Ratha (Indian Chariot) Project
- Thread starter Blue Monkey
- Start date
The Blender 2.49b release log has something called projection painting:
Do you know anything about this? I'm still using 2.49a.
Painting in the 3D view has been improved to support projection painting which allows you to paint directly onto your model without having to worry about UV mapping or seams.
Do you know anything about this? I'm still using 2.49a.
Blue Monkey
Archon Without Portfolio
Congrats on passing that academic hurdle. I'm following your work on static models with interest. There are a lot of opportunities for city sets (etc.) that you may want to take advantage of. apparently while I was off celebrating the annual burn meat and blow something up festival the BCS team overcame the burglary-related road-block & I've got some work stacked up.800 faces? Nothing else?
So, how's it going? I managed to get past Semiotics (the correction criteria are dreadfully low) so, well... I'm making walls and gates for now.
I'm starting the effort to shift my daily schedule to accommodate both an increased work-load & dedicated time for personal projects like this and my scenario work.
Your post is the first I've heard of it. I've now downloaded the newest version. Projection painting looks like an effective tool for working with objects that have complex textures. The shrink-wrap feature may be of use in making clothes for the paper doll as well as other models.
Have you made any progress in sorting out the few remaining problems with the model?
So you got the work gig, congrats!!!
Oh waitz... you've been burgled?
That looks interesting, but it'd help if they also uploaded which keys and mouse buttons they were pressing!Blue Monkey said:
Guess I'll have to do a backup+install tomorrow morning and find some tutorials, too.
Yes sir!!!
- The mystery line is still mysterious, but I've detected an internal face causing at least part of the problem:
And, once that face is removed and the surrounding lines re-merged, it's gone:
(wireframe view does miracles)
The best thing is, I didn't create another mystery line in deleting the original ones!
- The yoking poke is gone now:
Now, as for the weapons' size... what do you want to do? Make new weapons or thicken up the existing By what factor?
Blue Monkey
Archon Without Portfolio
One of the peculiarities of going from intern to employee in the middle of a project is sorting out compensation & negotiating contracts. Naturally the day I showed up ready to broach the topic is the morning everyone was in a daze because the night before a crew selectively cleaned out the entire 5 story building where we sublet a tiny office & a couple of cubicles. Ball-park figure: $500,000 in high-end equipment gone from the building. The $10,000 worth stolen from us was all purchased by the partners at their own expense to jump-start the company, so there are no funds to get fully up to speed again before the insurance settlement. Fortunately all files existed elsewhere & most of us have home machines (except for the people who left their laptops in the office overnight).
The final 25% of work on the sword* was looking for miniscule hidden faces and individual vertices that were overlaid rather than combined. They were causing a big chunk of the problems with the normals. The other part was normals that were inverted in mirroring parts of the model. The kind of sweat equity you've put in is the real way to learn a complex tool.
Definitely keep the weapons you've made. Someway back I mentioned fattening them up like the weapons available for the PDM. Uthahjazz7's bow or sword, for example. Just bring them into blender for comparison beside your weapons. I think you'll see how to thicken what you've made in the appropriate dimensions. There are additional props available by others if you need further comparisons.
*Sword as used in company promo for a class taught by my boss
Spoiler :
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGHHH!!!!Well, could have been worse.
Don't I know it...Blue Monkey said:
If you look at the wireframe pics in the 3d thread, you'll see that there's a lot of internal faces that get deleted -not very noticeable in the previews because of overlapping lines- and it also helps keeping the file size down.
I see... well, first I'll have to dig into the 2.49b upgrade (I don't have the guts to go all the way to 2.5 alpha yet) and then I'll try comparing them...Blue Monkey said:
Blue Monkey
Archon Without Portfolio
The best I can suggest is to experiment with them. To quote blender.org: "Collapse can be used to reduce set of topologically connected edges or faces to a single vertex." Merge at center, as suggested, places the resulting vertex at the center of the XYZ spatial relationship of the merged vertices. I was taught to merge, never to collapse. I think collapse might be useful because selection could be in edge or face mode, rather than selecting vertex by vertex.
Blue Monkey
Archon Without Portfolio
You don't say much about the poly count or what was selected. Try with selecting vertices & the same object with faces - 4 trials altogether since you'd merge verts, collapse verts, merge faces, collapse faces. Maybe they accomplish the same thing - maybe there is some subtle difference that only becomes apparent with more complex situations.
Well, that was collapsing a single vertex ring. The only difference I've been able to spot is that when collapsing you remove extra vertices, even though the result is apparently very much the same.
It's 319 for collapsing, and 320 for collapsing (one single ring, 320 vertices... I wanted to divide the vertical edges to be able to divide into more sections, but i apparently divided everything
).
When merging two rings, two consecutive rings, at center, I removed 640 vertices, but when collapsing the same rings it removed 960 vertices, exactly 50% more.
When merging three rings, however, I removed 960 vertices but collapsing them removed 1600 vertices.
It's 319 for collapsing, and 320 for collapsing (one single ring, 320 vertices... I wanted to divide the vertical edges to be able to divide into more sections, but i apparently divided everything
).When merging two rings, two consecutive rings, at center, I removed 640 vertices, but when collapsing the same rings it removed 960 vertices, exactly 50% more.
When merging three rings, however, I removed 960 vertices but collapsing them removed 1600 vertices.
Blue Monkey
Archon Without Portfolio
Need the wheel/axle assembly separate to proceed.
http://foorumi.haistapaska.com/images/smilies/WTH.gif… right-o. That's very easy to do. In Edit Mode, select the wheels and axles, leave them selecte, go into Object Mode, duplicate the object (Shift+D in Windows, not sure about the Mac version), move it away, back into Edit Mode, invert selection (Ctrl+I in Windows) delete all vertices, go back to the original object's Edit Mode, delete the wheels and axles. Presto pronto!
Blue Monkey
Archon Without Portfolio
So I guess that the model maker can produce a version ready for uv maps & animation without too much trouble.
Blue Monkey
Archon Without Portfolio
Quoted for truth:
With an additional reminder that you are the model maker. It's up to you to finish the model. I've said before that my creative priorities are (1) job (2) steampunk project (3) my own projects. ATM that pretty much means there's only time for a little bit of (2) and none at all for (3). If you want me to finish your model for you then that's going to be in the 3rd category.So I guess that the model maker can produce a version ready for uv maps & animation without too much trouble.
Blue Monkey
Archon Without Portfolio
That's the way I understand what utahjazz7 said. I don't think the pennant needs to be seperate since its movement can be handled as part of the armature for the main body. I'd recommend keeping it simple by doing two pieces: a front wheels + axle & a rear wheels + axle. That way only two more things to animate. Then I think it's ready to seam & layout the uv map. If you don't want to tackle that just post the model. I will get to it. Eventually. It's a critical unit for my mod.
Similar threads
