Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 46 to 60 of 60

Thread: The 3D | Edge Bevel, Shift, Inset, Chamfer | Thread

  1. #46
    Electron wrangler jwiede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    7,214
    Quote Originally Posted by erikals View Post
    'bit on the fence when it comes to LWCad Mass Rounder, the docs are quite limited.
    and i was told Mass Rounder had gotten an update, though never saw any further info on it.
    I'm seeing some questionable behavior from LWCAD's Round in 5.2 (on LW2015.3 MacUB64). Should Round be able to deal with concave edge junctions as either poly or NURBS type? Here, any sort of concave edge junction is left as an empty hole (happens regardless of fillet/chamfer/blend), where convex edge junctions are filled with either poly or NURBS "grid" geometry as expected. Does LWCAD 5.2's Round behave the same way on Windows w.r.t. concave edge junctions?

    I'm also a bit surprised that edge-centric tools like Round require me to manually select all edges in the tool each time, won't accept LW edge selections as input, and offer no provision for saving/loading selections. With complex edge selections, the last thing I want is to have to reselect them over and over per tool. I understand LW lacks adequate edge support for stuff like saving edge selection sets, but as LWCAD is clearly tracking edge selections internally, seem like it could easily provide a mechanism for edge selection sets (and conversion to/from LW edge selections). I'll have to email Viktor and ask about that, as manual selection by tool without reusability is both inefficient and raises risk of errors.

    -----

    As for the notion that LWCAD Round is "close to" C4D's Bevel, I have to strongly disagree with that, particularly from a workflow/usability angle. C4D's Bevel tool is significantly easier and more efficient to use IMO (incl. context hinting/help), plus allows working with edge selections as input, etc. It works for a broader set of scenarios (incl. concave junctions), and offers much more control over how junction grid geometry is generated. Also, C4D's Bevel is scriptable, comes in both tool and deformer variants, and can be driven by Xpresso (C4D's nodes). On the surface they're similar, but in the details I believe C4D's Bevel wins easily.

    Don't get me wrong, I _love_ LWCAD, and am always deeply impressed by what Viktor's accomplished with it given the LWSDK limitations. I just think that ultimately, those LWSDK limitations create a number of significant usability and workflow issues in LWCAD's tool UX (as well as LW's own tools' UX). That's not Viktor's fault, obviously. Nonetheless, when _directly_ comparing LW or LWCAD tools against specific tools in other 3D pkgs, those usability and workflow advantages are quite visible and significant. LW's GUI/UX limitations impact plugins like LWCAD as much as LW itself.
    Last edited by jwiede; 02-02-2017 at 06:38 PM.
    John W.
    LW2015.3UB/2019.1.5 on MacPro(12C/24T/10.13.6),64GB RAM, NV 980ti

  2. #47

    thank you, this is good info.
    i hope Viktor can take it further, rounding in general is such a time-consuming task.
    LW vidz   DPont donate   LW Facebook   IKBooster   My vidz

  3. #48
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Barcelona, Spain
    Posts
    585
    Quote Originally Posted by jwiede View Post
    I'm seeing some questionable behavior from LWCAD's Round in 5.2 (on LW2015.3 MacUB64). Should Round be able to deal with concave edge junctions as either poly or NURBS type? Here, any sort of concave edge junction is left as an empty hole (happens regardless of fillet/chamfer/blend), where convex edge junctions are filled with either poly or NURBS "grid" geometry as expected. Does LWCAD 5.2's Round behave the same way on Windows w.r.t. concave edge junctions?

    I'm also a bit surprised that edge-centric tools like Round require me to manually select all edges in the tool each time, won't accept LW edge selections as input, and offer no provision for saving/loading selections. With complex edge selections, the last thing I want is to have to reselect them over and over per tool. I understand LW lacks adequate edge support for stuff like saving edge selection sets, but as LWCAD is clearly tracking edge selections internally, seem like it could easily provide a mechanism for edge selection sets (and conversion to/from LW edge selections). I'll have to email Viktor and ask about that, as manual selection by tool without reusability is both inefficient and raises risk of errors.

    -----

    As for the notion that LWCAD Round is "close to" C4D's Bevel, I have to strongly disagree with that, particularly from a workflow/usability angle. C4D's Bevel tool is significantly easier and more efficient to use IMO (incl. context hinting/help), plus allows working with edge selections as input, etc. It works for a broader set of scenarios (incl. concave junctions), and offers much more control over how junction grid geometry is generated. Also, C4D's Bevel is scriptable, comes in both tool and deformer variants, and can be driven by Xpresso (C4D's nodes). On the surface they're similar, but in the details I believe C4D's Bevel wins easily.

    Don't get me wrong, I _love_ LWCAD, and am always deeply impressed by what Viktor's accomplished with it given the LWSDK limitations. I just think that ultimately, those LWSDK limitations create a number of significant usability and workflow issues in LWCAD's tool UX (as well as LW's own tools' UX). That's not Viktor's fault, obviously. Nonetheless, when _directly_ comparing LW or LWCAD tools against specific tools in other 3D pkgs, those usability and workflow advantages are quite visible and significant. LW's GUI/UX limitations impact plugins like LWCAD as much as LW itself.
    You can select all edges with control+click on empty space, and then with shift+LMB you can round entire object. Is not perfect. I agree that needs some work, but is a good tool to have with lightwave.

    The problem is that we're comparing the software with a much more expensive package, although you have prime edition (700€+vat), this is really limited compared to lightwave at the same price (moreless), IMHO. Full package costs 3000€+vat (in Spain).

    Regards
    English is not my native language so please be patient.

    Salvador Ureña
    http://urenasalvador.wixsite.com/portfolio

  4. #49
    Super Member spherical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    San Juan Island
    Posts
    4,686
    Quote Originally Posted by jwiede View Post
    I'm also a bit surprised that edge-centric tools like Round require me to manually select all edges in the tool each time, won't accept LW edge selections as input, and offer no provision for saving/loading selections. With complex edge selections, the last thing I want is to have to reselect them over and over per tool. I understand LW lacks adequate edge support for stuff like saving edge selection sets, but as LWCAD is clearly tracking edge selections internally, seem like it could easily provide a mechanism for edge selection sets (and conversion to/from LW edge selections). I'll have to email Viktor and ask about that, as manual selection by tool without reusability is both inefficient and raises risk of errors.
    Agreed. Very frustrating, tedious and error prone. Thought that I may have missed a tutorial or manual section addressing improvements in 5. Problem I've encountered is that the "fuzzy" area surrounding the cursor is still too large (better in this regard in 5 than 4 was), such that when manually selecting series of edges and you miss one, go back to get it and end up deselecting adjacent edges. Turns into a whack-a-mole game. Only way to be accurate is to zoom way in. On a dense mesh this becomes even more tedious.
    Blown Glass · Carbon Fiber + Imagination

    Spherical Magic | We Build Cool Stuff!

    "When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." - Mark Twain

  5. #50
    Super Member spherical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    San Juan Island
    Posts
    4,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Asticles View Post
    You can select all edges with control+click on empty space, and then with shift+LMB you can round entire object.
    In 4 at least, all you had to do was click and drag in the viewport to round the whole object. Selecting all edges isn't the issue. Selecting a Loop, for example, is.
    Blown Glass · Carbon Fiber + Imagination

    Spherical Magic | We Build Cool Stuff!

    "When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." - Mark Twain

  6. #51
    Electron wrangler jwiede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    7,214
    Quote Originally Posted by spherical View Post
    Agreed. Very frustrating, tedious and error prone.
    Exactly. I sent Viktor a feature request last night about how to improve edge selection management in LWCAD 5.x (briefly, LWCAD-internal named edge selection sets, and ability to import/export to LW native edge selections, as well as persist to file). Hopefully he implements it, or something like it, soon. Should be doable from an LWSDK perspective, at least. LW doesn't really support native "edge selection sets", so I believe it'd also increase LWCAD's overall "feature value" to LW.

    I also have an idea for systemic help/hinting display for tools, which might help address the general GUI lack of tooltips/etc. I'm trying to put together an extensible prototype where third-party plugins could easily integrate their own tips/hints as part of their plugin install. Problem is weighing effort against limited commercial market potential, but I think I can keep it lightweight enough to be worthwhile.
    Last edited by jwiede; 02-03-2017 at 05:54 PM.
    John W.
    LW2015.3UB/2019.1.5 on MacPro(12C/24T/10.13.6),64GB RAM, NV 980ti

  7. #52
    Axes grinder- Dongle #99
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    14,741
    To store Edge selections, I use Point Sets. While you can get ambiguous results in converting from Points to Edges (using Sel Edges), for the most part it is adequate. Adequate, not good.
    They only call it 'class warfare' when we fight back.
    Praise to Buddha! #resist
    Chard's Credo-"Documentation is PART of the Interface"
    Film the cops. Always FILM THE COPS. Use this app.

  8. #53
    Well... Many of these wishes of mine have been fulfilled in some shape in Houdini... Not all is perfect, but it's getting there:
    https://streamable.com/obcec

  9. #54
    RETROGRADER prometheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    sweden stockholm
    Posts
    17,389
    Quote Originally Posted by probiner View Post
    Well... Many of these wishes of mine have been fulfilled in some shape in Houdini... Not all is perfect, but it's getting there:
    https://streamable.com/obcec
    Sweet.

  10. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by probiner View Post
    Well... Many of these wishes of mine have been fulfilled in some shape in Houdini... Not all is perfect, but it's getting there:
    https://streamable.com/obcec
    LW vidz   DPont donate   LW Facebook   IKBooster   My vidz

  11. #56
    Super Member samurai_x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    lalaland
    Posts
    1,231
    Quote Originally Posted by probiner View Post
    Well... Many of these wishes of mine have been fulfilled in some shape in Houdini... Not all is perfect, but it's getting there:
    https://streamable.com/obcec
    Looks like meshfusion in modo.

  12. #57
    Quite different.
    Imagine I would give you the top right mesh that you can see in LW there: http://prntscr.com/edy9yq and I would ask you to give me back a 1-skin mesh for the the polygons that intersect. You would have to do it one polygon island at a time and at most you could do a script where it would use the boolean operation per polygon island (((A Union B) Union C) Union D....) and it would be ok'ish. But even then it would fail in one case: When a polygon island self intersects, which Houdini Boolean also solves: http://prntscr.com/edycxu

    What is done next it's just a selection of the less flat edges and chamfer them to hold subdivision.


    This said, it's not all perfect, but this boolean tool is really really good.

  13. #58
    Super Member samurai_x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    lalaland
    Posts
    1,231
    is it? If the goal is the messy mesh on the top right to the dense mesh on the lower right, meshfusion can do that.
    Maybe blender hardops, too.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NvM...kDmdB_ZpOcWSOU

  14. #59
    I could be wrong but no, because the meshes have to be in different objects in order to be combined, you have to pay the price of splitting them through layers (Which admittedly it's easier in Modo and Blender than in LW) and then boolean them in sequence. You can't have that bunch of polygons in a single layer or object and have it output a single outter skin. More over I'm guessing that if you pass a self intersecting mesh through mesh fusion it won't self-cut like this one: http://prnt.sc/edycxu

    I'm not saying this is better that this or that solution but that it does produce results that are useful for things I need and so it's a great addition to the world of 3D tools available.

  15. #60
    Super Member samurai_x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    lalaland
    Posts
    1,231
    Single layer or object and have it output a single outer skin, not in meshfusion. They have to be in separate layers and assigned as additive, subtractive, etc. Non destructive like Groboto. Well it is Groboto inside modo after all.

    Self intersecting mesh that cuts and welds itself would be useful for doing architectural structures. Wish we had macros in lightwave to do that.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •