I'm pretty much grabbing at straws here cause I have no idea what I'm asking, but here is the question.
I've been looking at 3D modeling out of pure interest and came across the concept of bones.
Now, I am not too sure what bones are even after looking it up on wiki, but they seem like an abstraction of real-life skeletons and whatnot, so in a model of say a human I just think of them as the skeleton.
To my understanding, a bone is defined by a translation, rotation, and a scale on the x, y and z axis'. (Isn't that just a single point?)
I am interested in taking a model in blender or max and export the information (whatever they may be) that is used to define these bones. I can definitely see the bones in these programs, but I want to get that out into a text file Is there a way to export this?
I think you need to seperate these ideas:
Bones - which as you correcly say have a position and rotation. They are the objects that you can control and will effect the skin of the model. They are usually in a hierarchy so that if you move one bone then it will affect all of the bones connected to it, like a human skeleton.
Skin - this is the polygonal mesh that you can usually see. It is given a base position by you in the editor and the skeleton operates on the skin to move it around.
Animation - This is data to pass to the bones. Usually a rotation, for example to make an arm bend.
http://gpwiki.org/index.php/OpenGL:Tutorials:Basic_Bones_System gives a good explanation.
Hope that helps :3
Related
I mean, the basics..
1) I have seen in the Online videos, that they are modelling a character (or anything) through one object only, they are extruding, loop cut, scaling, etc and model a character, why don't they design different objects separately (like hands separately, legs separately, body separate and then join them together and make one object)..??????
2) Like What the texturing department has to see so that they should not return the model back to the modelling department. I mean like the meshes(polygons) over the model face must be quad, etc not triangle. while modelling a character..
what type of basics i should know , means is there any check list or is there any basics which i should see before modelling a character..
Please correct me if i am wrong , and answer my both questions.. Thanks
It may be common but it definitely isn't mandatory to have a model as one solid mesh. Some models will have parts of the body underneath clothing removed to reduce the poly count. How the model is to be used will be a big factor to how you model it, that is a for a single image it is easy to get away with multiple parts, while a character that will be animated in a cartoony animation could be stretched and distorted in ways that could show holes in a model with multiple pieces. When working in a team, there may be rules in place determining whether a solid or multi-part model is considered acceptable.
An example of an animated model made from multiple parts is Sintel, the main character in the Sintel short animation.
There is nothing stopping you from making a library of separate body parts and joining them together when you make your model. Be aware that this can bring complications, if you model an arm with 12 verts and then you make your hand with 15, then you have to fiddle around to merge them together.
You will also find some extra freedom to work with multiple body parts during the sculpting phase as you are creating a high density mesh that is used as a template to model a clean mesh over. This step is called retopology.
It is more likely that the rigging department will send a model back for fixing than the texturing department. When adding a rig and deforming the mesh in different ways, any parts that deform badly will be revealed and need fixing.
[...] (like hands separately, legs separately, body separate and then
join them together and make one object) [...]
Some modelers I know do precisely this and they do it in a way where they block in the design using broad primitive shapes, start slicing some edge loops and add broad details, then merge everything together, then sculpt it a bit further with high-res sculpting tools, and finally retopologize everything.
The main modelers I know who do this, however, model in a way that tries to adhere as close as possible to the concept artist's illustration. They're not creating their own models from scratch but are instead given top/front/back/side illustrations of a character, for example, and are just trying to match it as closely as possible.
When you start modeling everything in small pieces, it helps to have that concept illustration since you can get lost in the topology otherwise and fusing organic meshes together can be difficult to do in a clean way.
[...] why don't they design different objects separately? [...]
Again they sometimes do, but one of the appeals of creating organic meshes by keeping it seamless the entire time is that you can start to focus on how edge loops propagate across the entire model. It helps to know that the base of a finger is a hexagon, for example, in figuring out how to cleanly propagate and terminate the edge loops for a hand, and likewise have a strategy for the hand to cleanly propagate and terminate edge loops as it joins into the forearm.
It can be hard to get the topology to match up cleanly if you designed everything in small pieces and then had to figure out how to merge it all together. Polygonal modeling is very topology-oriented. It tends to require as much thinking about the wireframe and edge flows as it does the shape of the model, since it needs to be a certain way for everything to subdivide cleanly and smoothly and animate predictably with subdivision surfaces.
I used to work with developers who took one glance at the topology-dominated workflow of polygonal modeling and immediately wanted to jump to seeking alternatives, like voxel sculpting. With voxels you could be able to potentially model everything in pieces and foose it all together in a nice and smooth organic way without thinking about topology whatsoever.
However, that loses sight of the key appeal of polygonal meshes. Their wire flow forms a control lattice with a very finite number of control points for the artist to animate and move around to predictably control the shape of their model. You immediately lose that with a voxel representation -- so while voxels free the artist of thinking about how the topology works and how the wireframe flows through the model, it also loses all those control benefits of having that. So often if people use voxel sculpting, they end up meticulously retopologizing everything at the end anyway to gain back that level of coarse and predictable control they have with polygonal meshes.
I mean like the
meshes(polygons) over the model face must be quad, etc not triangle.
while modelling a character..
This is all in the context of subdivision surfaces: the most popular of which are variants of catmull-clark. That favors quads to get the most predictable subdivision. It's much easier for the artist to predict how everything will look like and deform if they favor, as much as possible, uniform grids of quadrangles wrapped around their model with 4-valence vertices and every polygon having 4 points. Then only in the case where they kind of need to "join" these quad grids together, they might create some funky topology: a 5-valence vertex here, a 3-valence vertex there, a 5-sided polygon here, a triangle there -- but those cases tend to deform a bit unpredictably (at least unintuitively), so artists tend to try to avoid these as much as possible.
Because when artists model polygonal meshes in this way, they are not just trying to create a statue with a nice shape. If that's all they wanted to do, they'd save themselves a lot of grief avoiding dealing with things in terms of individual vertices/edges/polygons in the first place and using something like Sculptris. Instead they are designing not only shapes but also designing a control lattice, a wire flow and a set of control points they can easily move around in the future to get predictable behavior out of their control cage. They're basically designing controls or an "interactive GUI/rig" almost for themselves with how they design the topology.
2) Like What the texturing department has to see so that they should
not return the model back to the modelling department.
Generally how a mesh is modeled in a direct sense shouldn't affect the texture department's work much at all if they're working with UV maps and painting textures over them (at that point it doesn't really matter if a model has clean wire flows or not, since all the texture artists do is pain images over the 2D UV map or directly onto the 3D model).
However, if the modeler does the UV mapping, then regardless of whether he uses quad meshes and clean wire flows or not, if the UV mapping is poor, then the resulting texture images will look all distorted. So the UV maps need to be made well with minimal distortion, though that's usually easy to do automatically these days.
The other exception is if the department doesn't use UV maps and instead uses, say, PTex from Disney. PTex really favors quads. In the original paper at least, it only worked with quads.
Given that a user is static in a VR environment, which of the two camera types below would be better to create a more 'real' looking representation of an live-streamed presenter in the VR world?
1) Kinect (can measure depth)
2) Normal 2D camera such as a high end webcam (maybe something like the pointgrey Flea3) (software assisted 3D illusion from a static angle)
Would be grateful if anyone with any experience with the relevant technologies or fields would be able to help out!
Your question lacks the necessary information to provide a single correct answer. Is it your intent to provide a full 3D VR experience, or are you content with just 2D content? Is the presenter static, or are they moving around the viewer? Towards them? Away from them? Will you be using full spherical projection or something less complete, like cylindrical projection? And what sort of lighting do you think you'll need? These are all nontrivial questions, because the answers determine the best camera package to get your content.
You also fail to consider capturing with a 360º camera, which would be advantageous if the presenter is indeed moving around in the 360º space. My personal bias is towards capturing with these, but there's no single production solution unless you constrain the problem more thoroughly.
Background
I'm working on a project where a user gets scanned by a Kinect (v2). The result will be a generated 3D model which is suitable for use in games.
The scanning aspect is going quite well, and I've generated some good user models.
Example:
Note: This is just an early test model. It still needs to be cleaned up, and the stance needs to change to properly read skeletal data.
Problem
The problem I'm currently facing is that I'm unsure how to place skeletal data inside the generated 3D model. I can't seem to find a program that will let me insert the skeleton in the 3D model programmatically. I'd like to do this either via a program that I can control programmatically, or adjust the 3D model file in such a way that skeletal data gets included within the file.
What have I tried
I've been looking around for similar questions on Google and StackOverflow, but they usually refer to either motion capture or skeletal animation. I know Maya has the option to insert skeletons in 3D models, but as far as I could find that is always done by hand. Maybe there is a more technical term for the problem I'm trying to solve, but I don't know it.
I do have a train of thought on how to achieve the skeleton insertion. I imagine it to go like this:
Scan the user and generate a 3D model with Kinect;
1.2. Clean user model, getting rid of any deformations or unnecessary information. Close holes that are left in the clean up process.
Scan user skeletal data using the Kinect.
2.2. Extract the skeleton data.
2.3. Get joint locations and store as xyz-coordinates for 3D space. Store bone length and directions.
Read 3D skeleton data in a program that can create skeletons.
Save the new model with inserted skeleton.
Question
Can anyone recommend (I know, this is perhaps "opinion based") a program to read the skeletal data and insert it in to a 3D model? Is it possible to utilize Maya for this purpose?
Thanks in advance.
Note: I opted to post the question here and not on Graphics Design Stack Exchange (or other Stack Exchange sites) because I feel it's more coding related, and perhaps more useful for people who will search here in the future. Apologies if it's posted on the wrong site.
A tricky part of your question is what you mean by "inserting the skeleton". Typically bone data is very separate from your geometry, and stored in different places in your scene graph (with the bone data being hierarchical in nature).
There are file formats you can export to where you might establish some association between your geometry and skeleton, but that's very format-specific as to how you associate the two together (ex: FBX vs. Collada).
Probably the closest thing to "inserting" or, more appropriately, "attaching" a skeleton to a mesh is skinning. There you compute weight assignments, basically determining how much each bone influences a given vertex in your mesh.
This is a tough part to get right (both programmatically and artistically), and depending on your quality needs, is often a semi-automatic solution at best for the highest quality needs (commercial games, films, etc.) with artists laboring over tweaking the resulting weight assignments and/or skeleton.
There are algorithms that get pretty sophisticated in determining these weight assignments ranging from simple heuristics like just assigning weights based on nearest line distance (very crude, and will often fall apart near tricky areas like the pelvis or shoulder) or ones that actually consider the mesh as a solid volume (using voxels or tetrahedral representations) to try to assign weights. Example: http://blog.wolfire.com/2009/11/volumetric-heat-diffusion-skinning/
However, you might be able to get decent results using an algorithm like delta mush which allows you to get a bit sloppy with weight assignments but still get reasonably smooth deformations.
Now if you want to do this externally, pretty much any 3D animation software will do, including free ones like Blender. However, skinning and character animation in general is something that tends to take quite a bit of artistic skill and a lot of patience, so it's worth noting that it's not quite as easy as it might seem to make characters leap and dance and crouch and run and still look good even when you have a skeleton in advance. That weight association from skeleton to geometry is the toughest part. It's often the result of many hours of artists laboring over the deformations to get them to look right in a wide range of poses.
Currently I'm working on a little project just for a bit of fun. It is a C++, WinAPI application using OpenGL.
I hope it will turn into a RTS Game played on a hexagon grid and when I get the basic game engine done, I have plans to expand it further.
At the moment my application consists of a VBO that holds vertex and heightmap information. The heightmap is generated using a midpoint displacement algorithm (diamond-square).
In order to implement a hexagon grid I went with the idea explained here. It shifts down odd rows of a normal grid to allow relatively easy rendering of hexagons without too many further complications (I hope).
After a few days it is beginning to come together and I've added mouse picking, which is implemented by rendering each hex in the grid in a unique colour, and then sampling a given mouse position within this FBO to identify the ID of the selected cell (visible in the top right of the screenshot below).
In the next stage of my project I would like to look at generating more 'playable' terrains. To me this means that the shape of each hexagon should be more regular than those seen in the image above.
So finally coming to my point, is there:
A way of smoothing or adjusting the vertices in my current method
that would bring all point of a hexagon onto one plane (coplanar).
EDIT:
For anyone looking for information on how to make points coplanar here is a great explination.
A better approach to procedural terrain generation that would allow
for better control of this sort of thing.
A way to represent my vertex information in a different way that allows for this.
To be clear, I am not trying to achieve a flat hex grid with raised edges or platforms (as seen below).
)
I would like all the geometry to join and lead into the next bit.
I'm hope to achieve something similar to what I have now (relatively nice undulating hills & terrain) but with more controllable plateaus. This gives me the flexibility of cording off areas (unplayable tiles) later on, where I can add higher detail meshes if needed.
Any feedback is welcome, I'm using this as a learning exercise so please - all comments welcome!
It depends on what you actually want and what you mean by "more controlled".
Do you want to be able to say "there will be a mountain on coordinates [11, -127] with radius 20"? Complexity of this this depends on how far you want to go. If you want just mountains, then radial gradients are enough (just add the gradient values to the noise values). But if you want some more complex shapes, you are in for a treat.
I explore this idea to great depth in my project (please consider that the published version is just a prototype, which is currently undergoing major redesign, it is completely usable a map generator though).
Another way is to make the generation much more procedural - you just specify a sequence of mathematical functions, which you apply on the terrain. Even a simple value transformation can get you very far.
All of these methods should work just fine for hex grid. If artefacts occur because of the odd-row shift, then you could interpolate the odd rows instead (just calculate the height value for the vertex from the two vertices between which it is located with simple linear interpolation formula).
Consider a function, which maps the purple line into the blue curve - it emphasizes lower located heights as well as very high located heights, but makes the transition between them steeper (this example is just a cosine function, making the curve less smooth would make the transformation more prominent).
You could also only use bottom half of the curve, making peaks sharper and lower located areas flatter (thus more playable).
"sharpness" of the curve can be easily modulated with power (making the effect much more dramatic) or square root (decreasing the effect).
Implementation of this is actually extremely simple (especially if you use the cosine function) - just apply the function on each pixel in the map. If the function isn't so mathematically trivial, lookup tables work just fine (with cubic interpolation between the table values, linear interpolation creates artefacts).
Several more simple methods of "gamification" of random noise terrain can be found in this paper: "Realtime Synthesis of Eroded Fractal Terrain for Use in Computer Games".
Good luck with your project
If I have a graph of a reasonable size (e.g. ~100 nodes, ~40 edges coming out of each node) and I want to represent it in R^3 (i.e. map each node to a point in R^3 and draw a straight line between any two nodes which are connected in the original graph) in a way which would make it easy to understand its structure, what do you think would make a good drawing criterion?
I know this question is ill-posed; it's not objective. The idea behind it is easier to understand with an extreme case. Suppose you have a connected graph in which each node connects to two and only two other nodes, except for two nodes which only connect to one other node. It's not difficult to see that this graph, when drawn in R^3, can be drawn as a straight line (with nodes sprinkled over the line). Nevertheless, it is possible to draw it in a way which makes it almost impossible to see its very simple structure, e.g. by "twisting" it as much as possible around some fixed point in R^3. So, for this simple case, it's clear that a simple 3D representation is that of a straight line. However, it is not clear what this simplicity property is in the general case.
So, the question is: how would you define this simplicity property?
I'm happy with any kind of answer, be it a definition of "simplicity" computable for graphs, or a greedy approximated algorithm which transforms graphs and that converges to "simpler" 3D representations.
Thanks!
EDITED
In the mean time I've put force-based graph drawing ideas suggested in the answer into practice and wrote an OCaml/openGL program to simulate how imposing an electrical repulsive force between nodes (Coulomb's Law) and a spring-like behaviour on edges (Hooke's law) would turn out. I've posted the video on youtube. The video starts with an initial graph of 100 nodes each with approximately 1-2 outgoing edges and places the nodes randomly in 3D space. Then all the forces I mentioned are put into place and the system is left to move around subject to those forces. In the beginning, the graph is a mess and it's very difficult to see the structure. Closer to the end, it is clear that the graph is almost linear. I've also experience with larger-sized graphs but sometimes the geometry of the graph is just a mess and no matter how you plot it, you won't be able to visualise anything. And here is an even more extreme example with 500 nodes.
One simple approach is described, e.g., at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force-based_algorithms_%28graph_drawing%29 . The underlying notion of "simplicity" is something like "minimal potential energy", which doesn't really correspond to simplicity in any useful sense but might be good enough in practice.
(If you have 100 nodes of degree 40, I have some doubt as to whether any way of drawing them is going to reveal much in the way of human-accessible structure. That's a lot of edges. Still, good luck!)