PDA

View Full Version : subpatch and catmull clark



octopus2000
08-17-2011, 10:59 AM
when do you use subpatch and when do you use catmull clark? is there a rule of thumb when you're supposed to use either of the two? thanks

TalleyJC
08-17-2011, 11:05 AM
CC handles n-gons

hrgiger
08-17-2011, 12:35 PM
Well, ideally you would want to use catmull clark subdivision in a lot of cases. But they can be pretty slow in LightWave if there is a lot of polygons. They support ngons as well as edge weighting so offer a few advantages over LightWave subpatches. They round better but keep in mind this is because they use more divisions (although you can adjust the number of divisions in modelers general option panel). Also, there used to be some problems with UV mapping and mirroring CC's. I can't say if they still exist because I haven't used CC's in a while. Maybe someone else can address that.

I would say if your going to be 18K or below in polygons, I would say use them. Anything above 20K is going to be painful to work with while enabled. I would also recommend turning down the CC division level to 2.

This is one area in LightWave that needs some work.

Sensei
08-17-2011, 02:02 PM
It's great about CC that when you're cutting it, it doesn't create empty hole when there is 5 or more vertexes. But good modeling artist, will fix it sooner or later, to get ride of. In regular, you have to switch back to polygons, to be able to edit such n-gon. So I would suggest using CC until end of modeling, then switch to regular sub-patches. CC have/had problems with UVs.

If you're thinking about character modeling, get EasySplit or TrueArt's Modeling Pack http://modelingpack.trueart.eu which has it included.
It's option to automatically converting n-gon (Fix N-gons and Fix 3-5) while cutting regular sub-patches, to not create these empty holes..

Philbert
08-17-2011, 03:33 PM
The thing about CC is that it still doesn't work properly for some things like mirroring edge weights and using UV map smoothing. Those are two times where you have to use Subpatches.

geothefaust
08-17-2011, 03:51 PM
You know, MODO has a pretty excellent implementation of CC SubDs, and has pretty great modeling tools all around. No work arounds needed.


The plan for LW9, that was never delivered, was to have a full implementation of CC SubDs. It's a shame now that 5 years on there are still the exact same bugs and almost no improvements to Modeller. :(

K-Dawg
08-17-2011, 03:52 PM
Actually kinda sad that CC isn't integrated right in LW. I once worked on a project a few years ago and used CC without knowing the issues with mirrioring and UV. It was so bad my UVs just sucked. Too bad in LW 9.6.1 (don't have LW 10+) CC still don't work right in LW which makes me stick with Sub-D.

EDIT:

You know, MODO has a pretty excellent implementation of CC SubDs, and has pretty great modeling tools all around. No work arounds needed.


The plan for LW9, that was never delivered, was to have a full implementation of CC SubDs. It's a shame now that 5 years on there are still the exact same bugs and almost no improvements to Modeller. :(
So true. Heck even Blender has a better implementation of CC than LW where UV etc. work with no prob. I know Newtek doesn't like to hear about Blender, but come on don't hide behind pink glasses and face the truth. I'll stick with Lw anyway but yeah, truth hurts.

I'm Texan so I say it the way it is :P

Greetz

Philbert
08-17-2011, 03:54 PM
You know, MODO has a pretty excellent implementation of CC SubDs, and has pretty great modeling tools all around. No work arounds needed.


The plan for LW9, that was never delivered, was to have a full implementation of CC SubDs. It's a shame now that 5 years on there are still the exact same bugs and almost no improvements to Modeller. :(

If you hate LW so much why do you keep coming back here?

geothefaust
08-17-2011, 07:31 PM
Oh Phil, who said I hate LW? I still use it in my workflow, occasionally. What I don't like is NT, and their empty promises. You could have surmised that much by now, aye? Quit being such a fanboy about software. It's getting ridiculous dude.

Philbert
08-17-2011, 07:39 PM
All I know is, this is the NT forum and you're here promoting how great modo is.

geothefaust
08-17-2011, 07:44 PM
I'm certainly allowed to talk about how NOT messed up a tool is compared to another. Now if I was saying "USE MODO ITZ TEH [email protected]" I'd probably agree, but I'm not. Report me if you think it's so bad. But either way, step off my damned toes.

geothefaust
08-17-2011, 07:49 PM
And besides, Phil, the whole point was that NT has had a LONG time to implemented CCs properly, more time than Lux. You would think that with all this time they would have had modeller improved, CCs implemented, kick *** modernized modeling tools and so on. But they haven't. Is that spelled out enough for you?

hrgiger
08-17-2011, 07:49 PM
Aren't you guys 3D coat buddies? :D

geothefaust
08-17-2011, 08:41 PM
I work for Pilgway, and for now he's one of our moderators. ;) But we're definitely not buddies.

Philbert
08-17-2011, 08:46 PM
:neener: :lightwave

PetGerbil
08-18-2011, 09:17 AM
Can I propose an Insta-Ban to anyone who, from now on uses the phrase "fanboy." ?
whether in jest, or in anger....

perhaps, everyone could report every post where someone mentions the phrase. ?

Just a thought...

Lightwolf
08-18-2011, 09:25 AM
Just a thought...
Reported... you phanboi! :D

Cheers,
Mike

TalleyJC
08-18-2011, 09:48 AM
LOL!!! Mike man you almost made milk come out of my nose...

Lightwolf
08-18-2011, 09:51 AM
LOL!!! Mike man you almost made milk come out of my nose...
I hope it was something you were drinking shortly before reading the post... ;)

Cheers,
Mike

TalleyJC
08-18-2011, 09:57 AM
I hope it was something you were drinking shortly before reading the post... ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Maybe a call to the doctor is in order.....

PetGerbil
08-18-2011, 10:58 AM
Damn reported already!! I'll fall on my sword and take my punishment...:D

Don't wanna fall foul of the almost mythical "Coders milk-nose" Voodoo.

geothefaust
08-19-2011, 01:42 AM
That's a superb idea! Then, maybe, we can also ban people for being fanatical about 3D software too! I like where this is heading. :thumbsup:

octopus2000
08-20-2011, 09:45 AM
when will newtek fix catmull clark?

Philbert
08-20-2011, 09:47 AM
Hopefully soon.

K-Dawg
08-20-2011, 02:22 PM
I hope so too, but I doubt it will be for 9.6.X...

Philbert
08-20-2011, 02:30 PM
Oh no most likely not, I wouldn't expect to see any new development for the last gen LW version.

K-Dawg
08-20-2011, 02:41 PM
I can understand, but given that CC is integrated in LW since what, 8.x and with LW 10.1 it still doesn't work it would a nice gesture of Newtek to fix it for the 9 and 10 series.
I mean especially since they dumped HC and now it is unclear if to upgrade to 10 or not and not knowing what is the update politics with Newtek for now, fixing CC for 9.6 and up would be a nice gesture.

Greetz

Sensei
08-20-2011, 02:46 PM
Repeating myself dozen times - CC has broken ONLY UVs interpolation..

Breaking edge weights by tools must be fixed in the ALL TOOLS, not in CC code. In other words: have to rewrite whole toolset to do it. Which means it will never be fixed. Because it would be great waste of programmer's time and effort.. which they can spend on much urgent and important features and tools..

If you want to cut CC with edge weighting already applied, just get TrueArt's EasySplit http://easysplit.trueart.pl and problem solved in couple minutes..

Philbert
08-20-2011, 08:47 PM
Repeating myself dozen times - CC has broken ONLY UVs interpolation..

Breaking edge weights by tools must be fixed in the ALL TOOLS, not in CC code. In other words: have to rewrite whole toolset to do it. Which means it will never be fixed. Because it would be great waste of programmer's time and effort.. which they can spend on much urgent and important features and tools..

If you want to cut CC with edge weighting already applied, just get TrueArt's EasySplit http://easysplit.trueart.pl and problem solved in couple minutes..

How can we believe the first part of what you say when part two is an advertisement?

geothefaust
08-21-2011, 01:16 AM
Because it's true, Phil. You don't have to take his word for it, just try modeling in LW with CCs. No really, go ahead. Watch how many tools break the mesh. I actually have easysplit, and it doesn't break the mesh at all. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.


LW has a crap implementation of CCs, that's all there is to it. No need to chastise for the truth.

K-Dawg
08-21-2011, 05:53 AM
The thing is, WHY do I have to look for an expensive plugin to do something that LW should have done natively in the first place?

Truearts has nice plugins no doubt, but I won't buy an expensive plugin just to do things I should be able to do with LW in the first place for which I paid heck a lot of money for. No one buys or builds a house with windows that work, bur don't function correctly just to wait till the builder finally gets his act together to put in better windows, but of course you have to buy that and a new house with it, or just go spend more money to some 3rd party to get the job done the first one should have done right the first time.

Expensive Plugins is not an option for me and actually I don't understand why talking about Blender or other 3rd Parties on Newteks forum is "forbidden" but Truearts may be advertised with every post. No offense there Sensei. I do think you have nice plugins and I use some of the free ones every once in a while (i tend to do what possible with LW native tools or DP).

And sorry but the argument you won't get it cause it means a rewrite of tools and much time consumption... well I think a programmer and a manufacturer should take that in account before throwing something on the market. Get it right and take your time. The sales will benefit from that more rather than keeping it broken for several years and never fix it just to keep delaying the much needed fixes. That costs more than it does for production cause sooner or later people will go to some other tool and again, with such a powerful competitors out there like Modo, Maya, C4D and yes even Blender, newtek can't afford to NOT fix the tolls they way they are ment to be in the first place. 3rd parties may like that so they can sell plugins for a lot of money, but that just shows the industry that LW doesn't have what it takes anymore and benefits the impression Lightwave is just outdated.

Don't get me wrong, I like Lightwave and will use it for whatever I can, but I don't wear pink glasses like many others do, Users or Commercial Plugin Developers.

Greetz

Sensei
08-21-2011, 06:28 AM
The thing is, WHY do I have to look for an expensive plugin to do something that LW should have done natively in the first place?

Truearts has nice plugins no doubt, but I won't buy an expensive plugin just to do things I should be able to do with LW in the first place for which I paid heck a lot of money for. No one buys or builds a house with windows that work, bur don't function correctly just to wait till the builder finally gets his act together to put in better windows, but of course you have to buy that and a new house with it, or just go spend more money to some 3rd party to get the job done the first one should have done right the first time.

Expensive Plugins is not an option for me and actually I don't understand why talking about Blender or other 3rd Parties on Newteks forum is "forbidden" but Truearts may be advertised with every post. No offense there Sensei. I do think you have nice plugins and I use some of the free ones every once in a while (i tend to do what possible with LW native tools or DP).

Time is money. If you will work 1 hour a day longer doing something than with stuff that cost f.e. 100 usd, it'll be 22 hours wasted in month and 264 hours more in a year. Wasted time of your life, not anybody else. Now ask yourself how much do you charge for a hour and multiply..
That's why I try to have the fastest computer and the best internet connection (for now I have 120 Mbps for 700 usd per year)- just because I don't want to waste time of my life waiting for opening f..ed websites and waiting to download something I need right now..



And sorry but the argument you won't get it cause it means a rewrite of tools and much time consumption...

I am just explaining why it won't be fixed..
If I were NewTek, I wouldn't make edge weighting at all, just to save myself clients complains about breaking it by any existing tool..



The sales will benefit from that more rather than keeping it broken for several years and never fix it just to keep delaying the much needed fixes.

Be serious- nobody will buy LW just because CC edge weighting has been fixed.. :D

hrgiger
08-21-2011, 07:11 AM
If I needed a tool to do a job and a third party like Sensei provided it, then I would buy it. If you use LightWave to make money at all, then certainly a plug-in that would make you work easier would be justified. After all, the whole purpose of third party developers is to make add-ons that either do something that the native software can't do, or just do it better. No need to chastize Sensei for trying to make a living.

But of course the problem with LightWave CC's is not just tools breaking them, they're also incredibly slow in LightWave. I haven't done a complete comparison with all software but I know they're so much faster in Modo and XSI. I don't use LightWave CC's except in a few cases.

Now that the plan is to unify LightWave and that they're going to be putting modeling into Layout, I would hope that if there was ever an opportunity for Newtek to improve CC implementation, that time is now. At the very least, they do plan on improving performance of large datasets so maybe they'll perform better.


..
If I were NewTek, I wouldn't put edge weighting at all, just to save myself clients complains about breaking it by any existing tool..


Are you saying that edge weighting is not working in LightWave? Of all the issues with CC's that is not one of them for me.

Sensei
08-21-2011, 07:54 AM
Are you saying that edge weighting is not working in LightWave? Of all the issues with CC's that is not one of them for me.

Edge weighting is working as long as somebody not tries to cut or edit mesh, because the all tools except EasySplit v3.0+ have no idea how to handle edge weighting without destroying it. (of course except move or other simply transforming vertexes)

But people are saying "CC is broken". No, it's not broken. CC source code (except UVs interpolation routine) is fine. It's all existing and 3rd party tools that are not CC edge weighting aware.

Philbert
08-21-2011, 08:24 AM
Oh you're a programmer at NT now? You seem to know what can and can't be fixed quite well. I actually model in CCs quite often, that's why I'm the one who described it's limitations at the beginning of the thread.

Lightwolf
08-21-2011, 08:45 AM
Oh you're a programmer at NT now?
In this case you don't really need to be. Look at the SDK, see what's available and then assume/know that most internal tools and included plugins use the same or a similar SDK - and certainly similar if not identical methods to perform their functions.

One can deduce a lot by mere observation and experimentation.

Cheers,
Mike

Philbert
08-21-2011, 08:58 AM
In this case you don't really need to be. Look at the SDK, see what's available and then assume/know that most internal tools and included plugins use the same or a similar SDK - and certainly similar if not identical methods to perform their functions.

Sorry btw that was aimed at geothefaust, and didn't realize there was another page.

K-Dawg
08-22-2011, 08:57 AM
Time is money. If you will work 1 hour a day longer doing something than with stuff that cost f.e. 100 usd, it'll be 22 hours wasted in month and 264 hours more in a year. Wasted time of your life, not anybody else. Now ask yourself how much do you charge for a hour and multiply..
Money is not everything in life and I had already stated that I do think you have cool plugins and I do acknowledge their use for others. For me plugins are expensive, but I don't use Lightwave for a living either so for me I have to go the hard way and do think, Newtek should Implement the tools correctly in the first place. Nothing more nothing less.


That's why I try to have the fastest computer and the best internet connection (for now I have 120 Mbps for 700 usd per year)- just because I don't want to waste time of my life waiting for opening f..ed websites and waiting to download something I need right now..
Well, I have a decent computer and use it the last 3 years now and it will last the next 2 or more too, but your demands are higher than mine cause you do lots of Software Programming, I do Webdevelopment for a living, hence my demands for a system are different.
I prefer to create Websites that follow webstandards and keep loading time slow than buying a faster machine cause many so called "webmaster" have no clue how to make proper websites :)


I am just explaining why it won't be fixed..
If I were NewTek, I wouldn't make edge weighting at all, just to save myself clients complains about breaking it by any existing tool..
And I just explained the view of a user who BUYS something that promises things but then don't keep it, thats all.

I understand your pov, please try understands others.


Be serious- nobody will buy LW just because CC edge weighting has been fixed.. :D
Haha True :)


If I needed a tool to do a job and a third party like Sensei provided it, then I would buy it. If you use LightWave to make money at all, then certainly a plug-in that would make you work easier would be justified.
Definitely. I don't disagree on that. But people have the right to expect simple tools from the manufacturer to work properly and have them work without Plugins.


After all, the whole purpose of third party developers is to make add-ons that either do something that the native software can't do, or just do it better. No need to chastize Sensei for trying to make a living.
Yes and again, I did never mention that 3rd party plugins are not welcome. If they improve workflow and existing tools or bring in features that were not there then yes bring em on. To BUY plugins to do something the package should do natively in the first place though is what the whole story is about. Thats a different point and a legitimate one.

I'm not chastising Sensei at all.


But of course the problem with LightWave CC's is not just tools breaking them, they're also incredibly slow in LightWave. I haven't done a complete comparison with all software but I know they're so much faster in Modo and XSI. I don't use LightWave CC's except in a few cases.
I can't say. I only use Lightwave and Blender for teaching at a public school. I never used Blender far enough to animate or so though so I can't say, but I do notice that CC in LW compared to Sub-D are slower.


Now that the plan is to unify LightWave and that they're going to be putting modeling into Layout, I would hope that if there was ever an opportunity for Newtek to improve CC implementation, that time is now. At the very least, they do plan on improving performance of large datasets so maybe they'll perform better.
Oh I didn't know that. Maybe I missed the Memo. Sounds good to me. So that's the reason why Newtek trashed Hardcore?


Are you saying that edge weighting is not working in LightWave? Of all the issues with CC's that is not one of them for me.
I know that wasn't to me, but the only Limitation so far with CCs that bug me besides speed is the UV malfunctioning. If that would work, I would be using CCs only :)

Greetz

Sensei
08-22-2011, 09:10 AM
I can't say. I only use Lightwave and Blender for teaching at a public school. I never used Blender far enough to animate or so though so I can't say, but I do notice that CC in LW compared to Sub-D are slower.


Catmull-Clark Sub-Patch is generating ( 2 ^ segments ) ^ 2 polygons. So for segments default 3 it's (2^3)^2 = 8 * 8 = 64 polygons.
Traditional Sub-Patch is generating segmets * segments polygons = 3 * 3 = 9 polygons. That's 7 times less than CC, with the same default settings.
You can adjust it in General Options in Modeler.

K-Dawg
08-22-2011, 09:17 AM
Yup, I know that, thats why when I use CCs I usually don't go higher than lvl 1 in Layout for preview.
In Modler I stay with lvl 2. and lvl 6 for Sub-D.

Still LW (especially Layout) feels kinda slow when using CCs. Might be just me, but thats my experience when using CCs in LW

Greetz

octopus2000
09-14-2011, 06:03 PM
what if newtek just fix modeler's sub patch, maybe create a built in plugin similar to easy split.

hrgiger
09-15-2011, 03:23 AM
what if newtek just fix modeler's sub patch, maybe create a built in plugin similar to easy split.

That would be a cheap fix on Newteks part. There's nothing wrong with LightWave's subpatch mode, unfortunately, it was never designed to work with ngons or use edge weighting. Every other subdivision engine out there supports them, there's really no excuse for Newtek not to have a working version of catmull clark or even Pixar Sub-D's. It's just unfortunate that catmull clark was one of those things that was introduced in LW9 because it sounded real nice in a bullet point, but ultimately became a feature introduced thusby serving its pupose and Newtek never looked back on it. It took them quite a few years if I recall to even get proper UV interpolation for LightWave sub-D's so maybe eventually Newtek will fix or re-implement catmull clark.

probiner
09-15-2011, 05:05 AM
That would be a cheap fix on Newteks part. There's nothing wrong with LightWave's subpatch mode, unfortunately, it was never designed to work with ngons or use edge weighting. Every other subdivision engine out there supports them, there's really no excuse for Newtek not to have a working version of catmull clark or even Pixar Sub-D's. It's just unfortunate that catmull clark was one of those things that was introduced in LW9 because it sounded real nice in a bullet point, but ultimately became a feature introduced thusby serving its pupose and Newtek never looked back on it. It took them quite a few years if I recall to even get proper UV interpolation for LightWave sub-D's so maybe eventually Newtek will fix or re-implement catmull clark.

This. I can get around of being forced to redo my weighting when I cut something and it screws it up, even if it's not production friendly. But not being able to UV map it properly it completely throws CC out of the window in texturing situations.

Also LW CC doesn't allow you to have hard edges on open edges. 93101

Lewis
09-15-2011, 06:20 AM
Also LW CC doesn't allow you to have hard edges on open edges. 93101

Report it to Fogbugz. The more the better :D.

jwiede
09-15-2011, 05:36 PM
Also LW CC doesn't allow you to have hard edges on open edges. 93101
I find the LW CC hard/open edge issue much more bothersome than the UV issue (though I do find the UV issue annoying as well). It means there are valid CC sub-d shapes that simply cannot be brought accurately into LW, which is a pretty big deal, IMO.

LW's utility as an "external renderer" is directly tied to the ability to move content into Layout, and manipulate it there. The CC sub-d situation has a significant negative impact on import capability, esp. given the parallel issues dealing with high-poly geometry scenes, etc.

I really hope Newtek does something about the CC sub-d situation, and does so soon. It isn't just hurting folks who use LW for modeling.

octopus2000
09-15-2011, 06:29 PM
when i use CC the modeler main screen slows down. i don't think i can use it effectively.