As a matter of course, I always keep my construct steps,
regardless of what I’m building, so I’ll always have a split
version saved off somewhere. I don’t think there’s ever a situation
where that doesn’t happen, whether it’s from a director or just
because you’ve found something you want to change for yourself. It just
makes sense to plan ahead a bit and think about what might be happening further
down the pipe.
From:
owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM [mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] On Behalf Of Adrian
Lopez
Sent: 28 December 2006 02:19
To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
Subject: Re: symmetry in XSI 6.0
Question on the "easy to
workaround" thing. We all know about the cloning thing when you're
modelling. But what about AFTER your model has been rigged and enveloped
- the director has changes that will involve adding new polys, and posssibly
changing the flow a bit. Short of cutting your model in half, cloning it,
making the changes, re-rigging and re-enveloping it - whats the best
approach? We can do tweaks in modelling mode while hte model is
enveloped, but what if you need more drastic changes, and would like to use
symmetry to cut down the workload?
On 12/21/06, Kim Aldis <XSI(at)kim-aldis.co.uk> wrote:
'Sought after feature'. Usually translates as 'I want'.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM
[mailto: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM]
On
> Behalf Of Andre DeAngelis
> Sent: 21 December 2006 15:03
> To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
> Subject: RE: symmetry in XSI 6.0
>
> Very well put Brad,
>
> Luke, with all due respects, that was a really dumb
question. You of
> all people, who have always had been harping on about the necessity of
> particles, fluids, hypervoxels, muscle deformation and comprehensive
> deformation management, should realise that there are far more pressing
> issues than perfect symmetry modelling in XSI.
>
> 6.0 introduces this feature part of the way, and as Luc Eric has
> mentioned on XSIBase, is included in the roadmap for future modelling
> improvements.
>
> I get so fed up when people compare XSI to specialised tools like Silo,
> Modo, Zbrush or whatever when one need only look at Max and Maya and
> realise those apps have barely addressed symmetry modelling.
>
> I would much rather use the best of breed tool than have a half baked
> implementation inside XSI, and as Brad said, the limited scope of
> symmetry modelling in XSI 6.0 is by no means a show stopper.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM
[mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM]
On
> Behalf Of Bradley Gabe
> Sent: December 20, 2006 8:54 PM
> To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
> Subject: RE: symmetry in XSI 6.0
>
> I too am speculating, but I believe it has to do with how a program is
> designed from its core.
>
> A pure modeling program can, from inception, be designed to have
> symmetry built into all of its operators, because it doesn't have to
> worry about envelope deformations, or shape animation, or constraints,
> or geometry being fed through a rigid body simulation, or the
> implications on rendering, etc. A pure modeling program can basically
> assume you will lock a model at the origin and do all your building
> there.
>
> XSI is by no means a pure modeling program. While modeling is
> important, so is animation, and simulation, and rendering, and any
> implementation of symmetry needs to take all those work flows into
> account. And I would never want to be confined in what I can do
> deformation or render-wise just to make modeling symmetry work.
>
> The thing is, we currently have symmetry that doesn't break the
> animation and rendering workflows. And when it doesn't work, we can
> always do the old split and clone trick, or use GATOR, or a half dozen
> others that work well enough.
>
> Are they perfect solutions or as simple as using modo or zbrush? Heck
> no. But it's not like it's a wall we can't get over in production, and
> at the end of the day, it hopefully isn't costing users all that much
> time. I suspect it would take an entire redesign and reworking
of the
> current modeling operator system in XSI to get symmetry to work the way
> you are expecting.
>
> On the other hand, there are plenty of other production necessities
> that have *NO* easy solution, *NO* workaround, and do offer substantial
> walls to get over. Frankly, I hope those other issues get tackled
> first. If rebuilding the operators is required to get over those walls,
> I'm sure Soft would invest the resources to implement the symmetry
> improvements in there, since it would probably be a minor issue in the
> relative scope of that project.
>
> -Brad
>
> > I may be ignorant on the subject and probably have little
> > understanding of complexity involved in implementing such feature but
> > why is this so difficult to implement for a team of 3d experts and
> > requires a few releases (few years) to implement? Especially since
> > this is such a sought after feature.
> >
> > It seems that it's available in modeling programs (from their
> > inception or at least initial versions) that are sold on a much
> lesser
> > scale (and probably do not have such 3d expertise on the development
> > team - just speculating here).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ______________________________________________________________________
> > From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM
[mailto: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM]
On
> > Behalf Of Stuart Hall
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 10:17 AM
> > To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
> > Subject: RE: symmetry in XSI 6.0
> >
> >
> >
> > Me too. Which is one of the reasons I prefer to use Modo when I start
> > off modeling. In other ways I prefer XSI to model in. Just waiting
> for
> > that perfect app...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ______________________________________________________________________
> >
> > From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM
[mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM]
On
> > Behalf Of Kris Rivel
> > Sent: 20 December 2006 02:09
> > To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
> > Subject: Re: symmetry in XSI 6.0
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yeah, hopefully this makes it into the next release. I
would love to
> > build edges on a polymesh in symmetry mode sometimes.
> >
> > Kris
> >
> > Ahmidou Lyazidi wrote:
> >
> > it seems not
> > http://www.xsibase.com/forum/index.php
?
> > board=1;action="">
> >
> > 2006/12/20, lpiasecki76 <lpiasecki76(at)rogers.com>:
> >
> > Just a quick question about symmetry in XSI 6.0:
> >
> >
> > Are all poly operations now supported in symmetry mode, including
> > operations that modify topology? Is there support for tangent based
> > symmetry?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ---
> Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM
with the following text in
> body:
> unsubscribe xsi
>
> ---
> Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM
with the following text in
> body:
> unsubscribe xsi
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM
with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
--
Adrian Lopez
CEO | Director | Producer
Liquid Light Digital
Kingston, Jamaica
C: 876.381.2471
W: 876.978.6418
www.liquidlightdigital.com
HD/SD Production | VFX & Animation | Production Management
|
