesign

One in some place under Southern Stars...
Don't tell me that I am wrong if I say I saw pointed ears this morning, in my mirror... they are there.

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.

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

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.

---

Tools :  3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

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.

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

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.

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

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.

---

Tools :  3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

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.

---

Tools :  3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

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.

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

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.

---

Tools :  3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

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

Fabi @FKDesign

One in some place under Southern Stars...
Don't tell me that I am wrong if I say I saw pointed ears this morning, in my mirror... they are there.

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.

---

Tools :  3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

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.

---

Tools :  3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

...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.

---

Tools :  3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

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. 

---

Tools :  3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

 

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.

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

...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.

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

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.

:)

---

Tools :  3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

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.

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

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.

---

Tools :  3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

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.

---

Tools :  3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

"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. ;)

---

Tools :  3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

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.

---

Tools :  3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

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.

---

Tools :  3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

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 Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

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.

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

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.

---

Tools :  3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

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.

---

Tools :  3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

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 :)

____________________________________________________

"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination".

Albert Einstein

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.

---

Tools :  3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

Attached Link: PhilC's Create Props Plugin

I just learned that Poser guru, PhilC has a plugin for Poser that is a starting point for these kinds of parametric ideas.  It's much simpler than say Grasshopper, and isn't meant for modeling complete complex structures, but it's a python plugin that explores mathematical shapes that would be very difficult to model by hand, and then turns them into props for you.  This could be used, for example, to create some cool, contemporary jewelry for your characters or whatever.  The principal behind this plugin, which is to explore new and interesting shapes in 3D, is the building block to parametric and generative design that I've been talking about in this thread..  Way to go, PhilC!  Cool plugin!

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

---

Tools :  3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.

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.

============================================================ 

The Artist that will fight for decades to conquer their media.
Even if you never know their name ,your know their Art.
Dark Sphere Mage Vengeance

Quote - So I tend to group patterns together.

 

That's what it's all about.  ;-)

---

Tools :  3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender v2.74

System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB GPU.