[NURBS] Why don't we talk about tools? : )

Dani · Post by **Dani** » Fri Oct 25, 2002 10:55 pm

Hi guys!

I beleive this is where tool proposals should be posted and discussed... no?
Well here is one! :

Since the emergeance of subsurfaces, nurbs and all their advantages have been left away. In blender they are extremly fast and intuitive: i use them to create human models by starting with nurbs ( i model the whole torso in nurbs) and then I switch to subsurfaces. But nurbs can be used in a lot of different things, not only organic modelling... but they would need trimming, two-rail sweeping and other tools.
It's a shame the nurbs modelling part has been left aside because with blender's interface and those few tools above, Rhino would have problems...

it could really kick asses. You've already tasted blender's polygon modelling capacties? imagine that applied to nurbs!
It would also open blender to the industrial world...

Well anyway, this is just an idea
i'm no coder and i'm flammable

so pliiise, no flames

Dani

voidptr · Post by **voidptr** » Fri Oct 25, 2002 11:32 pm

Interesting ideas. But just saying, 'I'd like this tool from this package' is not as helpfull as it seems. Many people don't have several different packages and even if they did they may not have the one your talking about.

I'm not trying to attack you

I just want to bring out a general problem in open source development. As a user that wants new tools in the sotware the more detail you can give the better.

If anyone is trying to get a new tool built please try to build a mock up. I'm not saying program something but a picture is worth 1000 words. Put together some use cases & show how the work flows. Try to think about how the tool looks and acts. The more detail you give the more likely you are to have a programmer take up your case.

I'm all for the idea asking for new tools, it's how to get a good product. Push the developers. However, it takes more than a few lines of code to add a new tool.

Keep the ideas coming,
voidptr

Tru-d · Post by **Tru-d** » Sun Oct 27, 2002 11:13 pm

Hello everyone

Well, nurbs are already in Blender plus curve too (specially for logo) !!
Yep, many confusion with nurbs are some part between organic modelling and primitive object modelling (like car, house, driving machinery, etc..), it look more math system than tool like subsurface who adding vertex then subdivide for detail. Anyway subsurf work better because it's fast and more realtime as same in direction from workflow where speed keep up always. Nubrs has advantage in certain point but it take time to think what orientation go first and what priority to connect first and then can fail if it doesn't work properly...

I don't say it is bad but subsurface give a great flexible or even better to create complex and of course unlike nurbs it can never fail when u add tri or quad polygon

Like u said two-rail, sweep, etc, is very good but imagine in subsurf support that way more convivial and efficient !!!

Tru-d

Dani · Post by **Dani** » Mon Oct 28, 2002 4:24 pm

Hi!

I find blender's nurbs really fast especially when you know some shotcuts such as SHIFT+R. A rather highly detailed torso is blended in less than twenty minutes with rationnal use of the Us or Vs to loft your way through the surface.
The problem about choosing the right direction to start is would not be a problem anymore with trimming and blending facilities.
Nurbs offer the huge advantage of having UV coordinates already assigned to them. Plus they're extremly light, have infinite résolution unlike subsurfaces too, and rationnal structure so there are no shading problems as might occur with subsurfaces.
Subsurfaces, polygon modelling in general would need improvement too! Edge loops and rings selections, knife tools...

I also beleive SubSurfaces and Nurbs are intricately complementary.

Really, nurbs are great! giv'em a try. They would hugely benefit from Blender's way of doing things... I could help with interface problems, how to make tools easy to use... I've got some ideas, but for the coding part I'm crap.

ermmm... that's it for now

have a nice blend!
Dani

Tru-d · Post by **Tru-d** » Mon Oct 28, 2002 10:17 pm

The problem about choosing the right direction to start is would not be a problem anymore with trimming and blending facilities.

Possible but nurbs work like "separate" so at inverse to subsurf are more "closed and accurate" whose conduct marvellously with animation.

Nurbs offer the huge advantage of having UV coordinates already assigned to them. Plus they're extremly light, have infinite résolution unlike subsurfaces too, and rationnal structure so there are no shading problems as might occur with subsurfaces.

Haha ! I don't see incovenience, subsurf is extremely light too because at starting this is lowpoly which don't need to worry about of the complexity and it work both Uv and shading as well. It doesn't originally for infinite resolution only, that why to level of subdivision up to 12 are heavily recommended also that explain no need more smooth than smooth again otherwise it look like nurbs. It is specially both for lowpoly and highpoly...

Subsurfaces, polygon modelling in general would need improvement too! Edge loops and rings selections, knife tools...

I am looking forward this feature loP

Really, nurbs are great! giv'em a try. They would hugely benefit from Blender's way of doing things... I could help with interface problems, how to make tools easy to use... I've got some ideas, but for the coding part I'm crap.

Apart from nubrs, can you say me what are these disadvantages ?

Tru-d

Dani · Post by **Dani** » Tue Oct 29, 2002 2:26 pm

Quote:
Really, nurbs are great! giv'em a try. They would hugely benefit from Blender's way of doing things... I could help with interface problems, how to make tools easy to use... I've got some ideas, but for the coding part I'm crap.

Apart from nubrs, can you say me what are these disadvantages ?

hehe!
read twice! the sentence's construction might be a little original (i'm french, not english) but it means that NURBS WOULD BENEFIT from Blender's workflow. and not that blender has more disadvantages.

And I meant how to make the futur nurbs tools easy to use. (I should have read twice too

-->

But have you ever tried nurbs? have you? I use both and I garantee that nurbs modelling is fast because of the rationnal structure.
I've tried Rhino and found out how powerful nurbs were but what a pain that interface is! far from being intuitive! blender's would suite the task way better.

Nurbs work as surfaces that you can trim and blend together with other surfaces so when you make an object you actually create a polysurface. Is this what you were talking about? If you meen that while animating the surfaces might detach, this is plain non-sense (I don't meen you're stupid! no! no! not at all!

(peace) ) it's like saying that mesh object's faces would break apart when animating.

You must have some outstanding piece of computer power to set the sub-d level at 12!!! and have you tried it within blender (don't know if it acts the same in other progs) but when you push the level, smooth details sharpen and conduct to nasty stuff in organic modelling for example.
Also! The subsurfaces stills needs to be created at some moment... no? since it's polygon it's Extremely RAM expensive and eats also some CPU. Nurbs occupy a lot less RAM (though some more CPU).

Have you ever tried to UV map a human? gosh! it's awfully complicated with mesh because you have to tell the program how to do it: he doesn't know! Once it's unfolded the right way, then you can say that your object has UV coordinates assigned to them.
Nurbs have the UV coordinates already assigned to each surface. So one object will unfold into N parts (N corresponding to the nuber of surfaces) and the unfolded objet will most probably have a rectangular general shape.

Anyway! Any cool 3D program must be able to deal with nurbs because the do have there use in the 3d industry (If you want an example: they were used for some shots in the Matrix and I wouldn't be surprised it was used in other productions)

Dani

[EDIT]: This shouldn't be limited to a subsurface-vs-nurbs debate. We shouldn't even have to argue so much! The implementation of more tools in blender shouldn't be discussed because a new tool always offers more possibilities ans widens the user base. Some like nurbs some don't, must we force non-subsurf users to switch to subsurfs, they won't bother! they'll move on!... And, yeah, there's always a work around so that tool doesn't need to be implemented! See what I mean? Everything should be done so that the user disposes of that feature quickly: I know how how to do cel shading within blender (the italian version of a tute I wrote is on kino's site- gosh! I forgot to do something!!!), but I'd be great if the user would only have to select a CelShading texture and just tweak it as he likes. And i wouldn't hear that that's for lazy people! it's for people who haven't got any time to lose.
What should be discussed is "how to implement it?" "how to make it easy to use?" no? [/EDIT]

angelo · Post by **angelo** » Tue Oct 29, 2002 7:54 pm

Subsurfs are very good , but I want more nurbs in Blender . Like you Dani .

MrMunkily · Post by **MrMunkily** » Tue Oct 29, 2002 9:41 pm

we need, to start:

Trimming
Blending
Recaluclating numbers of knots wihtout shape deformation. Very Important.
CSG
pants....

Jamesk · Post by **Jamesk** » Tue Oct 29, 2002 11:10 pm

If someone is capable of fixing surface blending with NURBS - go ahead, I'd be happy as a clown! That's the only really big issue with the current implementation, imo.

patrice · Post by **patrice** » Wed Oct 30, 2002 1:31 am

I have posted sveral messages about nurbs development in the future
blender releases, but it seemed that nobody cared.
I am glad to see thats not the case!

About the question about which of subsurfs and nurbs are the 'best', I would
reply that they don't have the same goal. We often hear/read about subsurfs
superiority, but in many cases I do think nurbs are faster, more precise, and more
intuitive.
Imagine you want do modell your mouse in its exact proportions and
size. You want to model the holes in between the buttons and the body, the
joints in between the several plastic parts too.
Using nurbs tools leads to fast work, only a few curves, having a few points need
to be edited.
Unlike with subsurfs, the curves you edit actually match the shape of the final object ( e.g working with
background pictures of your mouse ). With subsurfs, you need to imagine what the final
object will be, and it will only be an approximation.
Using nurbs trimming and other boolean operations, making the holes for the buttons
in the surface would just take a few minutes ( think about what it is with meshes ) .
In the case were you decide to change the initial shape of the main mouse's surface,
no need to do the 'percing' job again: the holes will follow the new shape, as they still
are children of their original curves.

I really think nurbs tools are irremplaceable for certain types of modelling, expecially
if precision and fidelity to a real shape is wanted. One should remember for what
kind of work they were created: originally they were introduced in industrial CAD/CAO
softs, where maximal precision and productivity is needed.

Of course converting nurbs to meshes or to subsurfs would really by usefull too.

Unfortunately I am unable to code such things... I am just triing to
plaid for the 3d artists cause! We do need nurbs !

I read about a GPL library, named libnurbs++ it can be found at

ftp.linux.co.uk/pub/debian/pool/main/n/nurbs++/

Many people have been working on nurbs for GPL programs such as Moonlight Atelier
or innovation 3d , so that there could be found stuff for it there.
None of these programs have the state of advancement, nor the features of blender.

I think adding to blender nurbs tools such as birail, skin, loft, bevel, curves projections,
booleans operations, would make of it a serious concurrence to commercial apps
such as Maya and others unaffordable monsters.

I hope some coders would recieve our complaint!

Patrice

polypa@free.fr

patrice · Post by **patrice** » Thu Oct 31, 2002 1:21 pm

As I previously said, as a coder, I am zero.
But I found an interesting link for people who would be interested in coding
nurbs tools for blender.
This consist of a GPL licensed nurbs toolbox, presented as :
"The NURBS toolbox is collection of routines for the creation, and manipulation
of Non-Uniform Rational B-Splines (NURBS)."
There are lots of links to other nurbs related sites, with theorical approach to.

It can be found at http://www.aria.uklinux.net/nurbs.php3

I hope this could be a little contribution to blender.

Bye

Tru-d · Post by **Tru-d** » Thu Oct 31, 2002 10:28 pm

Sorry but i don't know what do you mean, you are flammable so please understand i'm not in because i don't want to enter here where war is for subsurf vs nurbs, my question was clear and very simple, i simply said what was disadvantage, that's all. Your answer has moved in other direction which you don't answer me precisely to my question. :-/

I never said if nurbs may be or not to include in the futur for Blender, i know nurbs is a technology very advanced in certain domain. I was thinking naturally when you said something for nurbs instead of subsurface so i wanted to informe me what is lack in this case. Personally, i find both subsurface and nurbs very efficient and i don't see your meanning or even nothing all.

I follow in same way of Blender like "innovation" and "modernization", ask to programmers i am sure they will be agree it :-]

Please again, don't trying to be fire.

Tru-d

Dani · Post by **Dani** » Fri Nov 01, 2002 8:04 pm

Tru-D

I think you misunderstood what I said.
First of all: Flammable doesn't mean i'm angry! no! not at all! Instead, it means I do not want to put people angry.
Now, if your initial question was what was missing to nurbs within blender:
-Trimming
-Form-Conservative Subivision
-Blending between two trimmed edges.
-Sweeping
-Adding isopams where needed (without defoming the surface)
-CSG (for industrial modelling)>>Solid modelling
-Armatures applied to nurbs

That's it for now.
But I guess it's better to wait for the cleaning up of the source to end. Then they will be able to work (they=programmers)

Dani

Tru-d · Post by **Tru-d** » Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:31 pm

Well, it seem you don't desire to respond it, i didn't say "what was missing to nurbs within blender" but rather this "what was disadvantage" to subsurface in comparison to nurbs...
You are hard to sharing in a friendly way but don't sound like narrow-minded because you talk mostly feature than disadvantage.

In other word, i understand you want to keep up to nurbs, good i have nothing against.

Anyway, i am not longer around here, that irritate to talking

Tru-d

Dani · Post by **Dani** » Sat Nov 02, 2002 11:41 pm

what did I do?

Excuse me if I have difficulties understanding you.
It's a shame you thought I was angry.
Now, I'm completely lost.
I already said NURBS and SUBSURFS are complementary.
I already espressed some of subsurfs' disadvantages (memory extensive, resolution, non-logical structure, difficulties handleling triangles)
but some people just NEED nurbs, industrials NEED them, some find them easier to use, thats depends on each one.
Some find it easier to use SUBSURFS... but forget about them when you need to model industrial objects. You need csg, and csg with subsurfs are barely useable try it.

But I repeat: I'm not angry, though I'm hurt by the fact you say I can't share ideas for that's what I've tried to do since the begining.

Well, this is rather stupid. This thread wasn't meant to go this way.
You didn't understand me, and I didn't understand you... and that's a shame.

Ciao
Dani