The long wait for Nurbana Nervana

General discussion about the development of the open source Blender

Moderators: jesterKing, stiv

Post Reply
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 4:25 am

The long wait for Nurbana Nervana

Post by gsusfreek » Sat Jun 19, 2004 5:07 pm

I am getting very excited about the addition of Nurbana to blender. Though I have never seen or used Nurbana, if it can do half of the things that Maya can do, it will be an AWESOME addition to Blender....

This leads me to the question: does anyone yet have a general guess as to when Nurbana will be integrated into blender?

Posts: 0
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 11:04 pm

Post by cekuhnen » Mon Jun 21, 2004 3:20 am

well maya comes from alias so it is based on a nurbs kernel.
since blender is not it is NURBS but not industry strength nurbs!

but anyway i would love to see some improved nurbs tools in blender!


Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 9:47 am

Post by pa_furijaz » Mon Jun 21, 2004 10:52 am

Also I, waited for this from much time! I, Hope to see, soon, this integration!

Site Admin
Posts: 207
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2002 12:48 pm
Location: Finland

Post by jesterKing » Mon Jun 21, 2004 11:07 am

The author is busy with real-life commitments, but the last time I heard from him he gave the impression that this year he'll at least start at it.


Posts: 0
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 11:04 pm

Post by cekuhnen » Wed Jun 23, 2004 3:57 pm

since blender is not a CAD app and the subdivsurf are getting better in blender i think nurbs could be ignored slowly. onyl when we get stitching fillets and trim surfaces into blender than hell it rocks again!


Posts: 143
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2002 8:35 pm

Post by Dani » Wed Jun 23, 2004 11:41 pm

cekuhnen: so there's no point in ignoring them eh? since by ignoring them they would get no dvlpmt, so no trim, filet, blend etc... so they'd never rock...

I mean: go nurbs! blender needs them too!


Posts: 0
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 11:04 pm

Post by cekuhnen » Sat Jun 26, 2004 5:29 am

what i mean is that blenders nurbs tools are pretty much a toy compared to other solutions. today professional cad systems are based on industry strnegght nurbs kernels quite often.

i do not mean to ignore them but first i would get blenders poly modeler more powerfull. think about what blender is mainly used for and that is not CAD.

NURBS today is hardly used for character modeling anymore since sds repaced it with many advantages. in maya building a head out of nurbs patches and stiching them together caused quite often render problems and you dont have this with sds today.

Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 9:48 am

Post by Koba » Sat Jun 26, 2004 11:10 am


I followed Nurbana while it was around and I too have been waiting for its integration. Doesn't look like anyone has the time to work on it at the moment.

The thing is the last Nurbana release was quite limited. The major thing it lacked were trimming curves. It said on the site that trimming curves were 90% complete for the next release (which never happened).

Does anyone know if the donated Nurbana code has fully implemented trimming curves? Is so it may well be worth integrating. Nurbana also had a couple other nice features if I remember correctly. Blender doesn't have trimming curves, am I right?


Posts: 0
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 11:04 pm

Post by cekuhnen » Sat Jun 26, 2004 12:32 pm

no blender does not have a trim function!

nurbs in blender is more a construction aid like in c4d for extrusion and lathe and loft. but what i find cool in blender´s nurbs is that they already have weights for cvs similar to creasing edges for sds.


Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 9:09 pm

Post by sedgetone » Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:51 am

I was wondering if any progress has been made on the Nurbana integration? I must admit to not really using nurbs for the last two years, I'm only now starting to really use them. Trimming would be a really nice addition to the current nurbs tool kit.


Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 8:54 pm


Post by bfvietnam » Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:26 pm

well nurbs is pretty much a dead end street for animation work,
as to make a character you need fillet surfaces which are not parameteric surfaces like NURBS, so they have to be retesselated/recomputed every "freaking time" you move the NURBS connecting the fillets.

The reason, I believe, blender's surfaces are not really NURBS is that they lack the non-uniform part of the NURBS definition.. At least intuitively that's how I understood NURBS. I could set the degree of continuity at the isoparm. In blender the best you can do is increase the weight of a row of cv's (which is what an isoparm is). Unless you have experience with a NURBS modeller, I can't really communicate the difference intuitively.

Blender's current surface support would do better if it used CV's on surfaces than surface hulls.. Even with the surface hulls, it would do better if the primitives used consistent wieghting, all 1.0 weights versus the way it is now with the sphere primitive. Issue: weighting versus CV placement. If the primtives could be generated from a construction panel, like make a sphere with 30x20 isoparms, that would be better. The current primitives are useless. I have to generate my own primitives from scratch.

What is cool about blender's surfaces is they are already tesselated to polygons (wysiwyg), so you can see the parameterization directly. When you are satisfied with the tesselation, you can convert to polygons with alt-c. I use it more often as a quick way to flesh out polygon structures.

But, you will notice that the weighting has an effect on the tesselation, so the default blender sphere pin-cushions at the CV's with higher weights.. That makes the resulting tesslated polygons (after a alt-c) harder to deal with. Unless you like inconsistently spaced quads (who does?).. However, its good that it tesselates along the U and the V, it would suck if blender used an adaptive tesselation (distance based polygon reduction) like some NURBS modellers do.

Another thing you will notice of NURBS, or surfaces, is that they store in less space than polygons.. This is true of anything NURBS. Even subdivision surfaces have continuity problems that make them unstuiable for CAD purposes, and so to compensate with subdivision surfaces you need more data points than you would with NURBS (making the files larger). NURBS, because of their simplicity, make smaller files. It would be better to use NURBS for online gaming than polyon based models. In time, the graphics cards will be better equipped to tesselate NURBS/Subdivision surfaces down to polygons in realtime, resulting is smoother looking chracters with infinitely smooth faces and arms.
Last edited by bfvietnam on Fri Jan 07, 2005 4:50 pm, edited 7 times in total.

Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 6:41 pm

Post by joeri » Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:32 pm

I like nurbs. They let me decide on tesselation when I'm done modeling, and start to render.

Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 6:41 pm

Post by joeri » Fri Jan 07, 2005 4:41 pm

bfvietnam wrote: probably why a lot of recent car designs look like one surface than a bunch of distinct surfaces
Cars are designed on paper, with a pen. Or in a draw program.
Engineers convert the drawings to computer models and have no say in design. (At least in the industrial design studio I work).

Maya does not use fillets anymore but stitching (same ripping problems with wrong tesselation settings). Sds is far superiour in organic models.
But making a 3dTV look like a TV is far more easier with nurbs.

And there is another issue. With good nurbs support in blender it would be possible to import pro-e files and use those without first making a poly model.
Last edited by joeri on Sat Jan 08, 2005 11:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 3:52 am
Location: Northampton, MA (US)

Post by slikdigit » Sat Jan 08, 2005 3:03 am

that would be cool. I've done an import recently from work (pro-e to blender) and a lot of information is lost in the translation.

Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 3:33 pm

Post by mjordan » Mon Jan 10, 2005 4:18 pm

I'm not informed about what NURBANA is.
Some link to read? I read that source code for Nurbana has been donated to Blender.
Where this source code is? Is someone working on this stuff?

Thank you.


Post Reply